Retro-Futuristic 'In Time' Clocks Forward to Immortality

Will (Justin Timberlake) and Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) steal from the rich and give to the poor.

The future is never as brighter as it today. Technology might create a simpler lifestyle and immortality may be closer in reach than before, but fate will deal that dystrophic future seen countless times before. Director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca), examines the near future from In Time where the rich live forever and the poor die young. 

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives in that particular future where wealth segments society. People physically age until twenty-five and are branded with a time clock on the arm. The rich squander decades and centuries in casinos and other luxuries; the poor struggle to their final seconds in the ghetto before timing out. Time is everything. It can be earned, gifted or stolen. Whether it be a simple cup of coffee, a wager on the betting table or the monthly mortgage payment, everything has a mortal price worth a particular amount of time.

Despite being set in the future, In Time fails to convey the technological advancement of the film besides the fact that every person has a time clock imprinted on his or her arm. Instead, Niccol constructs the film as retro-futuristic, where buildings, cars and styles reflect decades past. The retro-futuristic vibe is crafted strongest through the art direction and Roger Deakins' cinematography, painting a vivid contrast between the ghettos and New Greenwich. Each checkpoint Salas passes demonstrates a metaphoric climb up another rung of the social ladder.

In Time narrows its focus on struggle between social classes rather than conflicting with an oppressive totalitarian government. Except for the FBI, now deemed Timekeepers, who monitor the transference of time, any government involvement is completely absent, sitting on the sidelines watching the balance of society being disrupted.

Timberlake continues to mature in his transition from pop star to credible actor, venturing beyond family film voice acting and supporting roles. He carries much of the weight of In Time as the lead, minimally depending on more seasoned actors relegated to supporting performances and cameos. Seyfried complements Timberlake as a competent partner and ignorant turned defiant heiress in upsetting the systems. Cillian Murphy lacks the edge naturally resonating from many previous roles, working more as a bland pursuer. His presence remains strong, but his character isn't written to its potential of depth or uniqueness. Finally, Olivia Wilde is nothing more than a cameo performance as Timberlake's mother. Again, her performance doesn't go beyond being a tool of motivation for her son.

The initial half of the film opens with a panoramic view of a dystrophic future, giving as much information about the future as it is withholding . The narrative expects that audiences know how the future works and by the time concepts begin to grasp, everything shifts to Timberlake being a futuristic Robin Hood. The chase sequences are entertaining and strong blocks of tension, but aren't original in bridging the more intimate moments of the film.

In Time offers an abundance of open threads, failing to answer many of the logistical questions going hand-in-hand with Niccol's futuristic vision. Rather than providing an explanation of the new currency origins, the initial voiceover concentrates on Timberlake's motivations to drive an end to the inequality of time distribution. With the most crucial question unanswered, that leaves even the trivial inquiries snowballed into ambiguity. In Time is a prime example of being a derivative of previous dystrophic films with a minimum canvas, but still provides an intriguing examination of the continuous struggle between economic classes in the future.

GRADE: B (8/10)
This review is also available on Blu-Ray.com