Karina and I recently had the opportunity to go on a nice movie-dinner date (thanks mom!). We had a great time. What did we see you ask? Well, first the road on the way up. Then the outside of the theater. Then….I jest. The movie we saw was “In Time”. Now, usually I’ll see a movie and forget about it in 2 hours. However, there are some movies that rock me to my core (such as Naked Gun). This movie did leave me with some “feelings”.

I had only seen a preview or two for In Time so I didn’t have a good idea as to what the plot was. I shall give you a short summary for the benefit of understanding my review. SPOLIER ALERT: I will not spoil the end of the movie (or will I? I guess we’ll see how this goes).

Synopsis: It is either sometime in the future or in some parallel universe. Man has been genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. Each person is then given 1 year to live. That year basically becomes the source of currency. Instead of dollars, everything costs units of time (ie. Coffee for 4 minutes). This premise I found to be highly intriguing. As Karina may attest, I can be a cheapskate. How much worse would I be if, instead of money, I was actually shortening my lifespan? I tell you one thing: the deodorant budget would be reduced to zero! In the movie, people earn additional time at work, gamble it with games, and steal it from others. That being said, here is my review of the movie based on a few significant areas:

1. Visual appeal: This movie rates off the charts in the eye candy department. I can’t help but think this is by design. You can imagine what everyone looks like since they stop aging at 25. And yes, Justin Timberlake looks amazing. What I don’t understand is why everyone looks like they stepped out of an Abercrombie & Fitch advertisement. Apparently along with wrinkles, this society is missing excessive calories and saturated fats. I don’t get this. Everyone’s physique indicates they work out 2 hours a day. But, with a year to live, the LAST place you’d find me is on a treadmill!
2. Acting: Overall, the acting was pretty good in this flick. I am by no means a connoisseur in this area, but everyone was mostly believable, with 2 exceptions: Justin Timberlake’s serious face looks like it’s his “trying to hold in a smile to be serious” face. Also, while I love Cillian Murphy as an actor, he is not good enough as a 35 year old to play a 25 year old.
3. Popcorn: Tasty. Just a little butter
4. Message:Oh, now don’t get me started!! THIS is the area of the movie where I had a problem. I really don’t mean to get too political (a white lie perhaps) but it felt as if I spent $7 per ticket (thankfully it was a matinee or my soul would have felt that much dirtier) to watch an Occupy Wall Street propaganda film. I’d put money on this movie being written by either Michael Moore or anyone else in Hollywood. Now please, don’t get me wrong. While my views may tend to lean a little rightish, I believe as much as anyone that the less fortunate in our society need our help (how we help them is another story for another blog I will try to resist writing). My main concern is the method of redistribution used in the movie: theft. You see, this was very much a modern telling of Robin Hood. And, a fan of Robin Hood I am not. The only good thing to come out of the Robin Hood story was a certain song that included the lyrics “Oodle La Lee, oodle La Lee, Golly what a day.” As a matter of fact, as a kid I was the only one of my friends who rooted for King John. One of the stars of the “In Time” movie makes the following point regarding stealing from the rich to give to the poor: is it really stealing if the people you are getting it from stole it in the first place? First of all: YES!! Yes it is still stealing if YOU ARE STEALING! Second of all, you and I are not the judge as to whether something was stolen or not. That’s why we happen to have a little thing called the judicial system to make those determinations (I’d hate to think of a society where everyone could make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of others and mete out justice accordingly. Didn’t we try that in the Old West and the only good things to come out of that period is Stetson cologne, chuckwagon dinners, and 28% of the movies John Wayne made).In the case of this movie, the rich people had manipulated the economy such that there was an incredible wealth (ie. Time) gap between the classes. But, as you can infer, as the commodity was time to live, the rich people were actually murdering to get richer as accumulating more time meant less time to live for the poor folks. And one did not need to merely infer in this case. I will paraphrase a quote from one of the rich bad guys: many must die for a few to achieve immortality. REALLY?!?! The rhetoric against the wealthy has been ratcheted up such that rich people are now murderers?!

   I won’t spoil the entirety of the end of the movie, but there was an amusing point near the end where, after much of the wealth disparity had been rectified, workers in factories (which of course were in the poor area) left their posts. At least they got that part right. If wealth is distributed evenly nobody’s going to want to do some of the less glitzy jobs required for a society to function. Like trash collectors, sewage overseers, or proctologist. Everyone will instead try to find the easiest job requiring the fewest qualifications such as Paint drying observer or Kardashian spouse.

As always, I still enjoyed the time spent with Karina. After the movie, I was able to use my post-movie-teeth-gritting to good effect eating out at La Parilla Suiza. The only thing that could have made the evening better would be for us to have watched our second choice movie instead. I am sure I would have gotten far less riled up watching Tower Heist: A rollicking comedy in which a group of vigilantes attempt to steal money from a rich magna….aww nuts.