IN TIME bears some similarities to LOGAN'S RUN in its depiction of a youthful society who never outwardly age and who are consigned to oblivion at the age of 25. However, the narrative then takes on an extra twist and runs with it (literally, as it happens) in its depiction of time being treated as a currency; you can buy, sell, and steal it, and when it runs out (which you know thanks to a handy tracker on your wrist) you die. It's as simple as that.

I actually like the premise, which has the potential for lots and lots of suspense; it's like having a ticking bomb strapped to your wrist. What could go wrong, right? Well, the answer is most things. IN TIME is an insipid, soulless Hollywood blockbuster, happy to copy the look and style of recent films like JUMPER without ever bringing anything new to the table. Kiwi director Andrew Niccol once made the excellent GATTACA so it comes as a surprise he made a film so unoriginal and uninteresting.

One of the worst things about this film lies in the central casting of Justin Timberlake as the hero. He's wooden, never less than wooden, and merely cast due to his popularity with audiences. I hated his protagonist throughout, so that made the film as a whole hard to sit through. Amanda Seyfried is better, and Cillian Murphy is always a pleasure to watch on screen, but when you have such a vacuum of acting talent in the central role then your film's going to be flawed. It doesn't help that the family-friendly rating means that there's nothing contentious or powerful here, or that for a film with a chase-focused storyline there aren't really any good action or suspense scenes to enjoy.

In the future, science has stopped aging at 25. Everybody is allowed one more year. However there is the ability to transfer your time. Your life becomes currency and you work to earn time. In that way, society has divided into people who live day to day and people who are basically immortal. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives day to day in the ghetto. Rachel Salas (Olivia Wilde) is his mother. One day he rescues a rich Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) who is tired of life and leaves him 116 years of time.

This is a great sci-fi concept. It's awkward to try to keep track who are older and everybody's relationships. However I feel there's something missing. The concept wasn't exploited enough. Half the time it's trying to explain the world rather than showing you the world. And the 'ghetto' isn't as rough as it ought to be. When the clock ticks down to zero, I can't believe that people aren't going crazy robbing everybody that they can. The idea of an apocalyptic world isn't pushed far enough.

This movie is fine if you don't think too much. First of all, there is the fundamental premise that one can use time as currency. Who decided that at 25 years of age the denizens of the future, would die unless the begged, borrowed, or stole time. We are never given that explanation but all people have a sort of countdown clock on their forearms. Those who have accumulated time become hunted by those who wish to steal it. There is also a set of sectors where people have as much time as they want. Everyone stops aging at 25 and either dies or maintains that age (hence mothers may be 100 years old and look just like their 25 year old children). Also, a grasp of the wrist of another person can transfer time. Justin Timberlake is given a huge cache of time by a suicidal man and sets out to avenge the death of his mother, who has succumbed before she can get "reloaded." He takes a spoiled young woman with him and they go around blowing up the system. They are pursued by a sort of latter day Javert, who has dedicated his miserable life to being a timekeeper, arresting those poor souls who are just trying to live. Anyway, it's all pretty absurd, unless you look at it as a parody of our own grasping society and our social classes. Pretty far fetched, even if disbelief is suspended.