Watchable, sometimes engaging, but generally underwhelming

Rating: 6/10 (25 January 2012)

In a society where time is money (yes literally, time is the new currency), and the average citizen is programmed to live twenty-five years, a poor kid from the slums finds himself on the run when he is accused of illegally holding a hundred and ten years on his life clock.
I see a great idea behind In Time, but it never aspires to anything more than a chase scene movie. Andrew Nichol's third feature works on a superficially as an action film that doesn't rely on bullets and explosions, but the experience feels a bit too much like a video game. (especially when the characters are constantly rushing to refuel their time clock). Characterization is fairly wooden, and the whole movie is cut together in a manner that makes you feel like it's all taking place within a few city blocks. I would have liked to have seen a bit more helicopter mounted camera work myself.
Although he's far from being a good actor, Justin Timberlake is good at making a boring character feel less boring, by bringing some energy. Here, that's definitely a positive. Part of Timberlake's strength of course is that he has wit. The same cannot be said about Amanda Seyfried, who is once again adorably boring. That said, perhaps she shows a little improvement over her last couple performances.
What bothers me most about In Time however, is the credibility of the setting. Of all the Orwellian societies I've seen in the movies, this is the one that struck me as the one that would never function. Nichol has taken a potent concept and put it forward in a kind of B- grade fashion. It's not impossible to watch, but it's not really worth watching.