In Time - An Underrated Masterpiece

“In Time” takes place in a dystopian era when humans have altered genetics that allow them to stop the process of aging at the twenty-five. After humans turn into this age, their clock “starts” which means they have one more year to live in which they can bargain, gain, or steal more time. Set in the future where time is the currency of society, the poor struggle to survive while the rich continue to strive. Sounds oddly familiar, huh? The idea that the rich will always continue to obtain is such a prominent concept that even though the story is based in the future, we can see the similarities within our society today.

Color schemes used in the movie, for example, were very appropriate for the time period. The gray scales were prominent in the clothing and surroundings in all time zones in the film. Another concept that was interesting was the idea of time as the currency. Since time is not exactly a thing that can be measured it’s intriguing to see a movie based on time itself, where everyone and everything is revolved around time. We put a limit on time and measure it using a clock so there is a notion of not having enough time. This idea, essentially, is the basis of the whole film. Running out of time. The underlying message of the story is that “there are a lot of things you can do in a day” and Andrew Niccol depicts this clearly throughout the movie and by the end credits he has the audience questioning everything in their lives, but mainly if they have lived everyday to the fullest.

Now, the 2011 critics have been bashing this film for many reasons, but personally I think they are flat out wrong. One reason I want to address is the issue of the major supposed “plot holes” in the story. Critics believe that Andrew Niccol (most known for his direction of Gattaca) left out mass background story about the origin of the dystopia. However, the critics failed to see that the Niccol included everything they needed to know in order to comprehend the story. Andrew Niccol gave the audience enough information in order for them to connect the dots and figure out the storyline. Another issue critics have whined about is the characters and their love story. The focus of the movie is centered on a man named Will Salas, played by Justin Timberlake. Will finds himself in a rather difficult situation when he comes across a suicidal, affluent man named Henry Hamilton (who also happens to have centuries on his watch) and has to rescue him from Minutemen, whose main intent is to steal time from other people. After rescuing this man from the Minutemen, Will finds himself with centuries on his watch, courtesy of the now deceased Henry Hamilton. His use of this time leads him into New Greenwich, which is the center for wealthy people. This is where he finds his new partner in crime Sylvia Weis, who is played by the beautiful Amanda Seyfried. Critics claim to be bothered by the awkwardness of this love portrayal. but in a society where the poor don’t mix with the rich, what do they expect? With Will Salas living day to day and Sylvia Weis always protected with bodyguards, who would expect either of them to have much experience with flirting? Overall, the consistent bashing from the critics on this film upon its release seemed utterly nonsensical. And despite critics’ ill-mannered reviews, the “In Time” still remains as timeless as ever. With splendid acting by Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried the film fails to be far from a disappointment to an audience’s who can appreciate the main concept. Since the economics are parallel to modern society, maybe the audience can gain an insight to the disruption within the hierarchy. From the beautiful notion portrayed by the use of time to the puzzling love story, “In Time” will definitely keep the audience in anticipation for more with a concept that can astound us all if we look past the critics’ bizarre and strange objections. A+