Inside Llewyn Davis

Maybe more than any other film that was considered for some Academy Award nominations, 2013's Inside Llewyn Davis landed with a thud when the nominations were actually released in February. It picked up just two nominations -- for Best Cinematography and Best Sound Mixing -- but won neither. Should it have picked up some other nominations? That's for others to decide. What isn't up for discussion is that awards season success aside, this is a good movie.

It's 1961 in New York City's Greenwich Village and Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is looking for work and more importantly, some money. A folk musician with a bit of a following, Llewyn released an album with a partner in recent years, but he's on his own now and struggling a bit to get by. His name has a reputation -- somewhat -- as a talented musician who's also a bit flighty. Mostly though, Llewyn wants to sing, to perform, to get his name out there and really to take his career to the next level. He's nearing rock bottom though, his money running out almost completely. It's the dead of winter and he's overextended all his relationships, his friendships, his business connections. He feels he's close, but he just needs that one break...if he can find it.

Another movie that proved difficult to write a one-paragraph plot synopsis. From the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, 'Inside' is a stylish, well-told, throwback-type story that follows about a week in the life of a struggling musician. It's easy to see why there was some outrage when it didn't pick up any prominent Oscar nominations. I'll get into some real analysis later, but the gist is this; it's a really good movie. Not quite a comedy, not a straight drama, it's just good.

The most obvious place to start is with directors/writers/producers Joel and Ethan Coen. There is a certain style in each and every one of their movies from Blood Simple to Fargo, True Grit to No Country for Old Men, O Brother, Where Art Thou to The Big Lebowski. The stylistic choice here is picking the location, 1960s New York City (with some out of state departures). From the look of the movie with the hairstyles, the wardrobe, the cars, the mindset, all these little things add up to one great puzzle. From beginning to end, you feel like you're in 1960s NYC. The visual is almost bland, washed out colors permeating almost every scene. As for the folk background, 'Inside' has an extreme love and appreciation for the folk music scene of the 1960s. It feels authentic down to the smallest detail, and that authenticity goes a long way. The story drifts at times, it's both dark and funny and dramatic, but it just feels real.

A young actor with a ton of potential, Oscar Isaac nails the lead part here as folk singer Llewyn Davis. He's had key supporting parts in Drive, The Bourne Legacy, 10 Years (where he also sang), and Robin Hood, but this is quite the breakout leading part. For starters, Llewyn is far from a likable character. He has moments where you feel sympathy for him, but mostly, his issues are self-made. We learn why he's on his own now and not working as a duo anymore. We learn how he's got to this spot, and most importantly, we see that desperation and frustration of an artist/musician who just wants his shot at the big time. Unlikable qualities aside, with a general lack of sympathy, I still found myself rooting for Llewyn....only to see him rip that away quickly with some jackass move. Like the story though, this has the distinct feel of an authentic character, a person with hopes and dreams, aspirations that just haven't been there so far. Likable? Nope. Interesting, fascinating to watch? Yes, you bet. Interesting to see where Isaac goes next, especially because many thought he should have picked up a Best Actor nomination for his part.

Those Cohens, they specialize in ensemble casts like nobody's business. I guess talented actors and actresses want to work with them for some reason. I especially liked Carey Mulligan as Jean, a fellow folk singer who has a checkered past with Llewyn including one major current issue. Justin Timberlake is excellent too as Jim, Jean's fiance, a singer who's carved a name out for himself already.  The pairing of John Goodman as existential-thinking jazz musician Roland Turner is a scene-stealer, Garrett Hedlund providing some 1960s beatnik background as beat poet Johnny Five, Llewyn carpooling to Chicago with the odd duo. F. Murray Abraham has a good part as a Chicago club owner who's got some pull with record labels, giving Llewyn an impromptu audition. Also look for Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett as the Gorfeins, a middle-aged married couple who love Llewyn and allow him to crash on their couch from time to time. Max Casella also has a fun part as Papi, a club owner who likes Llewyn and keeps offering him different gigs.

An interesting movie for a whole lot of different reasons, most of them positive. The only one I didn't like was a stylistic choice with a framing device at the beginning and end, but it's not a huge deal. In general, there's plenty of things that can/will draw you in. There's a handful of musical numbers performed -- Isaac especially impressing -- with a nice nod to Bob Dylan late if you're paying attention. But across the board, whether it's the music, the story, the style, the acting, it's just good stuff. Enjoy it, appreciate it.

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013): ***/****

Runner Runner

If you would have told me back in the late 1990s, that some 14 years later Justin Timberlake would be where he is right now..........yeah, I would have said you were nuts. The 'N Sync front guy?!? Really?!? But here we sit, Timberlake one of the biggest stars in entertainment in music, film, even on TV pairing with his buddy Jimmy Fallon. Good for him, the star doing quite the job of marketing himself. And then there's 2013 Runner Runner, setting him back in a bad way.

A graduate student at Princeton, Richie Furst (Timberlake) has fallen on some tough times. A former Wall Street broker, Richie lost his six-figure job and is now struggling to even pay his tuition. As a way of earning some money, he sends gamblers to an online gambling site, earning a commission, but as a last ditch effort, Richie gambles too at the site, losing his entire upcoming tuition payment. Running a study through a friend's software, Richie proves he was cheated. His solution? He travels to Costa Rica (where he got that money is never addressed) looking to confront the company's controversial owner, Ivan Block (Ben Affleck), who operates free of U.S. jurisdiction with his possibly corrupt business. When he somehow manages to finagle a meeting, Richie is stunned at the response he gets. Ivan offers him reimbursement and more, he wants Richie to work with him as a right-hand man. It seems too good to be true, huh?

From the explosion of Texas Hold 'Em's popularity to the "Video Poker" signs that pop up seemingly everywhere, that whole gambling thing sure seems to have taken off over the last 10-15 years. Right up there in the popularity department is the insane popularity and growth of online gambling, giving gamblers a chance to gamble from their couch. To say online gambling is worthy of a huge, all-reaching story isn't exactly spot-on, but it's certainly an interesting premise. This is not that movie. Released in the U.S. in October 2013, it bombed in theaters, raking in countless negative reviews, and let me tell you it is just not good. Director Brad Furman's flick is currently rocking a 9% at Rotten Tomatoes and is barely hovering over the 5.0 mark at IMDB. I'm surprised it is even that high.

The biggest issue here concerning the criticism is that there's not one high-arcing reason for why 'Runner' is so bad. Maybe that's the biggest reason in itself? It is dull, has no energy, seems borrowed from one like-minded movie after another and never creates its own identity. At 91 minutes, it is painfully slow, trying to do a whole lot but not achieving any of its goals (if you ask me) and limps to the finish line in a painfully contrived finale. This is a movie that's dead on arrival. The biggest thing I can say is this. There's no real reason to watch it. This is a movie that's just sorta.....there. I didn't hate it with a passion, didn't revel in its badness. It just sits there, and if you ask me, that's one of the worst things you can say about a movie.

As for that Timberlake fellow, he's got that potential, that thing that makes people stars. He's hilarious on his SNL hosting gigs, has shown he can handle supporting dramatic parts in movies like The Social Network, could do well in a rom-com like Friends With Benefits. What's missing? Dark, heavy dramatic parts that require him to be a tough guy. I don't know if Timberlake is cut out for that part, struggling here the same way he did in About Time. Is it his demeanor? His kinda slight physical stature? That not so deep voice? Maybe it's all of them, maybe it's none of them. In 'Runner,' his Richie character is the worst kind of lead, cocky but not likable. His voiceover narration has him talking in this raspy growl -- seemingly to "toughen" up the part -- but it feels forced and comes across as unintentionally funny, not high, exciting drama. Timberlake has a future in acting, no doubt about it, but I think it's more in the comedy vein. He's still looking for that great action/drama role.

Playing the more fun part, Affleck is probably the best thing going here. His Ivan is friendly, charming, disarming and conniving like a crazy person to save his own backside. Still, the script from Brian Koppelman and David Levien is too rushed, not spending enough time with the Block character. We never get a good read on him, especially when things take a turn for the worse for everyone involved. Gemma Arterton is wasted as the necessary pretty girl who likes the new guy but has a past with the established guy. It's a part that gives her nothing to do other than flirt and wear nice dresses. Another talented actor who has picked some odd roles, Anthony Mackie overacts like his life depends on it as Agent Shaver, the FBI agent investigating Block. Also look for John Heard as Richie's gambling addict father and Michael Esper and Oliver Cooper as Richie's two friends who also get involved with Block's company.

What a blah flick. When things are supposed to be speeding up toward the finale, 'Runner' limps to the finish. The scenes with the final twists and confrontations are awful, Mackie's supposedly competent FBI agent making one horrifically dumb decision after another. This is just a dumb, boring movie. Highly recommended! Kidding. Totally kidding.

Runner Runner (2013): */****

Trouble with the Curve

I really like baseball. I also really like just about any movie Clint Eastwood has ever done. So naturally I should like a movie that combines the two things, right? Right?!? Yeah, that's what I thought, but it didn't quite turn out that way. I had modest expectations going into 2012's Trouble with the Curve, but it was surprisingly bad.

A longtime scout for the Atlanta Braves, Gus Lobel (Eastwood) has made a career out of being able to analyze a baseball player's skills and tell if they'll be able to cut it in the Majors. His contract is about to expire, just a few months away, and though he's unaware of it, the Braves are trying to decide if they should re-up with him. With the first-year player's MLB Draft fast approaching, Gus has been tasked with scouting Bo Gentry (Joe Massingill), a power-hitting third baseman projected to be either first or second pick overall. The Braves have the No. 2 pick so Gentry could fall to them, but Gus has a serious issue. He's starting to lose his vision but refuses to get any help. His daughter, Mickey (Amy Adams), an associate aiming to be a partner at her law firm, takes a few days off to accompany her Dad and help him out if possible. Their relationship is to say the least strained though, and both are working through some past and current issues, the draft approaching ever faster.

I really thought this was a can't miss kind of film. No, not an all-time classic that would rejuvenate my love of movies, but a good, old-fashioned story about family and baseball and all that good stuff. So as I mentioned, modest expectations, nothing more. Even then, I came away extremely disappointed. Basically all the reviews made a clear distinction. The script from Randy Brown is schmaltzy, sappy, too darn sweet, and oh so darn heartwarming. Everyone admitted it, but it seemed to divide the reviews. Some people said all those things and liked it (I didn't see many "love" reviews) while others said all those things and came away disappointed with a dull, cheesy movie. I'll give two guesses, but you'll only need one. Which camp do you think I'm in? 

It doesn't take a genius to watch the trailer and figure out it's going to be all of those things I mentioned above (watch the trailer below at the end of the review). I figured it would use that as a jumping off point, a springboard to bigger, better and more. Yeah, about that.....nope, it just doesn't happen. A movie that runs 111 minutes plays like one big after school special. A torn apart family, wounds still fresh and unresolved, a chance to come together and get a shot at some redemption, it gets tedious by the second or third confrontation between Eastwood's Gus and Adams' Mickey (named after Mickey Mantle). Mickey wants to deal with their checkered past, Gus a single dad who worked a lot and tried his best but really pawned off his little girl on family. It takes too long to get anywhere, it's dull getting there and the resolution is more than just predictable. You can predict it now. Go ahead, try it.

As the plodding story moved along, I kept waiting for this movie to get better. If nothing else, the talent assembled would make it worthwhile, or so I thought. It didn't. Eastwood came out of acting retirement to star here, but he's playing that same gruff, growling old man he's done in Gran Torino and any number of other movies. It's not a bad performance, just a familiar one that isn't particularly interesting. Adams tries her best here to bring it all together, a woman who's spent much of her adult (and child) life trying to adjust and cope with what happened to her as a kid. Her chemistry is okay with Eastwood, but far too much time is devoted to her 'Will they? Won't they?' possible relationship with Justin Timberlake's dreamy young baseball scout, Johnny. So Mickey is trying to help (read = save) her Dad, but her Dad is the one that's helping her out too, everyone learning a lesson in the process? Gag me.

Also look for John Goodman as a higher-up Braves official and a close friend of Gus, Robert Patrick as the Braves general manager, Matthew Lillard as a younger scout who's embraced all the stats of scouting rather than the personal analysis of watching a player, and Ed Lauter, Chelcie Ross and Raymond Anthony Thomas as fellow crotchety baseball scouts.

More than anything, I had an issue as a baseball fan of a baseball movie that doesn't know the sport it's writing about. The Red Sox are going to send an inexperienced scout like Timberlake's Johnny to scout the possible No. 1 player in the draft? And Bo is a five-tool player? He's slow, chubby and is supposed to be the next Albert Pujols? Yeah, I'm not buying it, the character an unlikable caricature. Those are all issues but nothing that would ruin a movie. That comes in the finale, a ridiculously forced ending that would happen in no real world of professional sports with millions of dollars on the line. Big, broad characters -- for good and bad -- and a story that's going to get where it wants to get, making sense be damned. A huge disappointment.

Trouble With the Curve (2012): */****

Friends With Benefits

Hollywood, you sure are innovative, unique and always looking for something new, right? Haha, nah, just kidding. In January 2011, No Strings Attached was released, the story of two friends who hook up with....no strings attached. Six months later in July, 2011's Friends With Benefits hit theaters, the story of....friends with benefits. So yeah, we're talking basically the same movie.

Pursued by GQ Magazine to update their website, Dylan Harper (Justin Timberlake) visits New York City on an interview and is "handled" by executive recruiter Jamie Rellis (Mila Kunis). Dylan takes the job, leaving Los Angeles for the new job in NYC. He takes to the job immediately as a fast friendship starts with Jamie. Both 20-somethings are coming off bad breakups, and soon enough the conversation comes up. Why don't they just have sex? No dating, no relationship, no feelings, just sex. It seems simple enough, right? Can these two crazy kids pull off the craziest of no-dating, just sex schemes?

Is there a more unnecessary thing than typing up a plot synopsis for a movie 'Friends With Benefits'? If you have two functioning brain cells and have seen at least one other romantic comedy in your lifetime, I feel safe saying you can predict the ending of the movie. Go ahead.....try it. Playing on the notion that you know this movie before it even begins, director Will Gluck has some fun with the formula. A key ingredient of the two friends deciding to have sex sans relationship is that part of their agreement involves avoiding all the stereotypes of romantic comedies. They literally talk about avoiding all the cliches and stereotypes. It provides some fun moments, even if in the end, 'Benefits' basically throws out all those preconceptions and becomes the romantic comedy it's trying not to be. Go figure. Surprising, right?

So with all that said, I liked this movie. I liked it a lot. I think much of the enjoyment comes from the script. Yes, it's a non-romantic comedy that is just the opposite....a romantic comedy. But in getting to the point where you don't want to murder the characters, it's a lot of fun. The dialogue between Timberlake's Dylan (kinda a tool-ly name, huh?) and Kunis' Jamie feels real and smart without being too real, too smart and a tad bit condescending. It's cute without being ridiculously cute. The conversations about the sexing are funny without being filthy, and the script does a fine job creating little niches for these characters, especially Dylan. We learn plenty of little touches about him that are surprisingly funny -- his trouble with simple math, his talent for sneezing at a certain time, his love for Harry Potter (It's not gay!) -- and help 'Benefits' avoid being one big, cardboard cutout.

Now comparing 'Benefits' with 'Strings' is simple for me. I like Timberlake and Kunis. I like Natalie Portman and....yeah, Ashton Kutcher, not a fan. Your enjoyment (even a little bit) will come from how much you like or dislike these characters. I'll say again about Timberlake. When he was with NSync, I never thought I'd like the guy, but he continues to create a name for himself as a reliable, likable character. Kunis is, well, Kunis, gorgeous, pretty, attractive, and a good actress to boot. There is an easygoing chemistry between the two that carries the whole story and helps it rise above the painful and familiar trappings of a romantic comedy. If you like Timberlake and/or Kunis, you'll like this movie, simple as that.

The rest of the supporting cast ain't too shabby either. Patricia Clarkson has some fun as Jamie's quirky, goofy and kinda slutty Mom who's done her best to raise her daughter as a single mom. Richards Jenkins plays Dylan's dad suffering through the early stages of Alzheimer's with Jenna Elfman playing Dylan's brother in an interesting subplot about Dylan's past. Woody Harrelson is very funny in a less than subtle role as Tommy, Dylan's co-worker, the gay sports editor at GQ. Also look for quick appearances by Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Emma Stone and Andy Samberg. Professional snowboarder and Flying Tomato himself, Shaun White makes a funny two-scene appearance as himself.

As far as romantic comedies go, I liked this one a lot. No matter what it tries to do, 'Benefits' is just that; a romantic comedy. It does things the right way though. It's funny without pandering, and it has Mila Kunis in various stages of undress and skimpy outfits. That's never, ever a bad thing. For the ladies in the audience, Justin Timberlake is also nude his fair share of the time so if you'd like to see his butt, this is your movie.

Friends With Benefits (2011): ***/****

The Social Network

I saw the previews and all I could think was, "Really? A Facebook movie?" Of all the things, people and stories out there that deserve a feature film -- or would at least make an interesting movie -- why would something as dumb as a social networking site get a movie? Well, I was wrong. The story of how Facebook came to be is a twisting, always interesting story, told in 2010's The Social Network.

 An undergrad at Harvard in 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) wants nothing more than to be BIG, to accomplish something impressive with his life. After drawing the ire of the administration for creating a program that had students compare how "hot" other students were, Mark is approached by a Final Club and agrees to create a networking site so Harvard students can link up. Some 42 days later with financial backing from friend/roommate Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Mark goes live with his own site, a slightly tweaked version of the one he was asked to do. Word spreads and students start to join his own social networking site, the Facebook, until it becomes an Internet juggernaut. But success, fame and an ever-growing successful site threaten to make Mark's supposedly genuine intentions something much darker.

I'm slightly embarrassed to write what I'm about to write, but here goes. I joined Facebook in fall of 2004 as an undergrad at Indiana University, and in the 8 years since, it has seemingly changed, evolved and developed into an Internet monstrosity. It's weird to get so nostalgic about something that happened so recently. Ah, the good old days when you had to have a college/university e-mail address to even create a profile on Facebook. Now, anyone from your grandparents to your little cousins can be on the damn thing. Seeing a movie about that development -- relationship statuses, the Wall, tagging, pictures -- is certainly interesting.

More than that though, throwing aside that quasi-nostalgia value, this is just a good movie. The intrigue, betrayals and backstabbing that made Facebook what it is today provides quite a backdrop for the story. Armie Hammer plays a dual role, Tyler and Cameron Vinklevoss, the Harvard crew team twins, who with their friend, Divya (Max Minghella), present Mark with their idea for the networking site. So starts the process that turns Facebook into a multi-billion dollar idea. Without giving away any details or twists, the story is far more complicated than I ever thought/knew. It's fascinating to watch in a way I never thought crazy, addicting old Facebook ever could be.

The crux and heart of the movie is the relationship between Zuckerberg and Eduardo, both Eisenberg and Garfield delivering great performances. As presented here (and supposedly what he's like in real life), Zuckerberg is an individual who is easy to HATE. Condescending, passive aggressive, pretentious, a know-it-all, and in general, an a-hole, Zuckerberg is a despicable individual. Okay, that may be harsh, but I intensely disliked him. Through it all (well, mostly), Garfield's Eduardo sticks by him as their site grows even when Mark seems to be doing his best to piss him off and drive him away. Hate or love them, the performances are great. Also look for a scene-stealing Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, the eccentric Napster founder who works with Mark as Facebook grows. Rashida Jones has a good part as a lawyer involved in the cases that ensues while Rooney Mara makes a memorable appearance as Erica, Mark's girlfriend and then ex-girlfriend.

Director David Fincher has certainly been on a hot streak recently including this film, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. He was nominated for Best Director (losing to Tom Hooper for The King's Speech), as was the film but lost there too. His shooting style is present again, dark and shadowy. He's working with a script from Aaron Sorkin -- never a bad thing -- and the style and dialogue is quick and snappy. The story is told via two separate flashbacks so we see a plan come together and then from the flashbacks know it won't go smoothly. The music comes from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the score in incredibly subtle fashion backing the story up.

Not just that Facebook movie, this was a very good movie, one I wish I hadn't been so stubborn about. Now off to see if I have any new notifications!

The Social Network <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Bad Teacher

Being politically correct is a moving target. What offends some people will probably not offend others. That can make comedies bordering on being politically correct/incorrect very hit-or-miss. What's usually frowned upon? Well, that's a dumb lead-in....lots of things. But one you just don't seem to want to mess with is kids. Kids vs. kids is one thing, but adults making fun of kids? Ouch, and watch out. That's one of the things wrong with 2011's Bad Teacher.

Having taught for a year in middle school in suburban Chicago, Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) is bailing on the job and leaving teaching behind....until she gets dumped by her fiance. Coming back from summer break, Elizabeth heads back for another year of forming our nation's youth, or at least her equivalent. She doesn't care in the least, trying to come up with the $10,000 it would take to get breast implants and hook a new sugar daddy. As well, there's a new school teacher, Scott (Justin Timberlake), who she's got her eyes set on, but another teacher, far more chipper and happy, Amy (Lucy Punch), also has the hots for Scott.

I didn't go into this 2011 comedy with particularly high expectations but still managed to come away disappointed. I'm not easily offended so Elizabeth's complete disregard for......well, everything, didn't really bother me. She avoids helping co-workers as well as her students, showing her class a rotation of teaching movies (Stand and Deliver, School Ties, Dangerous Minds) rather than teaching anything. Then, she gets motivation in two ways, finding out that the teacher with the highest test average gets a bonus which she can apply to her implants. Yeah, not an interesting story. Diaz drilling her students with dodgeballs? A little offensive, but at least darkly funny too.

Re-reading that story description, I'd be okay with a story that wasn't involving or interesting if for nothing else it was funny. I mean truly funny. But from director Jake Kasdan, 'Teacher' forgot about the funny angle. It doesn't have to be laugh out loud hysterical every minute. It just has to have some jokes work some of the time, and unfortunately this isn't the case. Diaz is trying to go for the laughs, but the script and increasingly ridiculous story doesn't do her or her co-stars any favors. The story does get more ridiculous right to the very end, turning her into a possibly sympathetic(?) character while Punch's Amy Squirrel gets so stereotypically suspicious and evil it's hard to believe. I chuckled a couple times, but I don't remember any truly funny scenes that would make this memorable.

Starring in 'Teacher,' Diaz is the winner here. For one, she can do extremely dark humor and do it well. She plays it straight with her actions and offensive statements landing with a crash. Two, I don't know if it's her intention as a star/actress, but the whole 99-minute movie seems to scream 'Hey, everyone, I'm Cameron Diaz, and I still look great!' She looks great, so mission accomplished, Miss Diaz. Punch is annoying cliched, Timberlake truly awful in a horribly written part, and Jason Segel a wild card of sorts as Russell, the gym teacher who wants to go out with Elizabeth. He's not good and he's not bad, somewhere in between instead. The Office's Phyllis Smith is a bright spot as Miss Davies, a quiet, soft-spoken teacher who finds an unlikely friend in unfriendly Elizabeth, and the always solid John Michael Huggins has some fun as school principal fighting a losing battle.

Not much else to add. If you like Cameron Diaz as an actress or just think she's gorgeous, you'll no doubt get some enjoyment out of this one. Other than that? Give it a wide berth and steer clear.

Bad Teacher <---trailer (2011): * 1/2 /****

In Time

From a member of the Mickey Mouse Club on TV to the breakout star of a boy band, Justin Timberlake has certainly come a long way. One of the most successful musicians/artists around, he's also shown a knack for comedy with his hosting duties on Saturday Night Live. What about drama? I haven't seen The Social Network, but he takes another stab at the dramatic with 2011's In Time.

It is sometime in the near future, but things have drastically changed. Humans have been genetically engineered to stop aging at the age of 25. Once you hit that mark? You're given a year to work with, but time is funny in this futuristic society. Food, supplies, clothes, rent, all of it can be paid for with time, meaning many people are living from day-to-day, including Will Salas (Timberlake), a 28-year old man. Others aren't so lucky, running out of time (i.e. Life) and dropping dead in the street. Will meets a mysterious stranger one night, and wakes up the next morning with 100 years of time given to him. What to do? He doesn't sit back and waste the time, deciding to go on the offensive against the upper class and their "bought" time that has them living for years and years longer than expected. Trying to stop him is a veteran Timekeeper, Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), who knows the power Will possesses.

Science fiction dystopia allows for all sorts of unique, eccentric, and off-the-wall situations in films and literature. From writer and director Andrew Niccol, 'Time' is one of the most incredibly unique premises I've ever seen in a movie -- science fiction or not. What if time was useful as money? Want a cup of coffee? Pay 4 minutes off your life. A high-tech bar code is on your left forearm literally counting down the days, hours, minutes and seconds you have before you simply run out of time and die. Individuals can give time to each other, saving them and helping them live longer. What it comes down to though is making everything count. You work today so you can live tomorrow, your pay check coming in hours, not dollars. Want to travel if you're rich? Give months off your life. Want to gamble? How many years are you willing to spend if you lose?

This ultra-impressive and original premise opens the doors for all sorts of high tension sequences and set pieces. Because you can transfer time, we see several races to do so, the final seconds literally counting down. It's just two people sprinting toward each other, one wanting to live, the other desperately trying to get to them. Tension and adrenaline much? These sequences are aided by composer Craig Armstrong's score, part epic music, part electronica. A later scene at a high-stakes poker game has Timberlake's Salas betting his life quite literally as he goes all in on a call. Less than 10 seconds are winding down on his arm, his life depending on if his opponent was bluffing or not. Take an original premise and run with it, ratcheting up that tension until its almost unbearable. That premise is great to watch and unfold, but.....

That's all this movie is...a premise. The characters are almost uniformly dull. The story that develops is a dumbed-down Bonnie and Clyde without the violence. Salas kidnaps heiress Syliva Weis (Amanda Seyfried) and goes on the run across time zones from the rich area of New Greenwich to the poor, lower classes of Dayton (sure looks like Los Angeles). They never seem to be in any rush to get anything done. If they're causing such problems, wouldn't the powers that be send more than one Timekeeper after them? They become symbols of a resistance to the common people, a reason to fight back. Why should the rich dictate life? I just didn't buy it. There is a feel of a great starting point, a great place to jump off from, but that's it. Nothing more developed, characters doing incredibly stupid things, and no legitimate satisfaction in the end.

Playing the dramatic role, Timberlake shows he's not a natural actor. Any truly intense dramatic scenes just don't work. He is just not there yet as an actor. Cool anti-hero, man of few words? Yeah, he's more believable there. Potential, but he's still got some work to do. Seyfried's charcter, Sylvia, is awful, changing her mind with each passing wind. On a completely shallow note, she is stunningly gorgeous in the part. The other problem is that most of the last hour has Timberlake and Seyfried sprinting away from danger. Literally, that's it. That's all. They run holding hands, stop and catch a break, then run some more. Not surprisingly, Murphy as Timekeeper Leon is the best thing going here, an intimidating presence, a roguish Blade Runner sci-fi like cop hunting them down. Also look for Olivia Wilde as Will's mother (thanks to genetics looking like his sister), Johnny Galecki as Borel, Will's long-time friend, Matt Bomer in a scene-stealing part as Henry Hamilton, a man who's lived over 75 years past his 25th birthday who gives his time to Will, and Alex Pettyfer as Fortis, a Minuteman, a thuggish enforcer who leads a crew stealing people's time.

Because I very much enjoyed the unique writing and idea that sets the stage, I wanted to like this movie so much more but still came away disappointed. There was so much potential here to develop, but nothing ever comes of it. The last half hour is too familiar, too traditional, dropping the ball after the impressive first hour. I'll still recommend it, but what could have been a classic is only so-so in the end.

In Time <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****