thoughts on In Time

So, I go for months seeing very few movies, and then I see two in two days. That's how it goes, I guess. On Saturday, the day before I left for Christmas break, I went to see In Time at the discount theater. I've had a few days to think about this, so I'm going to give you my verdict right off the bat: Interesting idea for a movie, good actors. However, I think that a better movie could have been made with a similar idea and the same actors. With that in mind, here goes:

Justin Timberlake's character, Will, tells us in voiceover as the movie begins that humans are now genetically engineered to stop aging when they turn twenty-five; at that point, they have one year to live, unless they can get more time. Time functions as currency; for example, a small purchase, like a cup of coffee, might cost four minutes, while a larger purchase, like a car, might cost something like sixty years. At your job, you get paid in time, rather than in money. I'm going to get a few of my nitpicks out of the way right off the bat:

1) I would have liked more of an explanation for the whole "we stop aging at twenty-five" thing. So...you have, like, bionic organs that never wear down? Could you still die from a disease, or have all of those been cured? One character "drinks himself to death"...doesn't this mean that you can still die if you abuse your body, and that this could theoretically also happen slowly over time? I mean, some characters are living to be well over a hundred years old...is there really any way to avoid the daily wear and tear on your body that happens through basic every day activities, let alone through eating unhealthily, not exercising, smoking, and other relatively common unhealthy behaviors? If they would have explained that people do sporadically have to go to the doctor for some sort of rejuventaing treatment, or-- okay, I'm going to stop trying to make sense of something that doesn't actually make sense. Given the lack of time devoted to the explanation in the film, I don't think we're really supposed to be asking these types of questions...but they would be interesting ones to explore, don't you think?

2) Everyone's personal clock displaying how much time they have left to live is displayed on their forearm. Further, it is very easy to transfer time from one person to another; you basically just have to take their hand and sort of twist, with the person giving their time's hand on top. This causes the following problems for the movie's characters: Having your clock displayed on your arm is basically the equivalent of not only walking around with *all of the money you have* on you at all times, but being forced to carry around a sign displaying how much money you are carrying. This, combined with the fact that time can be transferred from person to person so easily, means that everyone lives in constant fear of being robbed. For poor people living in the ghetto (like Will), this means that it is fairly useless to have more time than what you absolutely need to live from day to day; if you had more, it would just be stolen from you, anyway. If you are rich, you have to walk around with guards all the time.

This creates a great deal of the movie's drama, so from a pure storytelling standpoint, I can understand why things work this way. I can also understand why, from a practical standpoint, it would need to be fairly easy to transfer time from one person to another; with people running out of time constantly, you need to be able to give someone your time easily in order to save their life. What I don't understand is, given that this way of life has been going on for at least four or five generations, judging by the age of some of the characters, why they haven't come up with a better system for the storing and transfer of time. We have a better system for storing and transferring money right this second. However, this aspect of the plot is part of what I would identify as one of the movie's main arguments, which is:

Using actual seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. of your life as currency is ridiculous. As the movie points out, there is more than enough time to go around; there is no reason why, for example, every single person couldn't be given seventy-five or 100 years to live at birth, have *money* be currency just like it is now, and have everyone know that when your time's up, your time's up. A significant portion of movie involves Will and Amanda Seyfried's character, Sylvia, stealing time and distributing it to whoever happens to be around, thoroughly messing up the economy. There's obviously some sort of argument about distribution of wealth going on here, too, but that's a whole other thing that I don't really care to get into.

The movie's other main argument, as I undersand it, is:

The system in place in this movie basically ruins everyone's quality of life. Poor people's days entirely consist of figuring out how to earn/steal/borrow more time. Rich people, on the other hand, never do anything risky. As we learn, though people supposedly can't die of natural causes other than their clocks simply running out (though, as mentioned before, certain plot points seem to contradict that), they can, just like we can today, die in accidents. As a result, rich people don't do anything even remotely risky; when Will acquires a great deal of time/money and goes to buy a car, the salesman tells him that he can have it delivered. "Delivered?" Will asks in confusion. "To wherever you plan to have it displayed," the salesman explains. Rich people don't drive; you could die that way. Sylvia has lived her whole life with the ocean right in her backyard but has never, until she meets Will, swam in it; it's too dangerous.

To me, this is the most interesting idea the movie brings up: in today's world, we all know that we are going to die at some point, yet we willingly engage in a number of activities that we know could potentially kill us. We might doubt the likelihood of dying while participating in these activities, and we certainly hope that we won't; however, we know it is a possibility, and we still drive cars, swim, and do other far more dangerous things. Would knowing that you could live forever *unless* something unforeseen happened make you less likely to take even the most basic of risks? Similarly, would you put off doing certain things literally forever if you knew that you would probably always have the chance, and always be physically well enough to do them? And if you, like the rich people in this movie, rarely (if ever)experienced the death of someone you knew, would you have an almost paralyzing fear of death? These are issues that I don't think about every day, and I like that the movie brought them up.

However, in the end, the movie doesn't have enough time (heh) to explore all of the legitimately interesting issues it raises, nor does it have time to fill the plot holes that are present. Add to that the issues with distribution of wealth/the differences in the ways that rich and poor spend and guard their money/the difficulty of moving between social classes/the social problems that are created by poverty that I have barely even scratched the surface on in this review, but that are very present throughout the movie, I think that I would definitely say that the movie is trying to do too much. Add to *that* the fact that the movie eventually devolves into a fairly standard chase movie and that I actually wound up getting a little bit bored watching a movie with endless possibilities, I can't say that this was an awesome movie. It was, however, interesting. Grab a friend, see it, and have a lively conversation afterwards.

thoughts on Young Adult/other randomness

1)I've thought to myself more than once this past semester, "Why are TV and movies so crappy these days? I used to really enjoy TV and movies." I think the issue is actually largely with me. I've been really busy this semster, and, thus, much more impatient and critical, at least when it comes to entertainment. If I'm going to go to the movies, it has to be something I REALLY want to see. If I'm going to watch a TV show, then every episode had better be, at the very least, pretty good. The end result of this is that I've been to the movies only four times this semester, counting today, and that I've stopped watching both Glee and The Office. For the most part, I think this is a Good Thing, because though I had, before today, seen only three fall movies (50/50, Footloose, and The Muppets), I thoroughly enjoyed all of them. Less quantity, more quality, is what it comes down to.

2)Anyway, whether the issue is actually with me or not, the previews featured at today's showing of Young Adult indicated to me that movies are about to get awesome again. Coming to us in the (relatively) near future are This Means War, a spy vs. spy movie featuring Reese Witherspoon that looks Just Awesome; American Reunion, a sequel to the American Pie movies (I know!!!! They made a sequel!!! Featuring what looks like the WHOLE original cast!!! I will gladly admit that the American Pie movies got progressively worse as they went along, but...if you can't tell from the number of exclamation points, I'm excited about this), and Rock of Ages. Now, I don't know much about Rock of Ages, but apparently it was a Broadway musical, and from the looks of the preview, the concept is that a bunch of actors that I kind of like sing all of my favorite songs from the 80s. In other words, other than Hunger Games, it may very well be the coolest thing I see in 2012. I'm serious.

3)Okay, so Young Adult. In a nutshell, this is a movie where Charlize Theron's character, Mavis, does a bunch of things that made me mentally chastise her multiple times during the movie: "You're being so inappropriate!," and, "You shouldn't drive! You're drunk! You got a cab that other time! What the heck?!," and, "Stop drinking so much! Just leave like he told you to!," and, at one point, simply, "Stop it." It's much like when Friday Night Lights was still on and I used to sit there the whole time yelling, "Stop it, Tim!," or just, "Tim Riggins!" Both Mavis and Tim are heavy drinkers, so there you go.

Anyway, the actual plot of Young Adult is that a woman who was a big deal in high school, and who thinks she's better than everyone still living in her hometown (she moved away to Minneapolis), decides to go back home to try to win back her high school boyfriend, who is married and whose wife just had a baby. This is a bad idea in the first place, but while there she keeps getting drunk and doing increasingly inappropriate stuff. She also makes friends with a guy she ignored in high school, Matt; the parts where the two of them hang out are the most enjoyable parts of the movie. The rest of the movie is fairly uncomfortable to watch, but I'll still say that I enjoyed it as a whole. Like, at first I wasn't really buying Charlize Theron as Mavis; she's a little bit too pretty to play a woman who was once the prettiest girl in a small-town high school. And she looked just wrong schlumping around in a Hello Kitty t-shirt and sweats. I started to like her more in the role as the movie went on, but I still think it would have worked better for the part if Mavis were played by someone who was only reasonably attractive but thought she was way better-looking than she actually was.

Also...I like Diablo Cody, who wrote this movie. Juno is one of my favorite movies. However, the more Diablo Cody works I see/read, the more I realize that all of her characters kind of sound the same. On the one hand, I guess that's good because it means she has a distinctive style. On the other hand, it doesn't really make sense, given how different the characters she writes actually are. The weird thing about this movie is that everything that Diablo Cody has written up until this point has suggested to me that she has a very positive view of humanity. This is one of the things I like about her, actually: that most of her characters react to the events in their lives in a much nicer/cooler way than what I would expect, given my own experiences. This movie is darker, though the thing here is that most of the people in this movie react to *Mavis* in a much nicer/cooler way than what you would expect. The sad thing is that many of them do this because they either feel sorry for her or don't care much about her one way or the other. So, yeah. Dark. I kind of walked away with the impression that we weren't really supposed to like either Mavis *or* the people from her hometown, which seemed weird, for a Diablo Cody movie. Hmm.

A random thing that occurred to me as I was watching this movie: my parents no longer live in the house I lived in when I was in high school, so I have no idea whether or not it's normal for parents to keep their child's room *exactly like she left it when she graduated and moved out*, as Mavis's parents do. It seems kind of creepy and excessive; like, obviously, I can see keeping *a bedroom* for your child, and leaving a couple of things on the wall that she would like (my parents do this for me, even in their new house), but you would think that they might need to also use that room for other things. That said, it made me giggle when Mavis dug through her old container of scrunchies, because-- hee. I had so many scrunchies.

Another random thing that occurred to me as I was watching this movie: before Mavis leaves Minneapolis, she complains to a friend (another former Mercury, Minnesota resident now living in the city) about how horrible their hometown is, leading me to believe that she is from some total backwoods hole. Then she gets to the hotel she's staying at and I'm genuinely confused, all, "Wait...is she stopping somewhere on the way to her hometown? Because this place doesn't seem that bad. Or small. They have a Chili's." The longer she is in Mercury, the more of these confused thoughts I have: "But there's a Thai restaurant! How small can this place be if they have a Thai restaurant?" And her ex-boyfriend, Buddy, asks her to meet her at a sports bar that she thinks is totally lame, and I'm all, "What? It looks like Buffalo Wild Wings. I wouldn't go there every day, but it's fun now and then." Also, her ex-boyfriend invites her to come see his wife's band play, explaining that the band members are a bunch of moms who enjoy playing together. "They're bad, huh?" Mavis asks conspiratorially. Buddy kind of just shrugs, but when we actually see them play, I think to myself, "Aw, they're not bad at all! They're a good little cover band! And they look like they're having so much fun!" I guess what this comes down to is that 1) I've lived in places a heck of a lot smaller than Mercury, Minnesota, so chill out, Mavis, and 2) I'm less of a jerk than she is.

Final random thought: at one point, Mavis comments that she is depressed, and Matt suggests that she go out and get some exercise or something. Me: "Oh, that probably would help a lot! It's weird that she never works out!"

So...yeah. I both enjoyed it and found in uncomfortable. I'd recommend it overall, though.

And yet another episode of How I Met Your Mother that made me go "Whaaaat?"

I was really enjoying this episode until the last, oh, five seconds. I like that Marshall and Lily might move out of the city. The Ted/Barney having a baby storyline was kind of silly, but...you know...that kind of thing happens. If you are single, old, and want to have children, stuff like that crosses your mind from time to time. I liked that the storyline resolved itself quickly without anyone screaming at each other and being mean (yes, I'm thinking of Will and Grace's "let's have a baby together" storyline). I liked James telling Ted it's worth it to wait. But...Robin's pregnant? Why? I don't know if I like this one bit.

thoughts on How I Met Your Mother: "Tick Tick Tick"

Hmm. Hmm, I say. I felt bad for Barney, but I'm not sure how I feel about this for the long-term. I can see why Robin decided to stay with Kevin. In Barney's case, I understand wanting to be with someone you feel comfortable with and who is "just as messed up as [you are]," but I think ideally you want to be with someone who you're the best version of yourself with. Right? And I feel like Barney displaying feelings for Robin again kind of came out of nowhere; like, it was clear at the beginning of the season that *she* was into *him* again, but we didn't really get much of an impression that he was even really thinking of her like that anymore. I don't know. Whatever they decide to do with the whole Barney/Robin thing, I just hope they don't drag it out too long. And I hope they give Ted a storyline again sometime soon. Also, thanks to this episode I am now thinking about how I want nachos for dinner tomorrow night.

thoughts on How I Met Your Mother: "Disaster Averted"

So, I don't have strong feelings one way or another about whether Barney and Robin get back together. As I've mentioned before, I think they zipped through their relationship too quickly the first time around after so much build-up, so I could get behind them trying it again, though I'm not actively rooting for it to happen. That said, I gasped out loud when they kissed at the end of this episode. Good job, Show.

One thing I *have* been actively rooting for is for Barney to get to stop wearing that stupid duckie tie. So glad that's over with.

You know what's wrong with this season? Ted has no storyline. He usually is either in a relationship, or getting over a relationship, or going through something in his career. This season, nothing. And he seems to be the butt of a lot of jokes. This all needs to change.

That's all.

thoughts on How I Met Your Mother: "Noretta"

Well. I pretty much did not enjoy that one little bit, as imagining your romantic partner as one of your parents is gross, not funny. I did like that Barney didn't let it be a dealbreaker, though, because if he and Nora broke up because of something stupid like that, that would be...well, stupid. I like Kevin, too.

thoughts on the Footloose remake

A few of us went to see the new Footloose movie this evening, and a good time was had by all. It was a fun movie; there were literally four dance scenes that had me grinning from ear to ear (the scene where they dance in front of the burger shop or whatever it is, which is much more of a production in the remake than in the original; the scene at the country dance bar, which is also more of a production; the Willard "Let's Hear it for the Boy" scene, which is mostly the same; and the scene at the dance at the end). Thoughts like, "That looks like a lot of fun," and, "They look like they're having fun," crossed my mind more than once, which says a lot, I think, for a dance movie. Anyway, I don't want to spend a tons of time comparing it to the original, but here are a few differences that I thought were interesting:

1) Unlike in the original, Ren's uncle is not even a little bit of a jerk; he's very supportive, always has his back, and even goes so far as to stand up to Reverend Moore on his behalf. It's pretty awesome.

2) Dennis Quaid's Reverend Moore is angrier than John Lithgow's was. Like, John Lithgow just came across as genuinely concerned for the kids of Bomont (sp?); Dennis Quaid comes across as kind of controlling. This movie, moreso than the previous version, made it clear that both Reverend Moore and Ariel are reacting to their son's/brother's death in really extreme, reactionary ways. With that in mind...

3)...in the original, Ariel came across as rebellious and tough. In this movie, at one point I actually thought to myself, "I think something might be wrong with her." The weird thing is that this moment happened during a scene that was also in the original, the scene where Ariel stands in front of an oncoming train. In the original, it just seemed like, "There's crazy Ariel doing more crazy stuff." I never remember worrying that she was in any real danger, or actually had any intention of dying. In this movie, she really seemed like she might have a death wish. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. Like, if this makes sense, in the original, even when she was doing potentially dangerous stuff, it seemed 1) like basic normal teenage rebellion and 2) like she could take care of herself, so there was no reason to worry about it. Here, I felt like we should be worried for her. For much of the movie, I kind of missed tough Ariel from the original, but now that I think about it more, I think I liked Julianne Hough's performance. She came across more as someone putting on an act rather than someone who was genuinely tough, which I think was right given her character's history.

4) I've heard some critics say that Kenny Wormald, who played Ren, didn't have Kevin Bacon' charisma. I've gotta say, I liked him a lot. Very confident. Played Ren as having a lot of nerve. I also liked whoever played Willard (no, I don't feel like looking his name up).

5) The fight scenes seemed more violent in this movie. Like, you know that part where they go out of town to the country bar, and Willard gets in a fight with that guy who hits on Rusty? In this movie, Rusty HITS HIM WITH A BEER BOTTLE. Like, it shatters, and he crumples to the ground. Like, for a second there I was like, "OH MY GOD, IS HE DEAD?!" And when Chuck shows up at the dance with his friends and they get in a fight with Ren and Willard, I had this weird "SOMEONE IS GOING TO GET KILLED!" worry that I didn't get in the original.

6) What all of these comparisons seem to be coming down to is that the stakes felt higher here, somehow. Everything seemed like a bigger deal. Conversations felt more intense. Tensions were higher. You felt like something big could happen at any moment. Maybe that's why the dance numbers felt like so much fun-- it really did seem like a big deal for these characters to feel like celebrating. All of that is good, I think. Yeah. I liked it a lot.

Oh, and P.S.-- you know that part in the original where Ariel takes Ren to that place near the train tracks where people have written quotes and song lyrics and stuff, and proceeds to read him a horrible, horrible poem she wrote? She doesn't read him the horrible, horrible poem here. This is another Good Thing.