The film actually has a powerful core that explores the nature of social economy and currency. It could have been more shocking and profound, but it is a pity that the director just made an ordinary mandarin duck bank robber commercial film.
Use life time to replace currency, use robbery time to replace traditional bank robbery, plus a pair of handsome men and women desperate male and female robbers and a cold police detective. This packaging is very creative, which not only attracts the audience, but also enables in-depth discussion. The influence and control of capital and currency on human society. But you seriously made an ordinary Robin Hood-style bank robber movie, which is tantamount to wasting this excellent idea.
In today's human society, the currency created by human beings is basically omnipotent and has become the driving force and source of human progress. Most people are short of money, eager for money, and exchange their lives for money. All human beings have become slaves to those pieces of paper or numbers. The quantity of currency has become the only measure of a person’s ability. Human society is still a jungle. The rich, like the barbaric primitives of the past, use powerful money to plunder other people’s lives and meager living expenses. The rich are still The Tyrannosaurus rex at the top of the food chain 60,000 years ago, the so-called civilized norms and laws only protect these Tyrannosaurus rex more thoughtfully, making the people at the bottom more obedient when they are exploited.
It would be very difficult to break this structure. The film successfully raised this question with popular stories, which also aroused the attention and interest of the audience. However, only relying on a few Robin Hood and male and female robbers who robbed the bank obviously did not solve the problem. The film raised the problem, and then quickly returned to the story of the ordinary desperate robber, which became the film's biggest regret.
View more about In Time reviews
