Escape to the Movies: In Time

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I actually liked Simone... sure it wasn't the most groundbreaking film but it was inventive and interesting at least.

I saw a trailer/heard about this movie at some point over the summer, and kind of forgot about it. But after this review i will be making a point to go check it out.

Side note: i really like it when Bob reviews the lesser known movies. I pretty much already know where he's going to stand on 90% of the big releases. (every now and then he surprises me), but getting his perspective on movies i otherwise may have missed is nice. Like this movie i'm not sure if it'll hit wide release and be in my local megaplex, but i feel like its a little too mainstream to be playing at one of the indie theaters, so i likely would have missed it altogether.

Sidenote 2: Bob did you ever see Bellflower? I kept meaning to ask but i kept forgetting lol.

Considering how heavy-handed Lord of War was with its message, I think I'll give this one a miss. What made the message worse in Lord of War was that it was extremely uncontroversial and obvious, so it seemed all the more heavy-handed - YES, war is bad and dealing in arms shouldn't be anyone's chosen profession and YES, the rich generally like being rich often at the expense of the poor...

Personally I thought Gattaca was a steaming pile of ignorance mixed with a hint of fear-mongering AKA stem-cell research will doom us all.

As for "In Time"... The last thing I want to watch is a socioeconomic version of Logan's run.

This is the kind of film that you watch in social studies class, NOT a theatre.

solidstatemind:
Hm. I was surprised: GATTACA was brilliant, given how well the science actually worked. (My geneticist wife was impressed.) I didn't know that the same guy is directing.

The trailers/marketing really seemed to try to sell this as more of a action film with a trumped-up dystopian premise than a movie with a legit commentary on societal ills.

Definitely will have to check this one out. Probably would've given it a 'pass' without this review. Thanks Bob!

TLDR: both movies should be taken as metaphors for the way society is now, because the scenarios they present are really implausible.

GATTACA was a good movie but it was philosophically stupid. The science behind it was relatively solid, embryonic selection as I recall, not outright genetic engineering which is still probably a century away or more from being used on human beings. But even with embryonic selection there could be long term affects on population genetics, pleiotropy makes everything tricky. The main problem was with the way society was portrayed.

In regard to human beings, hard genetic determinism, as any neuroscientist will tell you, is just plain wrong. A human being's most important trait, intelligence, is heavily dependent upon upbringing. A person's genetic makeup could NEVER replace what we already use in our resumes, i.e. our work experience and education. It would definitely give an unfair advantage, but people wouldn't freaking hire you based upon your genome alone, that's just silly.

The most infuriating part was that he was trying to become A FREAKING ASTRONAUT. If you're going to look at someone's genes for any job, astronaut would be it. What's more is that he actually DID have a heart defect, which should have made him ineligible. There's no way that guy should have been an astronaut, if he dies of a heart attack he would endanger the entire mission and the lives of the other crew members.

There's something to be said about the abuse of genetic information when it comes to things like insurance companies denying coverage because of genetic predispositions, and we should certainly be worried about genetic engineering affecting class structures and inequality, but GATTACA was a straw man argument par excellence.

The same thing goes for this movie. If we really did crack aging then the most likely setup would entail something like restarting the process once you've had children, so people can choose whether to live indefinitely or have children. That way you could keep the population balanced. No one would ever agree to the scenario in the movie, there would be instant revolution.

S1m0ne? Horrible? Are you nuts? That movie was great. Granted, 75% of that greatness was Al Pacino and 20% was the lovely Simone, but I like the rest of the movie too.

Quite the opposite, Gattaca was crap.

Lord of War is Blow with guns instead of cocaine. That being said was a great movie and last movie that I thought Nicholas Cage was any good. This movie has an interesting concept, also I am a big fan of Cillian Murphy.

Gattaca is such a great film, I'm glad at least a few more people have seen it and more will hopefully see it now.

Wait a minute, a guy from the in-group gives an outsider his hall pass? That IS Gattaca!

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I liked Gattaca (depressing ending though)
I loved Lord of War (one of my Top 5 movies I've ever seen)

I should enjoy this, but I'm not sure. Probably cause I spend too much time in the Religion and Politics Section of The Escapist to want to deal with OWS anymore (not that I disagree with them)

I can't wait to check out Lord of War. Gattica is more even and well worth seeing, and just over all better than this movie. I have to wonder if producers interferred with the script and direction of this movie, wanting it to be more mainstream with the rebellion stuff. Up until the rebellion stuff, this movie was excellent. It was the correctly done flipside to "Children of Men". In that movie, they messed up: not enough old people doing the daily work of civilization. This time around, young people are everywhere, fitting for the topic. There are so many surprises in this movie and I think you'll enjoy it, but 1/2 way through, it does radically change gears and become meh.

Timberlake's character seems to have an interesting plan in mind, and you can't wait to see how he pulls it off. Then, he just doesn't. There apparantly never was a plan.

I'll have to do some surfing to see if I can find the original script to see if they had something better in mind for what was supposed to happen in the 2nd 1/2 of the movie.

But again, 1st 1/2 was on par with Gattica, and one of the more interesting things I've seen in some time.

So...the central message of the movie as far as economics goes seems to be as follows: rich people hoard time (money) and kill poor people because otherwise the economy breaks down. If you let poor people HAVE money, then they all just quit their jobs and move into rich people neighborhoods.

Because somehow, the part of the population that is most likely to spend the greatest part of the money they earn getting more of the money causes the economy, which runs on people spending money, to fail. Clearly somebody here has brain damage. Is there a chunk of glass embedded in the back of my head?

Edit: And just in case you think I'm some kind of magic economist of something, you can get a basic understanding of how the economy works right here:

And yes. This IS a Disney cartoon.

I just saw this movie today and thought it was pretty terrible. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting concept, but the script was shallow, the acting wasn't anything worth talking about (Timberlake in particular never breaks the "I'm suave" demeanor even at what should be emotional high points), there's several plotlines that are just kind of sitting there purely to move the main plot along (Timerlake's Dad and the uderworld gamg), and the biggest metaphor of the movie fails pretty hard in translation towards the end.

It's a movie that hits some notes that resonate with the current Occupy movements, but the way it wraps everything up makes it hard to take it as anything but an elaborate Robin Hood story without a king to return from the crusades to take his rightful place.

Hey I like Justin Timberlake's music and I think he's a good actor in those SNL shorts or in the social network.

this movie looks interesting to me

Sgt. Sykes:
S1m0ne? Horrible? Are you nuts? That movie was great. Granted, 75% of that greatness was Al Pacino and 20% was the lovely Simone, but I like the rest of the movie too.

Quite the opposite, Gattaca was crap.

I agree 100% Simone was a great peek into what could happen if we continue developing CG actors instead of pacifying the highly overpaid "whiny brat" actors that we actually have.

Who knows... In 10 years time we probably won't need voice actors; Just text to speech.

Gattaca however, was just plain terrible!

Wait, "Not Preachy"? Really? Because the precise impression I got from the trailer was that it was THE preachest anti-technology, anti-science, anti-intellectualism piece ever produced, with all the usual suspects of clichés like "we're meant to die", "heart over mind", "technology will make us slaves", etc...

Really, I didn't notice any capitalist subtext at all from that trailer, I'm actually surprised anyone who isn't from... certain sites and religious inclinations... to say in the end the movie is a good piece of sci-fy. Then again, it is the guy from Lord of War, so anything is possible.

And yep, Lord of War is one of the best movies from the last decade, poignant without being boring, exposing the brutality of the modern political scene regarding Africa and other warring countries without being overbearingly preachy like Blood Diamonds. Anyone who tells me Nick Cage shouldn't still have a job I immediately point towards this piece (and Kickass... and Bad Lieutenant) to show he can be great, if they give some though as to what they're casting him for.

I cant wait to see this, thanks for reviewing it bob

Gattaca, one of the best movies ever made. It was well written, well acted and overall philosophical. I'm surprised it didn't get oscar. this episode really brings back memories, thank you Bob.

Here's a thought, our current economy allow us to save. i.e. we work today and spend tomorrow. However that thrives on when we're spending and other people is working while they can spend in the future.

This whole economy breaks down if everyone saved up enough to only spend, as no one is working there will be nothing to spend on. It makes one wonder, can there be an alternative to our current economic system?

In addition this economy thrives on the have nots, or the poor. It's essentially a slave system with it's chains masked in currencies. The ones without money will have to work or they'll stave, usually serving the ones with money.

This economic system like any system developed by man have holes and can be hacked like a computer system, certain aspect are open for exploits. As the ones with money they are essentially holding the chains to the slave that have not.

Bruce lee once said the solution is simply to simplify. To look at this from a simplified point just image there are only 2 person in the world. These 2 people represent our entire population.

In a world without our current economic system of money, they'll both be working. Maybe working together, maybe independently. They could share their fruits or they could just enjoy their own fruits of their labors. Whatever the case, they both will be working.

However, as money is introduced, one of them can save up enough and just do nothing while buying from the one that work. A number of scenarios can happen in this case. The one that work decide to not work in which case they'll both starve.

But what happens if the one that work decide he wouldn't sell anything to the ones that saved up? The one that saved up will have to eat whatever he saved up, this is fine if our current economic system was by the rules and only print what we produce. But we all know this is not so hence the inflation.

Anyway, I'm lost in my own thoughts and is just rambling now. So I'll just end it here, image the screen fades and credit rolls.

The movie sounds iteresting, but it also has 36% on rotten tomatoes...

Just in case people didn't know of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(novel)

image

....This pleasant atmosphere is spoiled by the arrival of the Men in Grey, eventually revealed as a race of paranormal parasites stealing the time of humans. Appearing in the form of grey-clad, grey-skinned, bald men, these strange individuals present themselves as representing the Timesavings Bank and promote the idea of "timesaving" among the population: Supposedly, time can be deposited to the Bank and returned to the client later with interest...

Its much more enjoyable and much more subtle than the movie.

Don't get me wrong its a "childrens book" but with a very interestingly conveyed message.

Just wanted to come here and say, I thought In Time was absolutely god-awful. I am surprised this movie wasn't just shelfed. The acting was awful, there characters were inconsistent and bipolar, the cuts made no sense, the writing was terrible, and the plot just lurched and moved however and whenever it wanted. The only redeeming quality it had to me was an idea that would have sounded good on paper. For example, the conspiracy of how the rich manipulate the poor was laid on very, very awkwardly and very, very early. I just got out of a 10:30 screening (that movie was TWO HOURS), so I'm too tired to go on.

And just for the record, any prejudice I have against this movie is not against the genre itself. I loved Gattaca, and these kinds of sci-fi movies have been of general interest to me for a while. Whatever other biases I might have had are certainly up for speculation.

Classic cinema(Logan's Run) + B-movie or Short(The Price of Life) + Current Social-Political tone = Hollywood originality.

*adding to my checklist* *putting kamina glasses on*

So how does people under 25 pay for things without a counter?

ReiverCorrupter:

solidstatemind:
Hm. I was surprised: GATTACA was brilliant, given how well the science actually worked. (My geneticist wife was impressed.) I didn't know that the same guy is directing.

The trailers/marketing really seemed to try to sell this as more of a action film with a trumped-up dystopian premise than a movie with a legit commentary on societal ills.

Definitely will have to check this one out. Probably would've given it a 'pass' without this review. Thanks Bob!

TLDR: both movies should be taken as metaphors for the way society is now, because the scenarios they present are really implausible.

GATTACA was a good movie but it was philosophically stupid. The science behind it was relatively solid, embryonic selection as I recall, not outright genetic engineering which is still probably a century away or more from being used on human beings. But even with embryonic selection there could be long term affects on population genetics, pleiotropy makes everything tricky. The main problem was with the way society was portrayed.

In regard to human beings, hard genetic determinism, as any neuroscientist will tell you, is just plain wrong. A human being's most important trait, intelligence, is heavily dependent upon upbringing. A person's genetic makeup could NEVER replace what we already use in our resumes, i.e. our work experience and education. It would definitely give an unfair advantage, but people wouldn't freaking hire you based upon your genome alone, that's just silly.

The most infuriating part was that he was trying to become A FREAKING ASTRONAUT. If you're going to look at someone's genes for any job, astronaut would be it. What's more is that he actually DID have a heart defect, which should have made him ineligible. There's no way that guy should have been an astronaut, if he dies of a heart attack he would endanger the entire mission and the lives of the other crew members.

There's something to be said about the abuse of genetic information when it comes to things like insurance companies denying coverage because of genetic predispositions, and we should certainly be worried about genetic engineering affecting class structures and inequality, but GATTACA was a straw man argument par excellence.

The same thing goes for this movie. If we really did crack aging then the most likely setup would entail something like restarting the process once you've had children, so people can choose whether to live indefinitely or have children. That way you could keep the population balanced. No one would ever agree to the scenario in the movie, there would be instant revolution.

Very well put, I agree so much. I didn't see Gattaca at all as a commentary on our present but more as just another alternate universe. And then it works pretty well. Everything that happened made sense for that particular universe.

ExtraDebit:
snip

I guess Bruce Lee is a great authority in the field of socioeconomics now. I get that it may be easer to understand some interactions by simplifying them, but it is not always a good idea. It does not take a genius to realize that a large number of participants introduces some statistical effects. Your example with everyone saving enough to only spend is akin to all molecules of air in a room gathering in one half, while there is none it the other. Is it possible? Yes. Do we need to worry about it happening? No. Sun will probably run out of hydrogen before that happens on Earth even once. In other words modern economic system is not reducible to "two person" level.

And stop it with slavery system analogies. It is not such a system. Don't want to use money? Don't. Go live in the forest somewhere like our far ancestors did. Not to mention there are not really any limits to how high a person can go in modern society. You can start out dirt poor and homeless and elevate yourself quite high. There is vertical social mobility in modern society.

Stealthfighterx:
So how does people under 25 pay for things without a counter?

The movie never really goes into that. Presumably you're still considered a child before 25. It does present the concept that everyone is born with one year that can't be spent until they are 25 (and thus everyone could theoretically live until 26 without exchange). But it never really becomes a major theme and thus only comes up two or three times.

S1mone was decent. Had an idea at least about society's obsession with celebrity. But it did feel a little bit, I dunno, a bit like a TV episode. Everything was a bit empty, like they were trying to squeeze every penny and produce the cheapest movie they could so didn't bother hiring extras or making proper sets.

Aiddon:
This might as well be that Harlan Ellison short story "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Though unlike James Cameron, Nichol doesn't seem like the kind of douchebag who deserves to be chewed out by the gloriously grouchy Ellison

You do know that Harlan Ellison is already suing the movie, you're late on that!

Moeez:

Aiddon:
This might as well be that Harlan Ellison short story "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Though unlike James Cameron, Nichol doesn't seem like the kind of douchebag who deserves to be chewed out by the gloriously grouchy Ellison

You do know that Harlan Ellison is already suing the movie, you're late on that!

yeah i and i just don't see the copyright violation in this. might bust be me but "repent" seems more like 1984 than "in time"

Moeez:

Aiddon:
This might as well be that Harlan Ellison short story "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Though unlike James Cameron, Nichol doesn't seem like the kind of douchebag who deserves to be chewed out by the gloriously grouchy Ellison

You do know that Harlan Ellison is already suing the movie, you're late on that!

Oh, I already knew. You'd think after James Cameron got caught with his hand in the cookie jar with Terminator people would learn not to rip of Ellison.

dystopiaINC:

Moeez:

Aiddon:
This might as well be that Harlan Ellison short story "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Though unlike James Cameron, Nichol doesn't seem like the kind of douchebag who deserves to be chewed out by the gloriously grouchy Ellison

You do know that Harlan Ellison is already suing the movie, you're late on that!

yeah i and i just don't see the copyright violation in this. might bust be me but "repent" seems more like 1984 than "in time"

Uh, it's set in a dystopian future where the main gimmick of the story is about the allocation of TIME. The only difference is that in Harlequin time is deducted if you're late, which is a crime.

Very glad this turned out well, seemed like an interesting concept.

Also I saw Lord of War when it released in theaters...the whole ten of us that where in the theater lol. Seriously one of my favorite movies, one of Nic Cage's best performaces, i almost burned my DVD copy up playing it so much:P

ShAmMz0r:

First of all, while the whole time is money idea is good, where the picture goes with it is not. The poor proletarian majority is being exploited by the EVIL rich minority. Crikey, where have I heard that before! Oh hello grandpa Marx, didn't see you there.

Of course, this while film is just some stupid attempt to promote communism right?

I haven't seen the film so I don't know how preechy it is, but the basic premise makes sense. If life span became something you could buy then rest assure that the rich would do everything in their power to create a monopoly on it.

Hardcore_gamer:

Of course, this while film is just some stupid attempt to promote communism right?

I haven't seen the film so I don't know how preechy it is, but the basic premise makes sense. If life span became something you could buy then rest assure that the rich would do everything in their power to create a monopoly on it.

The metaphors are very obvious and the characterization is cartoonish, it's very preachy. Although it seems to promote equality via anarchy more than anything as organized as communism.

The 99-percenters can go to hell. Also, Lord of War thought too much of itself and wasn't really that great.

Hardcore_gamer:
Of course, this while film is just some stupid attempt to promote communism right?

I haven't seen the film so I don't know how preechy it is, but the basic premise makes sense. If life span became something you could buy then rest assure that the rich would do everything in their power to create a monopoly on it.

The Philistine:
The metaphors are very obvious and the characterization is cartoonish, it's very preachy. Although it seems to promote equality via anarchy more than anything as organized as communism.

I think it could have gotten away with all that if it just were more interesting. It's not like there never was a good action movie, which was also anvilicious it its message.

I personally feel that actions of the protagonist were just plain stupid. I mean, would you not totally love to see a sequel in which after twenty years of unrestricted overpopulation the whole world is basically going down the drain and the heroes just look at it, and realise just what the hell they have brought about. Not to mention the general population would not very likely be overly grateful when everyone will be starving to death. Everyone, except the rich, who will again be better off due to their intelligence (which, by the way, equals evil in this movies' universe). I'd love to see them go into some heroic BSODs. They sure deserve it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here