Regarding my procrastination, I often reflect on myself. Sometimes I think too much, and I want to find excuses for myself. For example, is procrastination necessarily bad? Since there is a certain amount of time to live, why can't you make yourself more fun and have to do things that seem meaningful? Are the so-called "wasting time" and "every second count" really beyond doubt? So, I became interested in the philosophical nature of time.
When it comes to this movie, first of all, its topic selection is great, the philosophical meaning of time itself can easily make the audience think while watching the movie, and I always think that as long as the movie can make the audience think, is worth seeing.
Many details in the movie are really thought-provoking. For example, the background is set to have people with different remaining time being assigned to different "time zones", and if you want to enter the wealthy area, you need to pay expensive "tolls". This reminds me of "Elysium", which is also a world of difference between rich and poor people's living conditions. The unequal distribution of resources can not help but make people feel the value of fairness.
Or people living in affluent time zones are usually slow-paced, while people in poorer areas die simply because they fail to catch a train. The male protagonist’s gambling experience in a wealthy area made him instantly upgrade from a 100-year nouveau riche to a 1,000-year-old real rich; at the same time, seeing a person in a slum for 10 years will make people around him envious, because most People are the masters who do not know whether they can see the sun tomorrow. Thinking about it in reverse, if it was like this in reality, it is estimated that there would not be so many people with hypocritical procrastination. In fact, it's not bad. Every day is the last day of my life.
The tangled point in this film is whether or not the time in the rich area should be allocated to the poor area. In real life, it is a matter of money. In the movie, the bounty of the previous 10 years is intentionally changed to the next 100 years. It is estimated that this needs to be explained with economic thinking.
Of course, most of the plots of American blockbusters cannot stand scrutiny, let alone the characters. The male protagonist went to rescue a stranger inexplicably, and was inexplicably given a "large sum of money" for 100 years, and then experienced the pain of losing his mother. This can only be understood as the screenwriter's bluntness in pursuit of the dramatic effect brought about by the gap. Pulled out plot. But as an audience, you don't have to be too demanding, there are good-looking pictures, and at the same time, it can trigger some thoughts, that's enough. Finally, let's spit out the heroine's style, just like the little loli in "This killer is not too cold".
There is a scene in the film that says the actual ages of the male and female protagonists. One is "25 years old and it's been 3 years", and the other is "25 years old and it's been 2 years." just for reference.
View more about In Time reviews
