The 2011 thriller “In Time” tells the dystopian science fiction story of a world where time means everything.

Social classes are not determined by income, but by the amount of time a person can live. The humans are genetically engineered to stop aging when they turn 25. At that point, their clocks begin ticking and they must earn or steal more time to stay alive. Lower classes work menial jobs for pay in days, while the upper class hoards centuries. Gangsters prey on the weak to steal their time. “Timekeepers’” or law enforcement’s primary concern is to make sure the “wrong people” – the lower class – never have too much time.

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is from “the ghetto,” where people live hour to hour. He meets Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) in a bar flashing around a wealth of time – 100 years. After Will rescues him from gangsters, Hamilton gives Will his entire store of time. Sadly, Will can’t get home in time to prevent his mother (Olivia Wilde) from “clocking out.” In retaliation, Will travels to the top “time zone” on a mission to take as much time from the wealthy as he can.

However, possessing time that you didn’t earn is illegal. Timekeeper Leon (Cillian Murphy) catches up with Will and takes back what time he’s managed to accumulate. To avoid capture, Will takes wealthy Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) hostage and goes back to the ghetto. He realizes it’s not enough to take time from the wealthy, he needs to redistribute the time to the poor. Sylvia falls in love with Will and joins him on a crime spree to spread the wealth of time around as much as they can before they are caught…or their own clocks run out.

We’re lead to believe that a small portion – the one percent? – of the population not only controls the vast majority of wealth, but is actively engaged in preventing the 99 percent from ever progressing outside of their “time zone” by strategically raising taxes and interest rates whenever people start accumulating too much time.

(more…)

“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.” Shakespeare’s words ring literally true in Andrew Niccol’s cinematic marriage of ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ with ‘Robin Hood.’

‘In Time’ takes place in a future where physical aging has been genetically altered to end at 25. At that time, a year begins to count down on your arm. When your time runs out, you die. If you can earn or steal more time, you can extend your life infinitely. In this world, people are divided in time zones based on their wealth, and Timekeepers – half cop, half agents of order – ensure that no one breaks the rules and advances illegally.

Justin Timberlake plays Will, a struggling factory worker who has been gifted over a century of time by Henry (Matt Bomer), a man who has grown tired of living. With his new wealth and knowledge, Will goes to New Greenwich, the lap of luxury, intent on stealing time from the wealthy to distribute to the masses – time that has been stolen from them through manipulated markets that ensure the rich earn more time while the poor continually struggle to make it through each day. There, he meets Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of Philippe (‘Mad Men’s’ Vincent Kartheiser), who owns an eternity of time. When Timekeepers track Will to New Greenwich and try to arrest him for supposedly stealing the minutes and murdering Henry, he kidnaps Sylvia and goes on the run, racing against not only the Timekeepers but a dwindling clock.

(more…)

The minds behind ‘In Time’ couldn’t have known that class warfare proponents, from bedraggled Occupy Wall Street types to a President eager to alienate those sharing his tax bracket, would be all the rage when the film hit theaters.

The science fiction thriller adds a Marxist polish to a tale owing plenty to both ‘Logan’s Run’ and ‘Bonnie and Clyde.’ And while the premise teases the kind of dystopian future seen in sci-fi classics like ‘Blade Runner,”In Time’ ends up with precious little to share beyond its pretty leads.

Justin Timberlake stars as Will Salas, a blue-collar type in an alternative America where people only live to be 25. After that, you have to earn every second of your existence. Time is the coin of this realm, and a person’s wealth status is displayed in green glowing digits on their forearm. Thus, folks like Will literally live paycheck to paycheck, while the rich exist in walled-off communities where they’re guaranteed immortality.

(more…)

It’s been six years since Andrew Niccol seated himself in a director’s chair; after the powerful Gattaca (1997), misfire S1m0ne (2002), and sleeper Lord of War (2005), the inventive writer is headed back to the big screen with another original sci-fi concept, In Time. A couple trailers have already dropped; this sizzle reel does a good job introducing the heady premise without giving away exactly where the story will go (I hope).

—–

The biggest reason I’m pulling for the film is Andrew Niccol’s name. In a market full of adaptations, remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels, and any combination of those categories, Niccol remains committed to telling original stories through the medium of film. Both Gattaca and The Truman Show had all the qualities of great literature, yet video was an absolutely integral element of their storytelling. Barring Sucker Punch (haven’t seen it), the last time Hollywood offered a completely original blockbuster like this was Inception, and I welcome any attempts to make it the rule and no longer the exception.

The Brave New World-esque universe he’s created here is intriguing, and the concept of a world where every action you take temporarily staves off death shows he’s exploring weighty themes through speculative fiction, not just “ooh shiny future stuff!” sci-fi. It appears Niccol’s taken a far more action-oriented approach than his earlier films, so it’ll be interesting to see how well he does. He’s recruited cinematographer and longtime Coen brothers collaborator Roger Deakins, and most of the action shots appear wide and/or steady, so I’m not worried about the kind of shaky-cam anarchy common to untested action directors (I’m looking at you, Marc Forster). (more…)

Catherine Hardwicke, the director of the original “Twilight” movie, returns to the genre in the new fantasy “Red Riding Hood.” Hardwicke replaces the blood-sucking vampires of her earlier film with a murderous wolf that terrorizes a small community in this tired update of the well-known tale. Like “Twilight,” this story focuses on teenage romance set against the backdrop of supernatural forces.

Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) is the teenager caught between two boys in this story. She’s in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), a local boy who has known her since she was little. Peter loves her as well and the two of them want to run away together. Unfortunately, Henry (Max Irons) is also in love with Valerie and has her mother’s support. Suzette, Valerie’s mother (Virginia Madsen), has arranged for Valerie to marry Henry despite her daughter’s wishes. As the romance plays out, a local wolf begins hunting for human flesh.

—–

The wolf isn’t a new visitor to the small town. The townspeople know it lives in the woods and lay out food for it on a regular basis. However, when Valerie’s sister turns up dead,  the locals start searching for the violent animal. Eventually, a priest named Soloman (Gary Oldman) arrives to find the wolf himself. Soloman has a history of hunting wolves and quickly informs the townspeople that the wolf is an actual person in town who transforms into the deadly beast.

Oldman is one of the very few things to like about this story. His presence alone brings gravitas to this teeny-bopper love triangle. It’s fascinating to watch a solid actor appear in a story that demands little acting from its lead actors, who look like they got lost on the way to a “Gossip Girl” audition. Even in his bland role, Oldman is still highly watchable in this melodramatic mess.

Because of the weak story, none of the actors have strong characters that they can develop. The script itself is, at times, laughably bad. Characters either say things simply to advance the plot or they spit out over-dramatic lines that would seem out of place on “Days of Our Lives.” Many viewers likely won’t care who Valerie ends up with. They’ll only worry that the wolf won’t have the appetite to swallow them both.

(more…)

This weekend, on the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I went to see “Dear John”.  I know, I know… I’m a little late to the game.  It seems this is the movie that briefly unseated the mighty “Avatar” (then in its 8th week) from the #1 slot a few weeks back.

Yeah, it’s a “chick flick” and I’m sure the film did most of its initial box office due to the popularity of its male lead, Channing Tatum.  The ladies love them some Channing Tatum.  He seems like a nice enough fellow; he’s a believable actor.  Aside from the fact that, watching him, I’m constantly reminded that I really need to work my core (we actors are a generally insecure and superficial lot), what’s not to like?  I first saw him in the excellent “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” and the guy impressed me.

In “Dear John,” Tatum plays Staff Sergeant John Tyree, a Green Beret who meets and falls in love with Savannah Curtis (played by Amanda Seyfried), while home on leave.  

Savannah is a pretty and intelligent young woman with a solid set of values.  She doesn’t drink, smoke or sleep around and seems at ease in her own skin.  She is confident, compassionate and gives freely of her time and energy to her friends and the larger community. (more…)

Many people know what they should expect when they are go to a film adapted from a Nicholas Sparks book. Sparks, the author of such romantic books as “The Notebook” and its sequel “The Wedding,” is a well-known author who has had nearly half a dozen books adapted for the big screen. “Dear John” is his latest and one that delivers a fine sentimental story about young adolescent romance, even though the third act disappoints.

“Dear John” revolves around a romance between its two lead characters, John Tyree (Channing Tatum) and Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried). The two meet when Curtis’ purse falls into the ocean and Tyree promptly delivers it to her. Although another guy (played by “Friday Night Light’s” Scott Porter) is interested in Curtis, she falls for Tyree, who is at home for a few weeks before he returns to the Army. The romance develops during the two weeks the couple spends together and soon enough the couple is torn apart when Tyree is sent back overseas. But they send each other love letters to keep their romance alive.

The movie develops from there as Tyree is forced to make choices about whether he wants to re-enlist after the September 11the attacks. Curtis is forced to make choices about her own life, as well. This may sound like a romantic movie with nothing else to offer, however there are some strong elements that elevate it beyond a simplistic romance. (more…)