TITLE: John Carter
STARRING: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Mark Strong, Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church
DIRECTOR: Andrew Stanton
STUDIO: Walt Disney Pictures
RATING: PG-13
RUN TIME: 132 minutes
RELEASE DATE: March 9, 2012

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

I don’t know how I was able to do it, but I was able to pull myself away from playing Mass Effect 3 to go and see John Carter. I had heard about it and was familiar with the source material, but I wasn’t exactly going crazy for it. After seeing it, I can say that while it has some big problems, it is still an entertaining adventure that feels like a throwback to past films.

Haunted by his time as a soldier in the Civil War, John Carter (Kitsch) spends his days searching for a cave of gold to make his fortune. While on the run from the army, Carter finds himself in a cave and is transported to Mars, or Barsoom, as the natives of Mars call it. With Mars torn by war between its great cities, Carter must aid the princess Dejah Thoris (Collins) in her struggle and find a way back home to Earth.

The best thing that John Carter has going for it is the world they have created. The design work of the airships, the cities, etc. is exquisite and maintains a retro futuristic look of what Edgar Rice Burroughs imagined that is translated beautifully on screen. The effects in creating the savage race known as the Tharks and the battle scenes are incredibly thrilling to watch.

When this movie hits its stride, it’s when it stops trying to over-explain its world to justify it and starts acting like a thrilling adventure. The beginning and the climax of the film maintain this tone and give the film the energy that it needs. The tone also benefits from the performance of the actors; when they just roll with the heroics and action instead of explaining every little part of the film’s world, the characters become more sympathetic and the audience can care about their fates more than before.

While the film has an old school adventure tone in parts of it; the bulk of it is overloaded with information and a little bad characterization that are counter productive to the film. The middle of film is bogged down with a lot of exposition that feels less like explaining all the complexities of the world, and the connections of the characters feels like it’s trying to justify its existence instead of having characters that are merely trying to live in this fantastic environment. Also, John Carter’s character has moments where he comes off as a bit unsympathetic; he is paired with a Thark named Sola who is one infraction away from being executed. So what does John Carter do? He breaks more rules and nearly dooms Sola to being executed. I get that he is supposed to be a soldier who is scarred by his experiences in the Civil War but there is a difference between that and a being a selfish jerk that doesn’t care what happens to anyone else — no matter how severe — as long as he gets what he wants.

These are some big problems, but the moments where John Carter embraces its old school adventure background is where it comes alive so strong that it elevates it above its flaws just enough to be an entertaining adventure on incredibly well realized world.

RATING: 6.5/10

Front page image and interior stills from collider.com.

TITLE: The Grey
STARRING: Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Nonso Anozie
DIRECTOR: Joe Carnahan
STUDIO: Open Road Films
RATING: R
RUN TIME: 117 min
RELEASED: January 27, 2012

 By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

I have decided to introduce a new term into my reviews that I’m sure has been used on other websites: “Cinematic blue balls.” This is when a movie builds to a moment and just when you think it’s about to happen, the movie ends. The Grey will no doubt cause this to happen to God knows how many moviegoers. That’s not to say this isn’t a good movie though. It is a film movie with several themes running through, dynamic locations and cinematography, skillful direction by Joe Carnahan, and excellent acting by the whole cast.

Ottway (Neeson) works for an oil company guarding a station from wolves and other animals that live in the harsh Alaska wilderness. On the way back home, their plane breaks apart and crashes. Ottway and six other men survive; now they must gather what supplies they can and stay alive while dealing with the elements and constant attacks by wolves.

This movie delivers in many ways. Carnahan has an uncanny eye for the wilderness and can make this frozen hell seem both deadly and beautiful at the same time. His scenes never feel like predictable Hollywood, and every wolf attack or force of nature comes out of nowhere and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

The plot is very basic; the plane crashes, there are survivors, and they must find a way to get home before they die. But the story of these characters and the themes that are woven into the it is what elevates this film. You get the standard stuff that comes with men trying to survive in the wilderness: humans being more like animals, trying to hold onto their humanity, etc. The strongest themes are the struggle of these men to find meaning in their life, to keep going on when death seems a certainty, and how this inhospitable land clarifies everything for them. These characters are described in the beginning as being outcasts at the end of the world; their journey to survive is more about them finding something worth living for. Neeson’s Ottway and ex-con Diaz (played by Frank Grillo) are the best examples of the themes in the film and they are fantastic in their individual roles.

As great as I think the majority of this The Grey is, there are one or two flaws that it has. The first being the use of the wolf pack as a stand-in for the how the survivors function; sometimes it is just implied and this helps ratchet up the tension in some scenes, but sometimes it is so overt that it the next scenes become very predictable.

Then we come to the ending [THIS MIGHT BE A SPOILER, SO STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW MORE]. I understand that there is more to this film than what has been advertised prominently. But when you get to the end and the scene that has brought the audience to the seats starts and it feels like a completely natural and logical end to the film, don’t cut to credits right before the action. Our journey has led us to this point, and it has been developed over the course of the film to be the natural ending. Cutting to credits at that big moment does more than hurt the movie, it really pisses the audience off.

This is a big flaw in the movie but I still believe that The Grey is a strong film filled with fantastic performances, a compelling story, beautiful cinematography, and expertly directed scenes.

RATING: 8/10

Images from rottentomatoes.com.
For more from Liam Neeson and Joe Carnahan, check out The A-Team.

TITLE: Red Tails
STARRING: Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr., Nate Parker, David Oyelowo, Tristan Wilds
DIRECTOR: Anthony Hemingway
STUDIO: Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox
RATING: PG-13
RUN TIME: 125 minutes
RELEASE DATE: January 20, 2012

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

George muthafuckin Lucas; I have never met a single icon who has gone from beloved by so many to being hated by the same people so fast. With his credibility beaten to a pulp, can he still help create a great movie? Red Tails has been a passion project of his for years, and he spent his own money to finance the film, so is the final result worth it?

Inspired by the true story of The Tuskegee Airmen, Red Tails follows a group of African American pilots who are stuck far away from the frontlines of World War II and are eager to prove themselves to a military that does not believe they have what it takes to be fighter pilots.

One of the few things that this movie has going for is the aerial combat scenes, which are spectacular. The effects are exquisite and the dogfighting scenes pull you into the film and kick the whole production up a notch. The performances are also strong for the most part and help elevate the screenplay past its obvious limitations; the most memorable being David Oyelowo’s rebellious pilot Lightning.

Too bad the rest of the film suffers from substantial problems. The screenplay by John Ridley and Aaron McGruder is filled with some very corny dialogue; the first few minutes of the film make it clear when bomber pilots recite the action in the most obvious and wooden way possible. The characters are distinctive enough to make them somewhat entertaining and distinctive, but most come off as walking clichés and never develop so much that the audience will genuinely care about what happens to most of them. The attempts to create conflict are present but lack any real substance.

The beginning may be corny, but it establishes the story and the film’s strengths well. The ending closes the film out effectively despite some wooden dialogue and acting, but the middle is bogged down by a poorly developed story; the romance subplot that was fun in the beginning dragged on for too long and the attempts at character conflict drag the whole thing down, making a two hour movie feel like four. The score by Terence Blanchard shifts between strong orchestral arrangements (that fits this type of film) and a bad ’80s soundtrack that fits horribly with the movie.

I get what the filmmakers were going for; they were trying to create a film that duplicated the war films in the ’40s where every line seems like it was ripped straight from a recruiting poster, and in that regard they succeeded in making a quality film. The film’s air combat scenes and the few scenes where characters shine keep the film entertaining; but the overall devotion to this style of film, the weak screenplay, and the dreadful score keep Red Tails from flying high.

RATING 4.5/10

Front page image and interior stills from collider.com.

TITLE: Haywire
STARRING: Gina Carano, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas
DIRECTOR: Steven Soderbergh
STUDIO: Relativity Media
RATING: R
RUN TIME: 93 min
RELEASE DATE: January 20, 2012

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

Steven Soderbergh is a director who I have always respected. Apart from his more commercial work, when he gets an idea for a movie or sees someone to build a movie around he follows it through to the end. The result is sometimes not the best film, but I admire his determination to follow through on his idea. The latest example is the film Haywire, a movie in which Soderbergh builds a spy film around MMA fighter Gina Carano.

Mallory Kane (Carano) is a former Marine and an independent contractor who is hired to handle work that intelligence agencies feel requires her skills. After a job in Barcelona, she is asked to partner up with another agent (Fassbender) for a routine assignment. Mallory discovers that she is being framed by her boss and ex-boyfriend (McGregor), so she goes on the run to clear her name.

Soderbergh has built the whole movie around Carano, and she delivers for the most part. She has charisma and does well with the material; she is not the best actress, but she shows some skill, carries the movie, and should improve over time if Haywire is a hit. The main draw is the action scenes and they deliver better than I expected; they are kinetic, brutal, and Carano shows exactly why Soderbergh would want to build an action movie around her skill.

The plot of the film is window dressing for the action scenes; but it gets the film moving forward, has a couple of nice character moments, and it doesn’t clog the movie up and overshadow the action sequences. To help sell the film, Soderbergh has assembled a superb supporting cast that helps give the film some weight.

The cast is both a benefit and a bit a hindrance. The story could have used some fleshing out here and there, but the way it is doesn’t fully utilize the amazing supporting cast that the film has.The movie was made for action scenes for Carano, which are great, but because other areas are lacking, the movie doesn’t become too noteworthy. Soderbergh stages some great action scenes, but one or two could have been great but became too stylized and take from the action.

Haywire may not stick with people for a very long time, but Carano and Soderbergh have still come up with a very entertaining action film and that it’s worth the ticket price.

RATING: 7.5/10

TITLE: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
STARRING: Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, John Hurt
DIRECTOR: Tomas Alfredson
STUDIO: StudioCanal, Working Title Films, Focus Features
RATING: R
RUN TIME: 127 minutes
RELEASE DATE: Jan. 6, 2012

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

The holiday movie season is over and I have survived, although dealing with a really crappy cold makes me miss all the holiday veneer that covered up the fact it was fucking freezing outside. But I am still going to be here reviewing movies and the first new movie of 2012 for me is Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

After a mission in Budapest goes wrong, the head of British Intelligence named Control (Hurt) and his right hand man George Smiley (Oldman) are forced to resign. A year later, Smiley is approached with a job; it is clear that there is a mole in the British Intelligence community and Smiley must work from the outside to find out who it is and stop them before he can do more damage.

The trailers have painted this film as a bit more thrilling than it actually is but it is still a good movie despite the false advertising. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is more of a character study of spies; with Oldman’s Smiley getting most of the attention. He is great to watch even in a role that requires him to be cold and calculating with the sense of a cauldron of emotions underneath the cool exterior. The scenes where he breaks out and shows more emotion are the most interesting and intense segments of the film. The cast is a well-oiled machine that fits into these roles perfectly and plays off each other brilliantly.

The plot is very simplistic, but the story of these characters and how their profession forces them to make huge sacrifices drives this movie forward as much as the mystery of the mole. Director Tomas Alfredson has a great handle on both the material and on the cast; the setting and environment fits the mood of the 1970s perfectly and sucks the audience into this life of espionage.

There are possibly two things that hold this movie back. The first could be subjective, but the sound editing on this film was terrible; it was difficult to understand what some of the characters were saying, and they were speaking English. To be fair, it could have been the speakers in the theater, but if it wasn’t, then that is a problem for this film.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’s biggest issue was its ability to confuse the audience at times. The plot is pretty rudimentary, but the sheer amount of detail that is thrown at the audience without slowing down to process it all can be daunting and risks throwing them off track. The audience can piece everything together by the end and the big scenes are carried by the cast’s performance, but the disconnect that can develop hinders it. That aside, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is still a very good movie filled with fantastic performances that is great way to take your mind off winter.

RATING: 8.5/10

TITLE: The Adventures of Tintin
STARRING: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig, Nick Frost, Simon Pegg
DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg
STUDIO: Paramount
RATING: PG
RUN TIME: 101 minutes
RELEASE DATE: December 21, 2011

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

Before this movie came, I was probably one of the few people if not the only person among my circle of friends who knew who Tintin was. I got introduced to the character with a series of cartoons that was on Nickelodeon — seriously, that network brought their A game in the ‘90s — and then I got into the original comics. But Tintin follows that grand tradition of being huge in Europe and not as popular in America, much like soccer or the metric system. Since the Tintin film by Steven Spielberg will be the first introduction to the character for a lot of people, will it bring more people into the franchise or drive them away?

Tintin (Bell), a young but intrepid journalist who writes articles based on his adventures, and his tiny dog, Snowy, find a model ship in an outdoor market. After bringing it home, Tintin is attacked by several people who seem to only want the model. With the bumbling Interpol team of Thompson & Thompson (Frost & Pegg) seemingly incapable of solving this mystery; Tintin must unravel the mystery of the model, how it relates to an old navy vessel — the Unicorn — that it is modeled on, and how it all relates to a drunken captain named Haddock (Serkis).

I’m going to review this as someone who has never seen Tintin and knows nothing about the character. But even from that standpoint, this is still a pretty great movie. Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson are enough to sell me on the movie, but throw in Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright of Hot Fuzz, and Joe Cornish of Attack the Block writing the screenplay and you have a combination that is bound to produce a fun movie. The story is a combination of three classic Tintin stories and they are blended seamlessly. There isn’t much character development, but the plot is a classic adventure story that will excite an audience of any age.

The decision to make the entire film with performance capture technology wasn’t just a choice; it was a necessity for this film. The action sequences in this film are incredible, with the showstopper being a single camera sequence that starts at a dam and crosses through an entire town. The animation captures everything that was great in Hergé’s (Tintin’s creator) original work, while still being able to look as realistic as possible.

The characters in this film are all entertaining to watch, especially Serkis as Haddock. The problem is with Tintin; the character has always been sort of a blank slate, a way into these incredible adventures filled with rich, interesting characters. It’s a good idea for the books and I applaud the filmmakers for sticking with it, but some of the interest in the film is taken away from the fact the Tintin is kind of empty for the bulk of the film and it hurts the first act. The plot is a fun-filled adventure, but is not the most deep.

These are very minor quibbles with a film that will leave many excited and on an adventure fueled high. As a fan of the series, I give it a ten out of ten. But from an objective standpoint, it’s not the highest score I’ve given but I cannot recommend this movie enough for this holiday season.

RATING: 8.5/10

Front page image and interior stills from collider.com.

TITLE: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
STARRING: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, Michael Nyqvist
DIRECTOR: Brad Bird
STUDIO: Paramount
RATING: PG-13
RUN TIME: 132 minutes
RELEASE DATE: Dec. 20th

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja 

This holiday movie season is going to kill me: a shame too, because I just got a new computer that I really wanted to put through its paces. But there are a lot movies coming out this season that are going to take up a pretty good chunk of my time. Some I have been dying to see (The Adventures of Tintin, yay!) and some that will probably be great but are big time Oscar bait (I’m looking at you, War Horse). One film that was not big on my list was Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I wasn’t going crazy for this movie, but I must admit I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

After a mission goes wrong, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is broken out of a Russian prison only to be framed for a bombing. With the IMF shut down, Hunt and his team must use whatever they have at their disposal to stop an imminent terrorist attack that could lead to World War III.

Director Brad Bird may be most well known for his animated films including The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, but he has shown he has the skills to work in the live action format. The action set pieces are thrilling to watch, make good use of their environment, and they never feel overblown which helps to build some tension. The scenes don’t feel thrown together, but are purposefully crafted to make every bit of action more intense and is even able to add fair bit of comedy in these scenes that works for this film.

The plot may not be the most original or the most complex, but it is enough to justify all the action scenes and is not an illogical or idiotic plot that is sometimes tacked onto an action movie. The film depends on the chemistry of the cast and this particular cast has it in spades. Say what you want about Cruise, he has the charisma to carry a movie, and Simon Pegg is fantastic comic relief. There is some minimal character development but it’s enough to make the characters more interesting and give them each their own arc over the course of the movie.

As I said earlier, the plot is pretty generic but it’s not unnecessarily complex or illogical and it does its job of driving the movie forward. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol wasn’t big on my radar but I definitely recommend it this holiday season.

RATING: 9/10

Front page image and interior still from collider.com.

TITLE: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
PLATFORM: 360, PS3, PC, Wii
DEVELOPER: Infinity Ward
PUBLISHER: Activision
ESRB: M
RELEASE DATE: November 8, 2011

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

Oh, Call of Duty, I remember when you started out and were just a challenger to the Medal of Honor games that were pretty popular at the time. Now, you are one of the largest video game franchises in history and will have gamers wait outside stores for hours in cold November nights to get a copy of your latest game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. With the creative shake up behind the scenes, how does the latest game hold up?

Modern Warfare 3 picks up right where the last one left off; Russia is still at war with America, Price and Soap are recovering in a safe house, and the hunt for the terrorist Makarov is about to begin. Makarov is making moves behind the scenes to cause even more destruction, and it is up to Price and Soap to take him down or the western world will suffer.

For me, the best part of the Modern Warfare franchise has always been the single player campaign, and the latest game continues this trend for the most part. The combat is the same as before but loses none of its intensity. The cinematic style, the incredible moments in combat that shake-up the way you play, the slightly unexpected twists in the story; everything that built the franchise is used in this game. I still enjoy how the game switches the protagonist you play as from time to time to make the events that happen to them that much more engaging. The narrative has stayed consistent throughout the series and comes to a very satisfying end.

The Spec-Ops portion has returned to the series as well. The layout is the same as before, with players tackling single player missions from a different angle at varying difficulty levels. The changes to this version include the ability to complete it solo and a Survival Mode where you face wave after wave of enemies designed for each level. While it may lack originality, this facet of the game is still good fun.

Multiplayer is still the thing that many players will judge this game on and Modern Warfare 3 sticks to its guns on this one. It’s pretty much the same as the last game, but with some new game styles to choose from and more customization options to create your own type of soldier. While it’s fun, there are no real significant changes. The first set of maps are not the best the series has to offer, and come up as lacking when compared to multiplayer like Battlefield 3.

The biggest criticism anyone can levy against this game is the lack of originality. Multiplayer and Spec-Ops are essentially the same as before, and even the single player campaign lacks that special something the other games had. It got so bad that I felt like anybody who watches a slasher movie. I knew what was going to happen when a certain character was going to open a door at the end of a level and the thrill of playing was diminished. The single player campaign is also shorter than it has been in previous games.

Overall, Modern Warfare 3 is still a game that is great fun to play, with enough extras to keep people occupied, but its lack of truly original gameplay and the fact that it seems to be relying on its pre-existing material could be a sign of things to come. With competition finding new ways to improve on what the Call of Duty series pioneered, the series better step up or be left behind.

RATING: 8/10

Front page image and screenshots from callofduty.com.

TITLE: Tower Heist
STARRING: Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Affleck, Alan Alda, Matthew Broderick
DIRECTOR: Brett Ratner
STUDIO: Imagine Entertainment, Relativity Media, Universal Pictures
RATING: PG-13
RUN TIME: 104 min
RELEASE DATE: November 4, 2011

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

Here’s a pretty obvious generation gap for you readers. When I say the name Eddie Murphy, what movies do you think of first?  Most people from the ’80s and early ’90s think of good movies like Coming to America and Beverly Hills Cop; everybody else would have probably said Shrek and way too many shitty family movies. I don’t know what exactly happened that caused him to change from Axel Foley to wearing a fat suit in every movie, but the old Eddie Murphy is back in the new film Tower Heist. However, the rest of the film doesn’t hold up as well.

Josh Kovacs (Stiller) is the building manager of a deluxe apartment building for the rich. Arthur Shaw (Alda), one of the richest men in the building, is revealed to be a running a Ponzi scheme and stealing the pension funds of the building’s staff. Kovacs decides to pull a heist to get back all the money that has been taken from them; to pull this off, he brings in the help of a thief (Murphy) he grew up with and a motley crew of the building staff to pull off the robbery.

Murphy is barely in the first half of the film, and for that it suffers. The rest of the cast is pretty generic stock characters with one dimension. In other words, the first half doesn’t offer much of anything in terms of entertainment. Although it does have the thematic tone of the working class being cheated out of everything by Wall Street thieves, it’s been done before and it’s uneven throughout the film, but it works pretty well when used properly.

When Murphy really shows up in the second half, that’s when the movie picks up. He has great energy that he is applying to the kind of character that made him famous in the past. The rest of the cast picks up the pace with him and Tower Heist gets a bit funnier and a bit more entertaining.

The heist at the end of the film is pretty fun, even though the logical buildup to it has some holes and the actual heist has some glaring problems with how it is accomplished. It feels like it was written more like an afterthought instead of something that was planned and developed while writing the movie, which is pretty sad considering they had four writers working on the script.

Tower Heist has a lot of problems and it’s not going to be a classic comedy or heist film, but it is an enjoyable diversion for the weekend.

RATING: 5.5/10

TITLE: In Time
STARRING: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser, Olivia Wilde
DIRECTOR: Andrew Niccol
STUDIO: 20^th Century Fox
RATING: PG-13
RUN TIME: 109 min
RELEASED: October 28, 2011

By Seth Miller
Staff Writer, Part-Time Ninja

God damn, I really want to see a future that is actually optimistic. I’m getting pretty sick of dystopian futures where everything is horrifically twisted yet somehow seems like it could in the smallest sense happen. But given the way things are going nowadays, I guess I should get used to more of these. At least the new film, In Time, has a pretty nifty idea driving the film, if not much else.

In the future, the aging gene has been deactivated in the human race so nobody ages past 25. Because a population that never ages would overrun the planet, time is the new currency; the rich can live for thousands of years sitting on a stockpile of time and the poor work to earn another day to live. Will Salas (Timberlake), a factory worker who is always short on time, saves a man with a century to live, who is tired of living. The man gives proceeds to give Salas his time, placing about 116 years on his clock. Hiding out in the richest part of the city, Will is hunted by a cop (Murphy) for the rich man’s murder, and starts to bring down the unjust system with the help of an heiress (Seyfried).

The idea of time being used as currency in a world where everybody is ageless is a pretty cool concept.  Seeing how different people’s lives are affected based on the number of years they have is interesting. There is some impressive world building on display, but that is really all the movie has going for it. The story is essentially sermonizing about societal injustice and class disparity, and while these are important things to comment on, it really hurts a film when the characters are nothing but empty vessels to comment on certain viewpoints and have nothing else to make the audience care about them.

The pacing of the film is also problematic. Most of the time, it is related to the life clocks, so it moves fast in the beginning and end when they are running out of time, and slows down when they have plenty of time. This may seem clever, but it means we get no time in the beginning to appreciate or sympathize with our main character or the story and we are bored by the time the middle starts. The last third of the movie picks up the pace and turns into a Robin Hood tale that makes the movie come to life a little bit.

Timberlake lacks the gravitas to come off as some sort of rebel who is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor to fight the system, but he is pretty good and is charming enough to carry the film. Seyfried is stuck with a pretty bad character to portray, and although she does alright in some parts, she doesn’t help to develop an already badly written character. The supporting cast is more interesting and Murphy’s role as a cop who specializes in tracking stolen time is the most intriguing part of the film; the guy almost steals the show from everybody, but that’s pretty easy as his character has been given an interesting backstory.

In Time has a creative premise with great world building, and the last third of the movie gets somewhat interesting, but this doesn’t help the film overcome the fact the bulk of it is a bit of a letdown and the characters aren’t much more than mouthpieces for the film’s philosophy.

RATING: 4/10

Images from rottentomatoes.com.