(12 Oct 2011)
What starts with a lot of unique promise falls apart as the story in the Justin Timberlake starrer ‘In Time’ unfolds. I’m going with 3.5 out of 5 for Andrew Niccol’s attempt at telling a story about a world where ‘time’ replaces ‘money’ as the currency. Here’s why.
The film is based on a time and place that sees people not
ageing beyond their twenty fifth year, provided they buy themselves time. This
is the part of the world where you’re known by how many years you’ve earned
yourself after attaining the magical age of 25. The story reveals the inherent
human desire to become immortal. Yet the truth is: not everybody can be
immortal as you need to ‘earn’ immortality, which means few people would live
for thousands of years at the cost of others’ lives. This is where Justin
Timberlake, the main protagonist in the film, has a serious objection; more so
after he helplessly witnesses his mother’s time out (death).
This is the kind of movie that does not put the actors to
the performance-litmus-test. The story-telling is more or less smooth, but is
flawed in certain areas. The not-so-well-written script does not do justice to
the wonderful concept of the story. As you try to get engrossed, you know for
sure that the project could have been handled in a more proficient manner.
While I give a big thumbs up for the story written by Andrew
Niccol himself, and for some really intense sequences of events in the movie, I
also wish the director was a little more creatively careful.
Go watch the movie in case what turns you on is an exciting story
and not necessarily the on-screen translation of the same!
No comments:
Post a Comment