In a time when sequels, remakes and even remakes of remakes dominate the Cineplex’s, an original concept is not an easy one to come by. So in those rare instances when a film actually presents an innovative and unique story, film fans such as myself become genuinely excited. In Time is such a film. Inventive, original and thought provoking, it is a film that offers viewers an insightful and intriguing look at our potential future. And then it squanders it.

Set in a world where humans are genetically engineered to stop ageing at 25, In Time looks at a future where life itself is used as currency. On your 25th birthday your ‘biological clock’ – a digital time display imprinted onto your arm – starts ticking down with one year to go, at which point you can start earning and trading your life credit for goods, services, employment or even gambling. For the poor, this literally means living a day at a time; watching your life tick away and hoping you will earn enough through the grinding paces of your working life to at least live another day. But for the rich and wealthy, it means an opportunity at eternal life.

Enter Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a twenty eight year old factory worker who has less than twenty four hours left to live when he stumbles across the dejected Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who happens to be one of those wealthy elite. After saving Henry’s life from the local mob boss, Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), Will awakens the next morning to find he has acquired over a century’s worth of wealth. But for a boy who is used to living a day at a time, and with nothing left to lose, what else would you do with a century’s worth of life? Take down the system of course.

In Time starts off really strong, thanks mostly to the imaginative concept it establishes early on in the piece. Before long however, the original concept gives way to numerous plot holes, most of which could easily have been avoided with a more structured narrative. But the director/producer/scriptwriter, Andrew Niccol, seems more intent to keep the film in the blockbuster action genre framework than to really push the boundaries on the ethical implications of such a system for population control. And that’s a perfectly acceptable course of action for the film to take, if it weren’t for the fact that the director still chooses to highlight these issues, only to not bother resolving any of them later on. The end result is a very disjointed film that you’re best not thinking about at all to best enjoy.

That’s not to say In Time is a terrible film. It’s far from it. The ensemble cast is strong; each actor portraying their character with the necessary angst/arrogance/jovialness that their quality of life allows. And the plot moves quick enough to never get boring. But none of this is enough to make up for the fact that the film wastes much of its original concept. And in some ways, a disappointing film is far worse that an outright bad one.