"“Please, if you’re cynical like me, don’t see this film…”"

Okay. Where do I begin with this one? It would seem that the only thing more intricate and nonsensical than the film itself will be my attempt at explaining it to you.

In Time is set in the future, where people only age until they turn 25. From that point onwards, they are given a year left to live, except that time they have left is currency, and in order to prolong their lives and live longer, they must earn more time.

So, for example when you get on public transport, you have to pay five minutes. If you buy a new TV, you have to pay three weeks for it. And if you work, you also get paid in time, so a day’s shift might earn you six days. So with that system, time equals money and therefore to stay alive you must have as much time as possible, and if your time runs out, it’s game over.

I find that the easiest way to comprehend such a story is to just replace the word time with money, and longer life, with richer – it makes more sense that way.

I’m guessing you’re not still with me by this point, but alas, it doesn’t particularly matter, as In Time is a film I wouldn’t suggest anyone to go and see.

Ambitious director Andrew Niccol also wrote the Truman Show, an equally immense idea, but simplistic and well executed. However this film is the opposite, as we follow Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who is given a century of time from a suicidal rich man. But living in the ghetto makes him a number one target to be robbed, so he leaves home to mingle with the richer members of society, and instantly becomes disillusioned with the distance between the rich and the poor.

So, in a quest for social justice, Will takes a rich businessman’s daughter Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) hostage. Then, after the pair fall for one another, they decide to play Robin Hood and steal from the rich and give to the poor. Having robbed a few banks, timekeeper (basically meaning policeman) Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) is hot on their case.

The big problem with the film is that it has bitten off more than it can chew. It’s a story and concept too grand to take to the big screen, similarly to Ricky Gervais’ Invention of Lying for example. Sometimes such bold ideas are so ostentatious that it becomes near impossible to stop yourself picking holes in it throughout, and for the concept to not fall flat.

So, as a cynical critic, this film really isn’t for me, as it bears a host of flaws and inconsistencies. Firstly, it’s supposed to be set quite far into the future. Yet aside from peoples remaining time marked into their arms, giving off a luminous green glow, nothing else has changed. Music is the same, clothes are the same and the streets are the same. What future is this?

Secondly, there were a few too many time puns. People were continuously saying things to each other like, “looks like you’ve got no time”, or “time up”, etc. However, you would think that after several years of having such a system that would have become boring by now?

Also, the film was attempting to exude a strong political message, but it just seemed out of place in an otherwise absurd thriller. It was already perplexing enough to have another unnecessary factor to consider.

Even when ignoring the premise, the film could have worked as a standard action thriller. But it wasn’t that either. I like a good chase sequence, but the feature played cat and mouse for far too long, as Will was on the run from the timekeepers for the majority of the feature, becoming inane and insignificant by the end.

I think another of my biggest concerns with In Time is that I understood it. Sometimes I go to see a big sci-fi blockbuster and I don’t have a clue what’s going on, and I appreciate it for other reasons, and simply enjoy it as a psychological action thriller, like Inception, for example. But in this instance, I understood it, I got it. And that is exactly why I didn’t like it.

So please, if you’re a cynic like me, don’t see this film. I have merely touched upon a few of the flaws and discrepancies, but I could have rambled on for quite a while longer.