In Time

Transitioning from one category of entertainment to another can be a very difficult process for a performer, especially if said performer is already embedded in peoples’ minds as their original occupation. Justin Timberlake should have his own “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” teaching a master’s class on the subject, that is, at least the faction of music to films. With In Time, not only does Timberlake prove he can headline a feature film, but he can throw it on his back as well.

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake, Friends with Benefits) lives in what appears to be a not too distant dystopian future where everyone stops aging at 25 and a countdown clock is activated in their forearms with the life allotment of 1 year. Money has been replaced with time as people now work to add more of the precious commodity to their clocks as well as using it to pay for food and goods. Salas lives in one of the poorest “time zones” where he falls into a chance meeting with a very wealthy and tragic man determined to give away the 100 years he has left. Following a tragedy of his own, Salas decides he’s going to take down the corrupt system that keeps the poor dying and the rich immortal.

In his first film as the heavy, Timberlake has chosen wisely, but in an ironic way that he probably did not intend. In Time is not a great film, it may not even be a good film, the plot is full of holes, the script is incredibly lazy and the whole film simply rests on the laurels of its intriguing and imaginative premise. But like the MVP candidate on a last place sports team, Timberlake’s talent is exemplified with even more contrast than his previous roles, as he is the primal reason this sinking ship of a film remains afloat and entertaining throughout. Already proving that drama and comedy were in his wheelhouse, action was the last remaining asset missing from the repertoire in his young acting career. But could he overcome his innocent boy-band past and prove to be a tough guy protagonist the audience can actually get behind? Timberlake’s increasing maturity level and in some scenes a James Bondesque aura of confidence, answers that question with a definitive “yes!”

Unfortunately, Timberlake cannot tap into the cloaking power of a Denzel Washington to hide the Death Star sized holes in this film’s story. Perhaps the biggest mistake In Time’s script makes is setting it in this reality’s future. Science fiction relies heavily on the rules of its imaginary world, but when no explanation is given at all for how or why the world turned out the way it did, the story falls very flat and unrealistic even in its own setting. There is never any mention of how or why people stopped aging at 25 or even a clue as to how everyone is born with a clock in their arms. If In Time were set in a parallel universe or another planet, it could get away with omitting the explanation of elements like this because it can be categorized as alien to our way of life. But the most egregious and blatant example of aloofness in the story is that the future portrayed in this film does not even seem to be a distant one at all. Based on the technology of the time it would seem this film takes place no more than 50 years from the present, but in the same instance there are characters claiming to be more than 100 years old. For society to change this drastically, at least an inkling of an explanation needs to be alluded to at some point if the viewer is to ever be fully immersed in the story.

Another area where this script just didn’t give a damn is in the surrounding world. The film never lets the audience know exactly where in the United States the story is taking place and whether or not the rest of the planet is working on the same system of time currency. Since people can no longer get sick and are supremely cautious with their well-being, is there still a military? Do professional sports still exist with championship teams able to stay intact indefinitely? Does the president serve more than two terms? Is there even a president at all? Elements like these did not require much screen time, even a news story on a passing television or background characters discussing current events could have added a multitude of depth to the overall plot.

Sharing at least some of the workload with Timberlake is Cillian Murphy (The Dark Knight) as the righteous timekeeper Raymond Leon. Timekeepers are the new police, making sure that large amounts of time are not transferred across zones. Murphy’s character had a lot of promise, but the weak script prevented him from evolving past a low ceiling. Leon is not just the common tunnel-vision antagonist; he’s a champion for the system, whether it is right or wrong.

Amanda Seyfried (Red Riding Hood) is the Bonnie to Timberlake’s Clyde as Sylvia Weis, daughter to seemingly the richest man in the world. Seyfried is not only underwhelming in this role but she actually drags down the film as her character and Timberlake’s reiterate the same conversation ad nauseam. Olivia Wilde (Cowboys vs. Aliens) as Will’s mother Rachel Salas is almost a throw away character and far beneath her abilities as an actor, and Matt Bomer (White Collar) was very intriguing as the rich and suicidal Henry Hamilton but was also vastly underused.

The only other noteworthy performance outside of Timberlake and Murphy surprisingly comes from Alex Pettyfer (I Am Number Four) as Fortis, the leader of the Minutemen. Conjuring up his inner A Clockwork Orange, Pettyfer ups his game tremendously from his previous roles. Fortis is the leader of a small mafia style gang who steals time from people and businesses too weak to defend themselves. Dripping with contempt, Pettyfer is instantly unlikable and is a perfect yin to Timberlake’s yang.

The premise of a futuristic Robin Hood who steals time from the rich and gives it to the poor is nothing if not imaginative. However as De Niro says in A Bronx Tale, “The saddest thing in life is wasted talent.” And Andrew Niccol, director/writer of In Time, is certainly talented with stories under his belt like 1998’s The Truman Show and 2004’s The Terminal. Although in both those instances, the films were directed by Peter Weir and Steven Spielberg respectively. I’m sure Niccol had zero trouble selling a film to Hollywood executives that contained no characters over 25 years old and a countdown clock in just about every scene, but sometimes the person with the great idea is better off handing it to someone with great execution.



Story: 6.0
Acting: 7.0
Writing: 5.5
Captivation: 6.5
Replay Value: 6.5

Total = 6.3 out of 10

Footloose

Remakes. Some people love them, others bellow out George Lucas’ favorite adverb at even a rumor of one heading into production. Either way, they have been and always will be a very important part of the movie-making industry. At its core, a good story idea is usually time proof. And it’s a good idea to reintroduce that good idea to a brand new generation of viewers. However, if that good idea was to be branded a “classic,” then remaking that good idea could turn into a very bad idea. Speaking of bad ideas, even they get remade. And sometimes that’s a good idea too, that is if that original bad idea somehow morphs into a good idea over time while marinating in nostalgia and pop-culture references.

Here’s a good idea, how about I just review the new Footloose movie.

When reviewing a film it’s best to let it stand on its own merit, without holding it up to past films of its genre. But with remakes, that becomes nearly impossible. The whole reason they get remade in the first place is to try and tap into the success of the originals by dusting off and updating previously lucrative scripts. But why in the name of The Solid Gold Dancers would anyone remake Footloose? Sure it’s a classic, but it’s a classic for all the wrong reasons – a ludicrous story, bad acting from now very respected actors, an unforgettable soundtrack and some iconic scenes that push an easy 10.5 on the Velveeta scale. Actually with that being said, perhaps the question should be, how can you not remake Footloose? Attempting to remake a true classic like Arthur or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is quite dangerous, loyal fanbases are extremely sensitive. Select the wrong actor, skew the story too much or fail to revive the intangible aura from the original and it’s an instant disaster ready to mar the careers of all involved. But even a halfway competent crew, writers, and director could improve upon the film responsible for the two degrees of separation between Kevin Bacon and everyone who’s ever been on Sex and the City, couldn’t they?

It’s obvious Director Craig Brewer (Hustle & Flow) was a big fan of not only the original film but its entire era as well. Brewer captures a specific quality with his new Footloose that’s becoming more and more scarce in films ever since the 1980s. It’s a feeling that most people don’t even know was missed until experiencing it once again. Footloose is not a film, it’s a movie. Somewhere along the way Hollywood started only producing either great films or mediocre to sub-par movies. The film industry seems to be mimicking our polarizing economy, fading out the middle class. What happened to the movie’s movie? You just go to the theater and enjoy yourself, not having to analyze everything so seriously, the story is coherent, the characters are enjoyable, and the writing is solid enough with some good laughs thrown in. Movies like Short Circuit, Dirty Dancing and Can’t Buy Me Love, are not great films, but they are great movies. With Footloose though, the laughable plot has always kept the original film on the awesomely-bad shelf. And in 2011, a story about a town in the United States where dancing is against the law would be viewed as infinitely more ridiculous. But is it really? Is it more ridiculous than not being able to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket? Because that’s illegal in Alabama. Is it more ridiculous than declaring that dogs are not allowed to bark after 6pm? That’s on the books in Arkansas. And to propel Footloose into the “based on a true story” faction, in Delaware alcohol may not be served in nightclubs if dancing is occurring on the premises at the same time. Upon entering the screening of this film I too had the same concerns about the believability of a town in the United States in 2011 where dancing is illegal. Then I was told I would be arrested if caught with my cell phone out during the screening.

For good or bad, part of the original Footloose’s memory burn is the performance of a very young Kevin Bacon. In this new version, Kenny Wormald, a dancer since the age of 6, possesses that same raw charisma. In his first big-time acting role, Wormald’s inexperience does come through, but it’s obvious there’s a very talented actor underneath. Though in this reprised role as Ren MacCormack, his novice status works in his favor, resembling the fresh-faced and inexperienced Bacon.

Another dancer turned actor, Julianne Hough proves she was hired for more than just her looks and footwork. Hough and Wormald have pretty good chemistry on screen and it doesn’t hurt that they are both 10 times more talented in the dancing category than their original film counterparts.

But the habitual scene-stealer in this movie has to be Miles Teller (Rabbit Hole) as Ren’s rhythmically challenged friend Willard. Reprising and actually elevating the role from the late Chris Penn, Teller exudes instant likeability, delivering comedic lines with great timing and exhibiting the most polished performance amongst the younger members of the cast.

As for Dennis Quaid (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra) in the role of Rev. Moore, he’s in a no-win situation. There are few who can go toe to toe with John Lithgow (Dexter, Footloose - 1984) especially when he’s the antagonist. But Quaid is certainly no lightweight himself, and if anything he actually brings more heart to the preacher character, possibly making his stance on the issues in the story more relatable to the audience.

The writing in the new Footloose may be mediocre at best, and the story certainly bangs the same drum for the entire movie, but those factors are secondary to the overall euphoric and nostalgic tone produced so accurately from an increasingly revered time period in film making. The dance scenes are unsurprisingly a stratosphere level more sophisticated than in the original and the great soundtrack is still in place, with only slight modifications. Also, it’s nice to see a remake that is actually a remake in the literal sense of the word. Footloose still follows the same exact storyline, has all of the most memorable scenes (yes even the warehouse dance solo) and Brewer integrates satisfying nods to some of the more cheese laced moments from the 1984 film without having to resort to obvious spoofing or parody.

As far as remakes go, 2011’s Footloose is one that actually builds upon the original source material, which may surprisingly be even more poignant today than it was 25 years ago. However, its biggest achievement is not the remaking of a story as much as it is the remaking of a style.

Story: 7.0
Acting: 7.0
Writing: 6.5
Captivation: 7.5
Replay Value: 7.5

Total = 7.1 out of 10