Look above. The poster for In Time tells you pretty much exactly what you can expect from the film. 1. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried as a futuristic Bonnie and Clyde. 2. Guns. 3. Lot’s of time puns.
We are in the future, and it looks a lot like 1984 or THX1138. You see, everyone ages until they hit 25, then they are given one year of life to slowly countdown on their forearm. Money has completely fallen to the currency of time. Want a cup of coffee? Give me 10 minutes of your life. Get it? For Will Salas (Timberlake), his whole 3 years of time counting existence has been spent trying to get enough time for him and his mother (Olivia Wilde) to live another day. His whole life is flipped upside down however, when a wealthy man, who has lived over 100 years, gives Will over a century of his own time. With his new time, he is able to go a few time zones over to where the rich spend their time, where he meets Sylvia Weiss (Seyfried), the daughter of a very wealthy old man. Will they be able to lower the divide between the 99% and the 1%?
The idea is brilliant. Seeing the trailer, I was taken at the futuristic plot and was dying to see the movie. Now that I have, I still love the idea, if only for what my mind has thought of while watching the movie. The things I was thinking could possibly be more interesting than what was going on on screen (no matter how good Seyfried or even Timberlake looked). Yes, it kind of worked as a futuristic Robin Hood morality tale, but often sunk with too many bad time one-liners. I wouldn’t say it was a waste of a few hours, but I would say I wouldn’t spend any more time on the matter.