Visually interesting, but lacking substance

Rating: 6/10 (20 April 2012)

Gattaca is one of my all time favourite films, so I was naturally excited to see another scifi from Andrew Niccol. He's also a great writer. I think it's interesting to compare the two films, because thematically they are similar : a guy from the poor end of town gets his own back, by pretending to be someone he's not, essentially beating the system. In Gattaca we had an aspiring astronaut who was genetically inferior; here it's a guy from the (extremely tidy and unconvincing) ghetto, who plays Robin Hood to fix an unjust system. In Time is more of an action flick, aimed at a younger audience.
In both films, the protagonist is shadowed by a detective, which gives things a certain noirish feel; and Niccol's signature visual style, a kind of futuristic art deco, draws on past and future, which is disorienting, because it's partly familiar. Gattaca balanced this with warm, relatable characters, and a story that took its time; in the brothers who competed since birth, in the friendship between Vincent and Jerome, and a believable love interest.
In Time suffers from a lack of engaging characters, a subpar script, odd casting, and some rather confusing plot arcs. I was still struggling to understand why no one gets old (it's never explained) when the daughter of a wealthy aristocrat suddenly turns on her own society, and teams up with a guy from the cheap side of town, all in the space of a few frames. It could work, but too much detail is brushed aside, and Seyfried comes across as so blase about everything, I just wanted her daddy to ground her for a week.
In Gattaca, the emotion was visible, the risks palpable. Here, Timberlake throws himself into the action, but he is all good looks and no depth. It all feels too unreal - there's no emotion bubbling under the surface - nothing is really at stake.
The look and feel of the film is brilliant (car stunts aside) - Niccol came before the Matrix and its swathe of imitators, and he has a unique take on the future. But it all feels sterile. The central plot device is a little too gimmicky, and it gets monotonous seeing people checking the time over and over. It really needed a more convincing pair of leads. Cillian Murphy is great as the timekeeping detective, however.