In principle this film is excellent, it has a brilliantly original idea that lays the foundations of a very good watch. Set in the future it portrays a world where currency is now time. After scientists found a way to halt peoples ageing at 25, people work to live, with the rich becoming near immortals and the poor dying.

In Time’s writer and director Andrew Niccol, sets the film out perfectly as we watch a poor Justin Timberlake come into a lot of time, and decide to set about changing how things are. With the rich being the villains, a gorgeous female co-star in Amanda Seyfried and the brilliant Cillian Murphy as a time-keeper (their police force) I was comfortable and ready to be blown away.

It makes me wonder, what if Murphy had taken the lead?

However, In Time never really gets there; after a brief burst it stumbles its way through rather wispy huffs. Without argument this isn’t a bad film, but just never fulfils the promise of a truly imaginative idea. Surely rising from the phrase time is money, I feel that In Time never earns its worth, much like a rocket that fails to take off.

For me this rests on two things; casting and tension. Timberlake, while transitioning well into the film industry, just doesn’t fill the role enough to make the head protagonist a hero that an audience can follow. It makes me wonder, what I would have thought, if Murphy had taken the lead? Also, the film ironically doesn’t make use of its length with scenes failing to build enough tension to sustain our intrigue.

For the idea alone I would go and watch it, but expect to be interested without ever coming close to gripped.

3 Stars


About The Author

A philosophy graduate with a love for film.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.