Wednesday 9 November 2011

Review #7 - In Time

At first the trailer for ‘In Time’ seems to be promising a thought provoking, stunningly framed exploration of a dark and complex future, but suddenly everything changes and the trailer, as well as the film itself, and becomes something totally different. The concept behind ‘In Time’ - a future whereby nobody ages past 25 but the price to pay is that time itself has become the new currency - is a fascinating, if a little confusing one (people spend their time yet it continues to constantly elapse). However my immediate reaction was that this concept was not explored enough, somehow the film didn’t seem to live up to it’s potential. I have read Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty Four and various other dystopian novels, stories set in a bleak future that teach us something about our lives in the present, and expected a similar plot from ‘In Time’ only to be slightly disappointed. Don’t get me wrong though! The film was great despite this aspect being fully taken advantage of, however what was great could have been fantastic.
   The most striking element of the whole movie is certainly the general framing of shots. Colour and style has obviously been considered very carefully as every shot was very artistic and elegant. Joey noted how the colour scheme was adapted depending on the setting, for example the Ghetto had browns, greens, reds whereas the wealthier New Greenwich had greys, blacks, silvers and so on. A particular scene which caught our eye was that of the ocean scene in which Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) and Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) hiding behind the rock together with the moon light dropping onto the water and the reflection of their time (the green clocks on their forearms) bouncing off the water onto the rocks and them. The experience for the character Weis was one of taking a risk, making the most out of the time she had despite how much time that was, yet it remained reflected on her face – a reminder that time is always there, ticking away.
    Joey and I were less impressed, however with the limited amount of locations. It gave the film a claustrophobic feel, particularly referring back to the same bridge over and over again. There was little exploration between the two different worlds and perhaps drawing attention to the stark contrasts between these zones would have made the audience feel more sympathetic towards the characters and brought in an emotional element that the film lacked. This would have strengthened the “robin hood” idea that the film develops into with Will Salas stealing time from the Weis banks to give to the poor, the idea being that “No one should live forever if one person has to die”* He seemed to be doing it partly because his father had a similar belief (a sub-plot I feel was never fully explained), partly because he believed people deserved an equal amount of time, partly to save himself and partly for no other reason than he doesn’t have much other choice. He was trying to be a hero and at some points appeared to be so but because his reasons were so blurred I found it hard to really believe in his cause. It was only when the timekeeper mentioned crashing the system that he admitted that he hoped to do so but otherwise it was never really his aim, he just kind of…ended up doing. All that was really needed to pull everything together was a link back to Henry Hamilton’s (Matt Bomer) line “Don’t waste my time”.
    As it happened the film kind of strayed into a strange mixture of action and romance, the romance side of which Joey felt dragged the film down. Joey commented that “The scenes with Justin and his mum were not good at all however the running to each other was fine as the time was running out it was the crying that ruined it- it just ruined the whole bit Justin cannot cry”. I didn’t mind this particular scene too much although I felt it was a little weird to repeat it at the end with his lover, especially when the first scene was confusing enough with his mother looking 25. The action side of the film worked well but mixing it with romance had a peculiar effect especially when the romance is based on a combination of skinny dipping and being kidnapped-an unusual way to fall in love to say the least. Our general opinion was that trying to be a Action/Romantic film did not help the scenes with the action side as when the story was un-ravelling they would split it up by shoving in the romantic scenes. An alternative would have been to explore the differences between the class and the concept of time as a currency, except as it was these things seemed more like a background for the action rather than the focus of the film, had it been, ‘In Time’ could have been a truly brilliant film.
    This films broad range of actors and sleek filming style makes it worth watching. Taking it at face value ‘In Time’ is a pretty good action film and the romantic aspects are obviously there to appeal to a large audience. Yet in the back of my mind I kept thinking  “V for Vendetta was a brilliant film! And In Time could have been a film like this”, especially with such an intriguing concept behind it, however I felt like it fell short of it’s potential. There was so much to be explored that was unfortunately shoved to one side in favour of a simpler, yet slightly more confusing, plotline. I would love to read ‘In Time’ as a novel but as a film it was only good. It just about reaches a cinema-addicts rating of 3.5 stars.
  

*May not have remembered this quote accurately.

No comments:

Post a Comment