With the rising cost of movie theater tickets, people must be economical in their film selections. There is a profound feeling of satisfaction that comes with walking out of the theater after seeing a great film and knowing with certainty that you haven't wasted your money. Many movies are worth seeing, but not all of these are worth seeing in theaters. "In Time," a science fiction thriller starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried that released Oct. 28, might not be the most frugal film choice for theater viewing.
In a world where a person's time and money are the same currency, Will Salas (Timberlake) must live day-by-day in order to survive. Meanwhile, he must watch the people of his "ghetto" community drop dead around him. After inheriting over a century of time from a mysterious man, Salas learns that the system of time currency is structured around the expectation that many people will die in order for a select wealthy few to gain immortality. Outraged by this revelation, Salas becomes a Robin Hood of sorts when he begins a crusade to cripple the system by stealing time from the rich and giving it away to the poor.
Timberlake has come into his own as an actor in recent years, with roles in "Friends with Benefits" and "The Social Network." He has just enough talent to portray Salas as a sexy, self-sacrificing everyman whose heroic deeds had me rooting for him until the very end. Timberlake doesn't bring much substance to the role because his character is not very complex or dynamic. This was a straightforward man on a mission to enact change and do what was right for mankind. Timberlake filled that role as well as anyone could.
Alongside Timberlake was the doe-eyed Amanda Seyfried as his Maid Marian, Sylvia Weis. Seyfried and Timberlake are able to muster up a sufficient amount of chemistry as they begin to develop into a Bonnie-and-Clyde pairing once they start robbing banks and taking down the authorities together. Weis is a rich girl, tired of her risk-free life, who develops feelings for Salas after he abducts her in order to protect himself. Despite the Stockholm-syndrome nature of their love story, they were still a smoldering couple not to be reckoned with. There were a few poorly timed kisses and campy one-liners, but the action and passion between them compensated for this.
There are a few reasons why I would suggest waiting for Redbox or Netflix to catch this film. The interesting premise, adequate performances and overall ability to engross the viewer do not seem to amount to enough. Nothing about this film will send goose bumps scattered across skin or tingles in the spine. I wasn't biting my lip in anticipation and going into frenzies when Timberlake and Seyfried shared passionate embraces. There is a level of enjoyment while viewing the film, but nothing that really enhances the experience.
"In Time" had intrigue, sex appeal and action — all elements of a good film. Unfortunately, there is nothing above par about it. I truly believe a human being's time and money are essentially equal in value. A world where they actually are one in the same was a pleasure to watch. However, if I could have a time refund I would have waited a few months for the DVD release.
Follow @swampcinema on Twitter.
Posts in Swamp Cinema appear on Mondays.
