An Intriguing Idea Held Back By Niccol's Direction & Lack Of Chemistry

Rating: 6/10 (26 July 2013)

In Time, a film set in the near future where the currency has been replaced with time. I didn't expect much from this film as seeing the posters with the leading actors didn't aspire much confidence. After watching the film, elements of the film did surprise me but some of it was disappointing as expected.
Andrew Niccol is a director who also writes his films. His films are at times a hit or miss but most of them are creative and imaginative, which is something I get excited for when I come into his films. What held my interest in this film is the concept of the currency of time and how it has divided the world to the rich and the poor. This idea, to me at least, is brilliant as it allows Niccol to create tension as time becomes more precious than ever. The first half an hour of the film, dealing with the life of the common man in the ghetto is so fascinating that if the film stuck with this direction then I would have appreciated the film much more. There is a particular scene involving Timberlake and Wilde which was one of the strongest moments of this film, the tension was high and it put me on the edge of my seat hoping. There is a storyline in this film about Will Salas' father and it just felt a little too forced and unnecessary.
Niccol's direction is an area where he has let me down. Niccol has changed the tone and direction of the film within 30 minutes of the film. It starts of as a day in the life of the common people using Timberlake's character as the example, making the film feel like a survival film with the villain being time. The film then changes it's direction to a Bonnie and Clyde mixed with a Robin Hood agenda, which is also interesting but suited for a sequel or a separate film of it's own. Also the climax is very similar to a moment that happened earlier in the film but the earlier sequence was executed with more flourish than the ending which was very disappointing. If Niccol just stuck with the tone of the first half hour then this would be much more appreciated from me.
I'm not sure if the budget has set the picture back but I felt the visuals was lacking, in the rich time zone in particular. This would have been a visually spectacular film, even the ghetto doesn't look very frightening. In Time has a setting that is very similar to a film like The Hunger Games, and yet Gary Ross was able to vision a beautiful and advanced city.
Oh Roger Deakins, why couldn't you make this film look spectacular. Deakins has done the cinematography of many films that I love but yet here, it feels like he's not even trying. Not sure if Niccol's vision held Deakins back but this film feels so generic and bland that it brings the film down. Dialogue driven scenes where characters are just inside a small room, Deakins at least get some great shots like for example when Timberlake and Bomer were sitting alone in a room with the light coming in from the window, sharing each other's lives.
Craig Armstrong's score was blended in within the scenes and doesn't become a force of it's own. As I watched the film, I didn't notice a lot of his score as I was too fascinated with the concept of the film and the life of the citizens in the ghetto.
The acting in this film is sub par and some casting choices were poor. Timberlake is the main example of poor casting as I felt he is too attractive and distracting. The chemistry between Timberlake and Seyfried was fine but Seyfried, being the better actor, shows more of her skills than her partner. When the partner in crime scenes started to roll, their chemistry became a little better. The supporting cast was also good in their roles, in particular Murphy and Kartheriser. Murphy can play a decent villain but the film's script, being filled with one-liners, makes him seem a little corny at times. Kartheiser is a great actor, I particularly enjoy his work in Mad Men and he pretty much plays almost the same person here. His acting feels classy and smooth, which makes his role entertaining to watch. Olivia Wilde and Timberlake had decent chemistry but I think it would have been a little more effective if they replaced Timberlake with a stronger emotional core.
The premise of the film is exciting and has ambition to become a sci-fi masterpiece but it is held back by Niccol's jagged direction, boring production design, and sub par chemistry between the leads. It is still worth a watch for the idea alone as it is a fresh take on the sci-fi genre and also the film's setting feels more relatable to the current conditions of our economy.