|
The time warp has been a familiar, if not a favourite theme on celluloid. Probably the oldest example was H.G. Wells’ Time Machine converted into a film. Then others followed like Seconds and Back to the Future to name just two. The latest in this genre is Andrew Niccol’s In Time in which the premise is that time is money and folks live only until the age of 25. To live longer, one has to buy time. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is one such 25-year-old on the threshold of death but is fortunately gifted a century of time by an acquaintance before committing suicide. That Salas will be accused of murdering this person naturally follows. How he deals with this dicey situation is what the film is all about.
How does this time thing work? It costs a decade of time to book a suite in a hotel but only a few seconds for a night of sex. But as in lie (in our time) the rich have a lot of it and the poor very little, So, like a modern-day Robin Hood he wants to set the inequality right by robbing the rich to feed the poor. His first target is the banks and he does a Bonnie and Clyde. Director Niccol imbues the film with the right futuristic ambience and aided by an imaginative screenplay, he has the audience virtually like a puppet on a string as he unfolds the 110-minute story. In good time, Salas meets centuries time-rich Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), who helps him when he gets into trouble. Soon they fall in love. There are a couple of interesting cameos to give the film a further thrust. We have a rather interesting time-keeper (Callian Murphy) and Salas’ sensuous mother (Olivia Wilde). That the lovers are constantly on the run is not surprising. What is the way they manage to get away. Quite unlike the current run of Hollywood potboilers, this is a surprise winner with Justin Timberlake doing an excellent job, adequately supported by Amanda Seyfried and Callian Murphy. The camerawork, too, is fluid though the music is just about average. But do not miss In Time. It’s well worth the time and money.
|
|||