Remember how important the period immediately following the Global Financial Crisis is to me? Here's a missive from 2011, recalling those halcyon days. As my friend says, "Justin Timberlake was there, and it wasn't terrible." Take it away, Alex.
The first time I saw Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film, ‘In Time’, was its opening weekend at the Showcase Cinema De Lux at Cabot Circus in Bristol, with my wife of twenty-three years. I had said that we should go after I saw the trailer for it when we went to see Shark Night 3D two weeks prior. She had shouted at me in the foyer because I wanted to smuggle the rest of my KFC box meal into the theatre and she wouldn’t let me. She always wanted what was best for me…
Anyway, thirty minutes into the film and my hunger was only slightly grating on me. For the most part I was caught in the fantasy of the picture. Yeah, there were some scripting issues, but it was still enjoyable, and I wasn’t surprised to hear that it had debuted at number 3 in the box office, behind ‘Puss In Boots’ and ‘Paranormal Activity 3’.
When my wife of twenty-three years told me that she wanted a divorce and threw me out of our home, and I found myself in a weeping daze in the bright lights of the all-night pharmacy down the road, pleading with the staff to let me sleep in the vitamins aisle, I distinctly remember thinking: ‘blimey, the film wasn’t that bad.’
I remember thinking that, yes, the storytelling was pretty standard and formulaic, but the chemistry and sex appeal between Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia Weis and Justin Timberlake as Will Salas was probably enough to captivate a range of audiences. For my wife, however, it was evidently the straw the broke the camel’s back, which I thought had been holding so strong for over two decades. I see now how much of a fool I was. But I still think ‘In Time’ is okay.
After temporarily moving in with my parents just until I could get back on my feet, I decided to take them to see Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’, starring Cillian Murphy as Timekeeper Raymond Leon, for themselves. I don’t actually remember having many additional thoughts about the film on this second viewing, because I spent the entire one-hundred-and-nine minutes silently crying with my hands covering my face.
My father, however, shared my thoughts that, though there were a lot of clichés and pacing issues, the fundamental idea of the film was worth pursuing and it did a decent enough job of pursuing it. My mother said nothing. She was also distraught; she had loved Susan as if she were her own.
I’ll admit that this was less of me ‘thinking’ about how Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’ was a reasonable effort at a dystopian blockbuster, and more of me bellowing it thunderously across the courtroom while being restrained by three security guards.
I can’t fully explain what happened, except that Susan, my wife of twenty-three, long, happy years, was halfway through explaining to the court why I wasn’t a good role model for our son, Yendlesworth, when I exploded into a violent rant about how the way the film portrayed the contrast between people living on only a few hours a day and the elite class’ needless hoarding of millions of years was exceedingly poignant in this era of late capitalism. The court found in her favour.
My parents were the next to throw me out after I, admittedly, stole £400 from their mattress Benidorm fund so that I could purchase twenty copies of Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’ on DVD.
Luckily, £400 turned out to be somewhat of an overbudget, and I had enough money to also buy a portable DVD player. I now watch the film regularly from the comfort of my favourite bench at my local park. I’ve watched Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’ so many times now I’ve lost count. A couple of times I’ve jolted awake in the middle of the night and sworn I could see a clock in my forearm. Ticking down. Second by second. I know that this is a serious problem, but I don’t care; I need to watch this movie over and over until I can conjure from memory every frame, every sound, every slightest curve of Justin Timberlake’s muscular neck, because god help me it is the last thing tying me to both my marriage and my sense of reality. And besides, the film’s not that bad.
5 times I thought Andrew Niccol’s ‘In Time’ was a flawed, but respectable enough film
In many ways, 2011’s dystopian
thriller ‘In Time’ is pretty reflective of the year it was released; you can’t
really remember what happened, but Justin Timberlake was there and it wasn’t
terrible. The film, written, directed and produced by Andrew Niccol, centered
around the premise that people stopped aging at 25, at which point a clock
embedded in their forearm would start counting down, indicating how much time
they had to live. From there, time is literally money; you work for more time,
and you spend time on goods and services. It received mixed to negative
reviews, with Rotten Tomatoes awarding it an average score of 5.2/10. And you
know? I think that’s fair enough. I’d be slightly more generous and give it a
6. It wasn’t great by any stretch, but on the whole it was fairly entertaining
and it had potential.
I think about Andrew Niccol’s ‘In
Time’, the masterpiece in mediocrity, on a daily basis. But I have
hand-selected five significant occasions where I have thought about the film
and my next thought was ‘yeah, actually, it’s okay.’
1. The first time I saw it
The first time I saw Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film, ‘In Time’, was its opening weekend at the Showcase Cinema De Lux at Cabot Circus in Bristol, with my wife of twenty-three years. I had said that we should go after I saw the trailer for it when we went to see Shark Night 3D two weeks prior. She had shouted at me in the foyer because I wanted to smuggle the rest of my KFC box meal into the theatre and she wouldn’t let me. She always wanted what was best for me…
Anyway, thirty minutes into the film and my hunger was only slightly grating on me. For the most part I was caught in the fantasy of the picture. Yeah, there were some scripting issues, but it was still enjoyable, and I wasn’t surprised to hear that it had debuted at number 3 in the box office, behind ‘Puss In Boots’ and ‘Paranormal Activity 3’.
2. Later that same night in the 24-hour pharmacy
When my wife of twenty-three years told me that she wanted a divorce and threw me out of our home, and I found myself in a weeping daze in the bright lights of the all-night pharmacy down the road, pleading with the staff to let me sleep in the vitamins aisle, I distinctly remember thinking: ‘blimey, the film wasn’t that bad.’
I remember thinking that, yes, the storytelling was pretty standard and formulaic, but the chemistry and sex appeal between Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia Weis and Justin Timberlake as Will Salas was probably enough to captivate a range of audiences. For my wife, however, it was evidently the straw the broke the camel’s back, which I thought had been holding so strong for over two decades. I see now how much of a fool I was. But I still think ‘In Time’ is okay.
3. The second time I saw it
After temporarily moving in with my parents just until I could get back on my feet, I decided to take them to see Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’, starring Cillian Murphy as Timekeeper Raymond Leon, for themselves. I don’t actually remember having many additional thoughts about the film on this second viewing, because I spent the entire one-hundred-and-nine minutes silently crying with my hands covering my face.
My father, however, shared my thoughts that, though there were a lot of clichés and pacing issues, the fundamental idea of the film was worth pursuing and it did a decent enough job of pursuing it. My mother said nothing. She was also distraught; she had loved Susan as if she were her own.
4. At the custody hearing
I’ll admit that this was less of me ‘thinking’ about how Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’ was a reasonable effort at a dystopian blockbuster, and more of me bellowing it thunderously across the courtroom while being restrained by three security guards.
I can’t fully explain what happened, except that Susan, my wife of twenty-three, long, happy years, was halfway through explaining to the court why I wasn’t a good role model for our son, Yendlesworth, when I exploded into a violent rant about how the way the film portrayed the contrast between people living on only a few hours a day and the elite class’ needless hoarding of millions of years was exceedingly poignant in this era of late capitalism. The court found in her favour.
5.
Last
night in the park
My parents were the next to throw me out after I, admittedly, stole £400 from their mattress Benidorm fund so that I could purchase twenty copies of Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’ on DVD.
Luckily, £400 turned out to be somewhat of an overbudget, and I had enough money to also buy a portable DVD player. I now watch the film regularly from the comfort of my favourite bench at my local park. I’ve watched Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film ‘In Time’ so many times now I’ve lost count. A couple of times I’ve jolted awake in the middle of the night and sworn I could see a clock in my forearm. Ticking down. Second by second. I know that this is a serious problem, but I don’t care; I need to watch this movie over and over until I can conjure from memory every frame, every sound, every slightest curve of Justin Timberlake’s muscular neck, because god help me it is the last thing tying me to both my marriage and my sense of reality. And besides, the film’s not that bad.
This reads like a Cracked article
ReplyDeleteThat's good, because I miss Cracked. I'll be writing about them soon.
Delete