In Time: Time's up on Timberlake's acting career.

Rating: 1/10 (13 September 2013)

In the future, time is the new currency. People live to the age of 25, and then get to live one more year. The rich keep decades and centuries in time banks, while the poor pay more time for less goods and have to scramble to live longer than 25. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a poor young man from Dayton, who has struggled, to live to age 28. His mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde) has somehow lived to 50, but she is running out of time. Will, down to his last day, meets a rich man named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) who doesn't want to live anymore. Henry gives Will a century of time, and timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) immediately suspects Will of robbing Henry and killing him. At the same time, Rachel gives all her time to Weis Time Lending to pay her debts. She doesn't have enough time to buy a bus ride home and dies on the street.
Will escapes to New Greenwich , bastion of the rich, to seek revenge from Philippe Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser )for his mother's death. Will kidnaps Philippe's daughter, Sylvia, (Amanda Seyfried) in hopes to get more time from Philippe, but the two fall in love. Will is now being followed by Philippe's goons and Timekeeper Leon. Does he live long enough to find happiness with Sylvia? Sometimes it's fun to review a bad movie, a movie so bad it's good. This is not one of those times. I like dystopian movies and books, but not this one. The plot is unintelligible for the first fifteen minutes, it's as if the plot didn't matter, the producers had what they thought was a cool sci-fi concept and hip young stars, who needs a plot? Here's how dumb this movie is, Olivia Wilde plays Justin Timberlake's MOTHER. Are you kidding me? And they rob from other movies relentlessly. They borrow the star-crossed lovers bit from Romeo and Juliet, they steal several scenes from James Bond movies, and they rehash the one percent versus 99 percent theme that has already become overused.
The acting is horrid. Justin Timberlake as an actor, is a good singer. Maybe he should sing his lines. When Timberlake starts to cry, I start to cry, not because it's sincere and heartfelt, but because I want him to stop trying to act. It's like he's reading his lines off a cue card, dry, emotionless, monotone delivery. Why does he keep getting offered these roles? And frankly, Amanda Seyfried was worse, after what I thought was a promising start to her career in Mamma Mia, she's made some real stinkers, like Chloe, Jennifer's Body, Letters to Juliet, Red Riding Hood, and now In Time. She was underwhelming in a great film, Les Miserables, so my opinion of her has slipped mightily. What is Cillian Murphy doing in this movie, after making the really good Red Eye, appearing in two Batman movies and Inception, he should know better. The smartest actor in this movie is Olivia Wilde, she dies about 20 minutes in, not that her acting could have helped this movie be any better.
Andrew Niccol wrote this movie, he's written such great movies like The Truman Show and Gattica, but this movie is insipid and strains credulity. He also wrote The Host, so his talent seems to be escaping him.
For more timely reviews, visit my blog reviewswithatude.wordpress.com.