CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › IN TIME post-release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IN TIME post-release

post #1 of 9
10/30/11 at 2:14pm
Thread Starter 

An Andrew Niccol movie will always get my attention, especially in a fallow time of year like this, despite all of his flaws as a filmmaker. So I went to see it.

 

I think I've decided the main problem with Niccol is that he thinks his ideas are so great--and they often are--that he can just shove them out there with little or no work on the execution. So you get the idea of a character instead of an actual character, the idea of an action sequence instead of an action sequence, the idea of a movie instead of a real movie. The AV Club review accused this movie of featuring allegories instead of characters, and while I actually thought Niccol did better at that here than in The Truman Show or Simone or even Lord of War, the general point is valid. Too much allegory, not enough story.

 

Also, there's a scene where Kartheiser muses about how strange it muts be for people not to recognize people's relationships based on their relative ages, even though the world's apparently been this way for a century at least, which makes it stick out as a bit of dialogue for the benefit of the audience. There's a few other bits like that throughout, another consistent problem with Niccol (see also: all the voiceover in Lord of War).

 

That said, I did like the world-building first half, and the basic ideas propelling the plot--Timberlake living it up with his newfound fortune, Timberlake and Sayfried desperately trying to scrape together the time they need to survive while on the lam, the Bonnie and Clyde stuff--were extremely well-conceived. Too bad, again, they're executed so halfheartedly, especially the heists. And the movie touches on the fact that you can't fix the system just by redistributing wealth, just enough so to call it to your attention, without developing the idea any further. This should have had a V For Vendetta (the comic) ending, instead it cops out like V For Vendetta (the movie).

 

Niccol should stick to writing first drafts, let someone else polish them, and then find a talented action director to bring them to life. I'm not sorry I saw this, it's still a real SF movie with ideas, but it's just good enough that it frustrates you that it's not better.

Reply
post #2 of 9
10/30/11 at 8:11pm

I actually liked it alot.   Not without its flaws for sure but I thought the world building and ideas present were enough to get me through any rough patches.  One thing I do find curious is the design of this future world.  It looks like they tried to future proof it by making everything look like the 70s.   The effect that's dated already?   The CGI car crash.   Seriously the worst computer assisted effect of the year.

 

Also, pound for pound the most pun heavy movie. Ever.

Reply
post #3 of 9
10/31/11 at 6:23am

In Time's biggest issue is its corpulent gallimaufry of a script, which is far too loaded down with plot threads and character details that go nowhere and add nothing of value to Niccol's world and the people who inhabit it. If the film must be bloated, at least let it be overstuffed with world-building, but that area is where In Time was weakest for me. There are little things that help establish the future the story occurs in-- you move faster or slower based on how wealthy you are, for instance, and I like the mission where people go to get extra time-- but it's not enough, and then there's the mess of the film's cinematic geography, which alternately places the slums at least one hour away from New Greenwich and smushes them right next to each other. 

 

I very much liked JT here, and I loved that great action beat he gets toward the end with the Minutemen, but he can't overcome the movie's pitfalls. Like Prankster said, Niccol really needs someone to polish his scripts; if In Time had received a good, judicious edit, I could see it being twice as good as it was. As it stands, it's too encumbered by its dead weight to be great, and has too great of a premise for me to settle for "decent".

Reply
post #4 of 9
10/31/11 at 2:11pm

This felt so hamstrung by the need to be an action noir thriller that I think a director's cut will help it breathe. This is a fabulous world, but there's so much going on that it just needs, ironically, a little more time. JT is fabulous, if a little undercooked in this one and does the best with what he's got.

 

Also, Alex Pettyfer. Dude rocks it. I fear he might be the Tim Tebow of Hollywood 2011, but I'm still pulling for the guy.

Reply
post #5 of 9
11/1/11 at 3:55am

I'm surprised at all the JT love. He and Amanda Seyfried were the weak links of the film for me. Neither had the intensity or gravitas to elevate the film from a Sci Fi channel special. I kept thinking they should have swapped Matthew Bomer and JT's roles since Bomer had more charisma in his 10 minutes of screen time than JT had the whole film. Justin is just not a leading man. And did someone really give props to Alex Pettyfer?  His acting is so bad he can't even do a British accent without sounding fake-- and he's British.

 

The arm-wrestling plot point was so stupid. He's able to win because the other guy looks at his clock and stops trying to win thereafter? Right.

 

Cillian Murphy was the best part about this film. I hope he picks better projects in the future.

Reply
post #6 of 9
11/1/11 at 6:14am

In a movie with a script as hodgepodge and overstuffed as this, I think it's somewhat off to identify the leads as the weakest link, though I agree that Pettyfer didn't pull his weight in the slightest. Fortis should have had menace and experience, Pettyfer gave him neither.

 

Also agree on the "fighting" mechanic. I mean, really, how does that even effectively work? Wouldn't they stop watching his clock as soon as he twists their arm? I liked how the scene played dramatically but the "time chicken" thing was just kind of stupid, even if it does lead to a scene where JT wastes a handful of bad guys.

Reply
post #7 of 9
11/15/11 at 6:30pm
Thread Starter 

Bump.

Reply
post #8 of 9
12/20/11 at 5:03pm

I won two free tickets to our second-run theater, so I treated my sister to this.  Great concept, interesting idea, gorgeous cinematography, shitty execution.  Also, there's a shot where JT and Seyfried are sitting in the back of a car having a chat, and Seyfried's knees are so PAINFULLY bony that I could hear the six other people in the room murmuring about it.

Reply
post #9 of 9
1/31/12 at 4:10pm

Saw this for free during a flight.

 

The concept is just so great, but the film has to turn it into an obligatory action thriller where all that stuff ends up feeling half-assed anyway.  I do admit to getting a lump in my throat during Olivia Wilde and JT's mad dash towards each other.  That bus driver was a dick.  I was hoping something bad would happen to him when he popped up again.  NO LUCK.

 

Prankster's post sums up all the issues with the film so well.  The world-building material was the most fascinating part of it.  I wish there was more.  Except for Pettyfer and his band of misfits.  Jesus, what a blatant and obnoxious device to inject tension into the film.  They just show up whenever they need to out of nowhere.  Cillian Murphy's character had a lot of potential to be interesting, but the film never seemed to know where to go with him.

 

I was also surprised by the fact that the movie had so many renowned names on its crew.  Shame that it ended up pretty flat as a whole.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › IN TIME post-release