In the world of “In Time,” the years of your life are a global currency and people are in desperate pursuit of it. For a movie that’s about how quickly time runs out, it’s a bad sign when it seems to pass so slowly in the theater.
In the not-so-distant future, all people are genetically engineered to live to only 25, but are paid in minutes and days that they can add to their lifespan. The result is a system where some live forever, while the poor die quickly. When laborer Will (Justin Timberlake) is given more than 100 years of time by a despondent man, he sets out to upset the system, falling in love with the daughter (Amanda Seyfried) of a wealthy businessman and being pursued by a ruthless Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy).
The film’s biggest flaw is the constant reinforcement of its clumsily implemented metaphor for financial inequality, primarily through time-based puns and jokes. It’s a cool concept at its base, but when one must hear “I haven’t got any time” again and again, it becomes irritating.
Timberlake’s personality can normally float even the most tired plot, but here he turns in a lackluster performance. Seyfried is entirely mechanical in her portrayal of Will’s initial captive-turned-love interest, but their relationship seems more like a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome than actual attraction.
The best part of the movie is the scene-stealing Murphy, who brings some excitement to the standard role of the tenacious cop. It’s not anything spectacular, but he’s certainly the most enjoyable character in the film.
“In Time” is a thriller without any thrills. In the present, time and money are still separate, but this movie is a waste of both.
