A waste of ... time.

Rating: Null/10 (2 November 2011)

Andrew Niccol has a knack for taking his time. He's a writer/director, so I guess that's part of it. He also takes great care in worldbuilding, creating some of the most interesting universes I've ever seen. Gattaca's world spurned imperfection, The Truman Show's planet was obsessed with one man's life, and The Terminal reduced the world to an airport for a lonely man. All in all, he's a clever Kiwi.
I sat through In Time and I'm done praising Niccol.
In Time paints a picture not so unlike our own. The poor struggle to make ends meet while the rich live in their walled off sections of the city. The currency is time and the clock starts when you're 25, giving you just one year for free and ample opportunity for time-based jokes. I just don't have the time to tell any right now. BAM! Also just like in our world, when you run out of money, you just drop dead. The poor can't get to the rich parts of town because it takes too muchtime. Enter into the picture pauper factory worker Will Salas ( and his creepily young mother (Olivia Wilde). He has a chance meeting with a wealthy (timely?) man who transfers 100 years into his arm/bank. All heck (heck I tell ya!) breaks loose when he starts getting more time (takes time to make time!) and gives it out, upsetting the balance. The wealthy cannot STAND for this time-rage and time sends time cops to time arrest Time Salas and bring him to time justice. In time.
Niccol's previous works were subtle, with a very well-defined world. This one seemed haphazard. How did humanity get to a point where they agree to only live to 26 for free and let the wealthiest live forever? The rich might have power, but there's a heck of a lot of everybody else to violently overthrow that idea. Why did everybody display their personal worth in big, bright letters on their forearm? You'd think if you could be killed for having too much time (liberal arts majors died off quickly), you'd have that little tidbit hidden. Maybe a futuristic HUD so you can tell where you stand without prying eyes craving your goodies. Everything else in the world seemed lazy as well – 50s looking electric retro cars, everybody looking young, no changes in buildings, roads, or restaurants, on and on.
Story-wise, it was equally sloppy. It intertwines with the huge logic gaps in the world, but the plot seemed to be an afterthought fueled by a reaction to the financial situations in the world. Less commentary on the human condition (like Niccol's previous films), In Time seemed like an "if I had my way.." exercise. Neat! We should rob banks and give all the money away. That's totally how the financial system works and won't result in massive inflation or instability. I don't care if you want to take a stance against capitalism or whatever, just don't make it sooo heavy handed. It's like watching a Morgan Spurlock movie, something I rarely enjoy.
Top off the suck cake with icing called casting. Justin Timberlake as a poor working stiff? Really? They would have had to try pretty hard to find someone less qualified. I thoroughly enjoy Vincent Kartheiser in Mad Men, but I don't want Pete Campbell in my future sci-fi film. Cillian Murphy, however, was the biggest tragedy of all. I love this man in the not-queerest way possible and I will watch anything he does (also on the list: Jason Statham and Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but he came off as an incomplete character. He seemed confused, as an actor, as to why he was there, what he was doing. The answer to "what's my motivation?" apparently didn't give him anything to work with. Maybe the answer was "Time! You're there for time! To stop time!"
I shouldn't be so irritated by a movie, but I am. The trailer said "No, no", but my love of Niccol's past work said "Yes, maybe." A waste of film, a waste of time.