This question is practically tailor-made for In Time. It’s a movie that crops up almost religiously when questions of this nature are raised.
And it’s a fair shout. The central conceit is ingenious – humans are genetically engineered to stop ageing at 25 and from then on you’re on a 1 year timer. When the time runs out, you die.
Time has replaced money, and it is the only currency that matters. Each person has a clock on their arm that counts down how long they have to live.
You purchase items with time – A cup of coffee is worth 5 minutes, a two-hour bus ride is worth 2 hours, a fancy sports car is worth 58 years, and so on.
In a world where time is money, the rich hoard time, they are practically immortal and live in a separate time zone called ‘New Greenwich.’ They have centuries, millions, aeons on their timers.
While the poor get by day-to-day, with mere hours on their timer. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is one of them.
The initial third of the movie is almost intoxicatingly engaging, there is great joy to be had in seeing this unique concept being brought to life in a variety of ways, both small and large.
Besides, it’s a fascinating approach to shed light on the stark differences between the rich and the poor.
But when Will encounters a jaded New Greenwich resident with 100 years on his timer who commits suicide after transferring his time to Will, things slightly begin to go off the rails.
Will infiltrates New Greenwich in an attempt to somehow sabotage their way of living, he encounters another jaded rich person, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), and from that point on, the movie sort of falls off a cliff – it succumbs to formulaic tropes and becomes a weird Sci-Fi Bonnie and Clyde.
Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who wrote and directed Gattaca, one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, In Time feels like a movie that could have been so much more.
The central concept is fascinating, but instead of homing in on it and exploring the ‘1% vs the rest’ aspect with greater depth and nuance, it changes lanes completely.
Instead of being a thought-provoking examination of wealth, time and poverty, it turns its focus on the bland and inane romance between the two leads.
With slight alterations to the story and better execution, In Time could have joined Gattaca in the Sci-Fi Hall of Fame.
But that didn’t happen, and it exists now as a fairly fun but forgettable sci-fi/action/romance hybrid.