Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Three whole weeks without going to the movies! That has to be some sort of record for me. Sorry I haven't had anything to write about, but I promise there are a ton of great-looking movies coming out in November and December. So, prepare yourself for the rush of reviews and the desire that you will have to go to the movies or neglect them, following your reading of my thoughts. As far as In Time is concerned, I wasn't particularly excited to see this movie. It looked ok, but movies like this always seem to let me down. Justin Timberlake has never been successful in a lead role, but this concept looked really cool and unique. The movie did not have a good rating on the Tomatometer, which certainly worried me. Nevertheless, I give you a review of In Time...
The plot was very different from a traditional, boring action movie. Usually movies are predictable. The aliens aren't going to completely take over the world. The hero is always going to win. But, with In Time, the movie was simply about survival of the fittest, and that's something that we aren't used to seeing in movies. The concept was really quite cool, and I sat there amazed at some of the puns they used. They were quite clever. Justin Timberlake played Will Salas, the main character, who was almost like Robin Hood. Therefore, the story was a lot like that of, you guessed it, Robin Hood. The problem was that the lesson they were trying to teach was a little too obvious. They turned money into time, which was actually the currency (if that makes sense at all). This completely defeated the purpose I believe, but I give them an A for effort. The story really was very truthful in its analogy, but I wanted to be entertained a bit more.
Best Scene: There was a scene where Will was introduced to a man's family. The man introduced his mother-in-law, wife, and daughter, and they were all 25 years old, which was very cool.
As I said, Timberlake plays the lead character, and, once again, he kind of sucked it up. He really should stick to comedies in my opinion, but I'm not his agent. Sylvia Weis, played by Amanda Seyfried and her awful hair, was this awkward love interest. She was necessary to the plot, she just really sucks at acting. The cast, as a whole, pretty much struggled. A cool addition was Olivia Wilde, who played Will's mother. Everyone stops aging at age 25, which probably made casting a lot easier. Too bad they still couldn't find the right folks.
Best Character: Johnny Galecki (The Big Bang Theory) played Borel, who was Will's best friend. Galecki did a phenomenal in the dramatic role. It kind of made me think that they should have put Timberlake on The Big Bang Theory and let Galecki play the lead in In Time.
Worst Character: Raymond Leon, played by Cillian Murphy, really was just awkward. Murphy is a weird actor, who is only suited for certain roles in my opinion. This was not one of them. He played a "timekeeper," which was basically like the time police. He was like a movie version of Horatio Caine.
Overall, the concept was great, but the execution was certainly lacking. Timberlake was bad and, as I said, should stick to comedies. I enjoyed the movie, particularly the puns. If you go to the movies as much as I do, then go watch this, but, if not, you would be better off renting In Time. As I said before, November and December each have very promising line ups, and it all starts next weekend with Harold and Kumar! The holiday season will be great for movies, but this was not the kickoff of that season, unfortunately. I give In Time 2.45 out of 5 stars.