"Time is money". This is probably one of the
most famous phraseｓ in the world, meaning that time is as valuable as money. In the movie "Time", time is really dealed with like money. But different from our world, losing money means losing your life on the spot.
In this movie, people stop growing at the age of 25. But that doesn't mean they're immortal, after reaching the age, a digital timer on their wrists go off, ticking away what amount of life they have left. If you don't want to die, you need to get time in some way. Time substitutes for money in this world, for example, you work in a factory and earn a few hours, if you want a cup of coffee, you pay a few seconds. All the time, you could see the length of your life changing. The more time you earn, the more you can live. Same thing as money, there are poor people-who never has more than a day left when they wake up-and rich people-who has lived more than a hundred years and is assured to live more-. This story is about a man, Will, who has lived in the slums all his life, but accidently got a hundred years from a man from the city. Suddenly becoming immortal, Will leaves for the city, but getting stalked for the hundred years.
What makes this movie different from others, is that the audience could know exactly how close the character is close to death. Extremely, just walking slowly will reduce life. If the clock turns to 0, it is lierally time out for the character. In the first part of the movie, a lovely young lady dies, falling down all of a sudden, as if she were a toy which ran out of batteries, a shocking scene which would stick to the audience during the whole movie.
Since losing money means losing your life, events that has money to do in them-like gambling or robbing-means much heavier than normal. It is a serious problem for the characters, but to the audience, it is even more exciting. Here, Will's character works strongly to the situation. He is just a man who lived in the slums, no fighting abilities or special techniques, but just guts. Will's life risking bets gives a real shudder to the audience. But in opposite, the action scenes did not really match the movie. It looked as if they were forced to move violently. Since such an interesting setting, I think it would of been better if they put more focus on the fights of the brain. Like I wrote above, just showing the ticking away timer makes a very tense atmosphere, a much stronger one then sticking guns against each other. I really loved the idea, and it was a movie I'd like to watch if there were a 2.
The official preview of "Time". Coming to rent soon.
I do believe "time is money," but I hate both time and money anyway.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been able to find life particularly alluring enough for me to want to live longer than I have to at the moment. Time is strictly a humane phenomenon, which readily causes people to think wrongly about certain aspects of science and philosophy.
The necessity of money in human civilization completely opposes altruism on behalf of an idealistic direct proportion between evaluation and civil achievement, but in modern day society, money has turned into finance, a self-centered mechanism with not even a trace of the equality found back in the bartering days. Money is usually always in the wrong hands at the wrong time, and never gets to the people in need in time.
I read a few other reviews. The concept of the movie is something Shuujin from Bakuman can easily think of. Moreover, as you stated, it should be more focused on strategy than action, in order to pull out the unique essence of dealing with time. I certainly do like science fiction, but it seems I would be better off thinking about the concept alone rather than watching this movie, as it seems to put forth action to cover up for the lack of critical thinking.
Hi! This is Koichi.
ReplyDeleteThough I've never watched this movie, I know it. I think it is good to live long, but I don't think living more than 100 years isn't good. It is too long for me.
This morning, I saw a news that introduce a doctor who opposes prolonging life. He said we should die when we cannot live anymore. How do you think about this opinion?
The terms are way too abstract, too vague. You technically cannot live anymore when you die, regardless of what allows you to "prolong" life or "shorten" it. Even in terms of biological capacity, any acquired duration based on anything from education to biochemical assistance is equal in value. You cannot possibly discern a "wrong method of prolonging life" from a "correct method of prolonging life." The argument makes little sense.
ReplyDeleteBut hell yeah, I agree with not wanting to live for more than 100 years. Sheesh, 20 years is already more than enough for a lifetime.