In Time (2011)

Let us start with an outlandish premise: What would you do if you stopped aging at 25, and you were paid in seconds instead of cents? That’s the background of “In Time,” starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy.

In the not-so-distant future, humans are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. From that point on, they are dependent on earning increments of time to survive. Oh, and did I mention that when you run out of “time,” you die? That’s also important. Justin Timberlake works in a factory, earning just enough time to live day-to-day. His mother, played by “House” actress Olivia Wilde, is worse off than he is. One day, she runs out of time and dies. From that moment on, Timberlake vows to change the system somehow.

I think I watched this on the airplane, mostly out of sheer boredom. The number of plot holes in the film are astounding, and I cannot believe that a society like the one presented in this film could ever function properly. The dichotomy of this society uses time as a replacement for money, the only difference being that having no time will literally kill you. Rich people have millions of years at their disposal, while slum dwellers like Timberlake have 48 hours or so until their next paycheck.

Somehow, Timberlake stumbles onto a windfall of time and ends up in high society, where he flirts with Amanda Seyfried and makes enemies with the Timekeepers, led by Cillian Murphy. The movie slowly turns into a Bonny and Clyde-type film, full of futuristic bank robberies and action-packed chases. Neither side comes off as particularly savvy to the ways of this make-believe world; Timberlake’s character doesn’t seem to have any plans beyond the next heist, and Murphy’s law enforcement henchmen come off as entirely inept.

There are some interesting concepts in this film but, like most sci-fi films set in near-future scenarios, they are underdeveloped and ultimately sacrificed for that quick rush of adrenaline that audiences seem to adore. I’d recommend this movie to people who don’t like to think too hard when they’re watching science fiction flicks.

The Hunger Games (2012)

 

Fresh off the airplane, I decided to celebrate my return with a trip to the theater. My movie of choice? “The Hunger Games,” a film in which children attempt to kill each other for sport. The story follows Katniss Everdeen, a girl chosen to compete in the games alongside twenty-three other young warriors. Each of them grasps for victory, knowing only one person will walk out of the arena alive.

Gary Ross has directed some pretty well-known films. In particular, he wrote “Big” with Tom Hanks and directed “Pleasantville” with Tobey Maguire. Although “The Hunger Games” was the financially successful part-one of a young adult novel trilogy, Ross has stated that he won’t be returning to direct the sequel. Even though the movie “has grossed $310 million domestically and an additional $157 million overseas,” Ross says “As a writer and director, I simply don't have the time I need to write and prep the movie I would have wanted to make because of the fixed and tight production schedule.”

Still, he does a brilliant job with this film. Ross captures the desolation and utter helplessness that pervade the fictional country of Panem, a post-apocalyptic war-torn country residing within the borders of the former United States. Running at nearly two and a half hours, the first section of the film is largely exposition, setting the rules of the game and introducing the players. This section lays the groundwork for what happens in the arena. People who will play important roles and talents that will pop up later in deadly situations are subtly shown to the audience.

All of this build-up pays off once Katniss and her opponents are in the arena. The fast-paced nature of the game kept me riveted to the screen, eyes darting to and fro, desperately seeking more and more action. Ironically, a film that mocks the concept of making a spectacle of war and death ends up being a spectacle itself. If I have one complaint, it would be that Ross relies too heavily on handheld cameras, causing much of the film’s best action to become lost in shaky jump cuts. Several scenes would have benefited from stationary camera work.

“The Hunger Games” is a near-perfect adaption for those of us fortunate enough to have already read the books. For viewers trying to discover the reason for the hype, or those who are genuinely clueless about the original media, the movie should serve well enough as a young adult action film. Honestly, though, I’m surprised the movie received a PG-13 rating. I wouldn’t take my children to it, because that would mean I’d have to tell them I’m their real father ;)

The Fountain (2006)

 

Darren Aronofsky. Perhaps you’ve heard of him. He created some very emotional films in his career, among them last year’s Oscar-winning Black Swan with Natalie Portman. After watching that film, I had a nostalgia-ridden flashback to earlier years, watching Requiem For a Dream and feeling terribly depressed by it. For years, I’ve heard that Aronofsky’s 2006 sci-fi/romance The Fountain was a so-so film, and put it on the back-burner for that reason. Well, I finally got around to watching it.

The Fountain follows three stories, each containing a protagonist played by Hugh Jackman (famous in my circles as Wolverine of X-Men fame). In the framing story, Jackman is a neuroscientist named Tommy, desperately seeking to cure a malignant tumor growing in his wife’s brain. This story intermingles with the stories of a Spanish conquistador named Tomas, searching for the Fountain of Youth, and an astronaut named Tom, slowing moving through space toward a golden nebula.

Much of the film revolves around the protagonists attempting to “cure” death. The underlying theme of The Fountain seems to be “coming to terms with death.” In each scenario, Jackman interacts with a version of Rachel Weisz. She portrays the love interest for each protagonist and represents the theme of death in different stages. Weisz does a magnificent job of steeling herself through the five stages of grief, although Jackman’s characters do not fare as well.

It’s a meditation on death that focuses more on those left behind than those who have passed on. Whether it is accepting that someone cannot be saved, or choosing not to fall into depression, or moving on and refusing to dwell on the past, the protagonists each come to terms one way or another, for better or worse. What ties the storylines together is each protagonist’s fierce love for Weisz, and his journey to fight for a cure that seems to always be just out of reach.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the paths we choose in life, as I’ve chosen to leave Japan and return to America. I don’t want this to sound depressing, but I really cannot articulate it any better: we all have the freedom to make decisions and mold our lives, but there is only ever one ending, and that is when we die. We all end up in the same place eventually, no matter what, and The Fountain’s rumination on this concept has given me plenty of food for thought. I think each and every one of us will have to come to terms with our own mortality some day, and if cinema can help guide me along, I’m happy to accept a helping hand.