It is the year 2026 and the global currency is not longer dollars or euros or pounds or dinars or rupees. It is time. In seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years. So if you want to travel by bus for a journey that takes 2 hours to walk, then you need to pay 2 hours as the fare for your ticket. Interesting right? You are born with a time frame of 25 years in your bank. Beyond 25 you don’t age a day. But you start eating away into the 1 hour that is provided for you in your account. For anything more, you need to work. And work really hard. Needless to say, you are paid in time. All of this is recorded in a chip that is built into your left arm which starts counting down from the instance that you complete 25 years of age. It is as if a bolt of energy passes through you and your clock suddenly starts counting down from 1 year.
In all of this, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are of course poor and stay in Zone 12 and have to work their way upwards to the Greenwich Zone or something like that. Those are the rich guys and ergo the bad guys. Sounds familiar right? Same old story really. Just that the currency has been changed to time and the standard policeman has been replaced by a time keeper. No points for really guessing the story and how it will finish in about 15 minutes into the movie. So I am not really going to waste my time or your time in describing the rest of the story.
Directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca / Lord of War), In Time is probably a serious waste of precious time – as ironic as it may seem. It lacks anything innovative despite a track record that Niccol has of giving us reasonably interesting movies. He does give us some interesting chase sequences but nothing which is brilliant and makes you want to sit upright in your seat. Just the same old boring stuff.
He doesn’t have much of support from the cast either. Never been a Justin Timberlake fan. Guess he is a director’s actor only. Been a fan of Amanda Seyfried but she surprisingly fails miserably in this one. I wonder if this years Razzies had these 2 performances which are outstandingly bad very honestly. The support cast including the otherwise decent Cillian Murphy is significantly below par.
Overall quite a disaster of a movie which would explain why it didn’t do too well across the board. I for one managed to sit through it. But couldn’t find anything great. Therefore 4 on 10. One doesn’t need to push for an opportunity to watch it – seriously.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi775265305/
In all of this, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are of course poor and stay in Zone 12 and have to work their way upwards to the Greenwich Zone or something like that. Those are the rich guys and ergo the bad guys. Sounds familiar right? Same old story really. Just that the currency has been changed to time and the standard policeman has been replaced by a time keeper. No points for really guessing the story and how it will finish in about 15 minutes into the movie. So I am not really going to waste my time or your time in describing the rest of the story.
Directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca / Lord of War), In Time is probably a serious waste of precious time – as ironic as it may seem. It lacks anything innovative despite a track record that Niccol has of giving us reasonably interesting movies. He does give us some interesting chase sequences but nothing which is brilliant and makes you want to sit upright in your seat. Just the same old boring stuff.
He doesn’t have much of support from the cast either. Never been a Justin Timberlake fan. Guess he is a director’s actor only. Been a fan of Amanda Seyfried but she surprisingly fails miserably in this one. I wonder if this years Razzies had these 2 performances which are outstandingly bad very honestly. The support cast including the otherwise decent Cillian Murphy is significantly below par.
Overall quite a disaster of a movie which would explain why it didn’t do too well across the board. I for one managed to sit through it. But couldn’t find anything great. Therefore 4 on 10. One doesn’t need to push for an opportunity to watch it – seriously.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi775265305/
No comments:
Post a Comment