The Philippine Online Chronicles

Your money or your life. Such is the inapplicable dilemma in Andrew Niccol’s futuristic film “In Time.”

Set in a society where time is both currency and life, the film explores familiar issues of class, privilege and poverty.

In a world divided by time zones, the wealthy are able to live forever while the impoverished are constantly reminded – by the green-glowing analog numbers imprinted on their arms – that their life is about to run out.

The story follows Will Salas (played by Justin Timberlake), an ordinary factory worker, who suddenly finds himself at the receiving end of a century’s worth of time. However, authorities give chase when his benefactor commits suicide.

Time in the wrong hands (spoilers follow!)

After losing his mother to an unfortunate series of events – mainly the sudden inflation of time-prices which forced her to time out, Will cautiously makes his way to the wealthy city of New Greenwich. There he meets the beautiful Sylvia (played by Amanda Seyfreid), daughter of time-loaning magnate Philippe Weis. But even before Will fully integrates into the elite circle of New Greenwich, he is apprehended by the Timekeepers, a local peace and order force.

Will escapes the Timekeepers by kidnapping Sylvia. He then seeks revenge for the unjust treatment of his fellow residents in the ghetto by attempting to redistribute wealth/time to the impoverished. Upon realizing that her wealth had prohibited her from truly experiencing life, Sylvia joins Will’s crusade, and the Bonnie-and-Clyde duo get to wreaking havoc on the economic system, targetting time lending banks and passing on time to the “wrong” time zones.

Classic political sci-fi

While “In Time” received mixed reviews from critics, the blame may be pinned on the mediocre execution of the story. According to Rotten Tomatoes, “In Time’s intriguing premise and appealing cast are easily overpowered by the blunt, heavy-handed storytelling.”

But the story concept itself is good material. It’s classic sci-fi stuff.

In Orson Scott Card’s introduction to H.G. Wells’s “The War of the Worlds,” he wrote, “H.G. Wells was not writing about some remote unimaginable future…Science is not about the future. Like all other fiction, it is about the present. It simply uses different techniques to show us who we are, who we might be, and whom we ought to become.”

This is perhaps clearly realized in the film “In Time,” regrettable as it may be that it is lacking in the “futuristic setting” department.

While it also problematizes the quandary of age and time, with several generations of people looking as young as each other - thus, the problem of mothers and daughters looking like sisters, it more importantly reflects on class and economic power.

The world depicted in the film may be likened to a dystopia where technology and greed has resulted in a societal mechanism that effectively maintains unending life cycles for the rich and unpredictable death for the poor.

The most heart-wrenching scene in the film is when Salas’ mother, 50-year old Rachel (played by Olivia Wilde), is forced to forego a bus ride after learning that the fare had increased from one hour to two hours overnight. With only an hour and a half left in her life clock, she is forced to run all the way to the next bus stop, hoping to meet Will in time to refill her clock. Will, realizing his mother’s predicament, attempts to find her. They encounter each other on foot but Will, even with his new-found wealth, is unable to make it in time, and his mother expires in front of him.

That single scene effectively illustrates the hand-to-mouth existence of the poor and the difficult situation brought about by having “living time” replace money as currency.

In the middle of the film, it is explained that the daily inflation of time prices has become a mechanism to ruthlessly control population, forcing people to resort to debt or death.

Wishful thinking

Unfortunately, the tireless foot chases to pre-empt the characters from timing out, as well as both the good and bad time-related metaphors, cause a little chafing on the part of the audience.

As other reviews suggest, Niccol seemed to have given too much thought on the metaphors and too little time on the storyline and direction. At just under two hours, the film was lengthy but at the end of it you feel as if a lot more could have been done.

The backstory about Will’s father, for example, was never fully revealed, leaving us wondering about the slightly charged lines about him mentioned by Leon the Timekeeper.

Will and Sylvia’s characters had also developed as expected of round characters, but more depth might have been appreciated. They were both interesting but maybe a few quirks and little back stories explaining why they are different from the rest might have made them lovable characters. But that’s just wishful thinking.

All in all, it’s an interesting story that nevertheless entertains. A story expected of Niccol who once came out with “The Truman Show,” “S1m0ne” and “Lord of War.”

Poster used here for purposes of review. Copyright is believed to belong to to the distributor of the film, 20th Century Fox,, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist.