In Time (2011)

Sometimes, I watch a film even though I know it will be rubbish. You've done it too, I'm sure. We all have. I've seen the mediocre romantic comedy Bride Wars three times for goodness sake! Why? It's not bad, it's comfortingly average and sometimes that's just what we're looking for. In that spirit, I decided to watch In Time. I'd read the reviews but still I was drawn to it, like a moth to a shit-stained light bulb.

The story's pretty similar to Logan's Run. The year is 2161 and thanks to genetic modifications, people stop ageing at 25. Instead, on their 25th birthday, a bar code on their arm is activated and begins counting down from 1 year. Time has become the new currency, paying for everything from coffee to travel through the "time zones", barriers that separate the ghetto-like Dayton from the futuristic and serene paradise of New Greenwich. Time can be gained by working or by betting, stealing or fighting with other people. When your time runs out, you die instantly. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives in Dayton with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde). When his mother's time runs out and he saves 105 year-old Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) from the vigilante gang the Minutemen and their leader Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), Henry gives Will his remaining 116 years and dies, telling him that he is tired of living. Unburdened by ties to Dayton, Will travels to New Greenwich and gambles with the uber-wealthy Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser), besting him and earning an invitation to a party at his house. There, he meets his daughter, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), and is confronted by the Timekeepers (Collins Pennie and Cillian Murphy) who suspect him of murdering Henry. He takes Sylvia hostage and goes on the run.

From then on, it's standard action film fare: car chases, gun fights and romantic interludes between Will and Sylvia. Unfortunately, the film suffers from two major flaws: it's very badly written and both Timberlake and Seyfried are awful. Timberlake struggles when given minor supporting roles where he's playing himself (The Social Network, Bad Teacher) and I don't know what possessed the makers of this film to think he could carry it. He can't. He wonders around absent-mindedly, talking like he's reading his script for the first time. As for Seyfried, she has a permanent glassy-eyed, vacant look on her face. A lump of plywood would have been more convincing as the bored and frustrated spoilt little rich girl yearning for excitement and freedom. About the only time she does anything is when she sprints (not runs, sprints) in her tottering six-inch high heels. I'm really frustrated with her. She's a very good young actress but in her last two roles, this and Red Riding Hood, she looks like she doesn't give a shit, like she's just there for the paycheck. The idea itself isn't bad but it's badly executed. Given a re-write and with a competent leading man and a leading woman who looks like she actually wants to be there, this could have been an intriguing science fiction film.

A wasted opportunity. Don't spend an hour and fifty minutes of your life on it.

3 out of 10.