In Time

Remember what I wrote a couple days back about the sequence of narrative creation, and how creating details before composing a proper narrative proves to be problematic? Well In Time is precisely that: A movie with an intriguing premise that winds up falling flat because it doesn't have a solid narrative to stand on.

Right, so here's the good stuff: In Time is about a world where time is both life and money. Run out of time/money, run out of life. You die. Ok that's the good part. It's an interesting concept, and something they could've taken quite far. After all, we're familiar with Blade Runner and how the replicants were so desperate to extend their lives.

The bad news? A sophisticated narrative never emerged. The movie turned from something that could've been a philosophical study in variable human mortality...into a flat Bonnie and Clyde heist fest where time turned out to be...money. Really they could've just made the movie about money and it'd be pretty much the same. The narrative itself is fraught with logical problems, and the attempts to create a convincing universe around the time/money/life concept fail simply because the explanations wind up looking rather implausible. In fact, they might've been better off not trying to explain the mechanics behind the whole system and focusing more on the narrative itself.

Much as it pains me to do so, I'd say the movie deserves 5.5/10. It'd be 4.5, but I liked the concept, and that's where the other point went to.