We Live in Time

We Live In Time delivers a compelling and emotionally charged story that explores love, loss, and the passage of time. The film boasts strong performances, particularly from its leads, whose chemistry draws the audience into their journey. Its poignant themes and richly drawn characters make for a narrative that has the potential to resonate deeply.

However, the film's non-linear editing detracts significantly from its impact. While the fragmented structure may aim to create intrigue or mimic the unpredictability of memory, it instead muddles the storytelling. Key emotional beats lose their potency as the timeline jumps abruptly, leaving viewers disoriented rather than engaged. The disjointed sequencing diminishes the weight of the story's climax, which should have been its most powerful moment.

Ultimately, We Live In Time is a film of great promise undermined by its structural choices, leaving audiences longing for a more coherent narrative flow.

We get it, some moviemakers successfully used non-linear storytelling in the past to make some good movies but now it's way over used and overdone to the point of getting old. Now we have directors making their movies non-linear on purpose just to hide poor plot because they know that if they tell their plot in a linear way it will look too simple and boring so they just use non-linear story telling to make their movie appear smarter than it is.

This is one of those movies where you have a pretty plain old storyline full of cliches but the director tries to make up for it by using non-linear storytelling not to mention using a couple super popular actors but the movie is pretty bad overall and it doesn't really work.

The Nonlinear Structure: A Double-Edged Sword

We Live in Time makes a bold narrative choice by employing a nonlinear structure. While it adds complexity to the story, making it feel like a series of fragmented memories or dreamlike flashbacks, it comes at the cost of emotional connection. The constant jumping between different moments in the relationship prevents the audience from fully immersing themselves in key events. As a result, some pivotal moments feel rushed and we miss the chance to truly absorb the emotions and consequences of certain scenes. A more linear approach might have allowed for deeper connection.

Almut's Career: A Missed Opportunity

One of the elements I found missing in We Live in Time was a deeper dive into Almut's career as a chef. We're told that cooking is her passion, but the film doesn't spend much time exploring why this is so important to her. What sacrifices did she make to get where she is? What role does cuisine play in her identity, and how does it conflict with her personal struggles? By not focusing more on this aspect, the film misses an opportunity to add depth to her character. It would have helped to not only connect the viewer more to her journey but also to make her internal conflict about balancing career and family feel more urgent and relatable.

Product Placement: A Bite of Distraction

Let's talk about the Weetabix moments. When the product literally becomes part of the conversation, it feels like the movie just took a quick break to sell us breakfast. It's the kind of moment that makes you wonder, "How much did Weetabix pay for this?" It didn't ruin the film, but I definitely could've done without the mid-movie snack ad.

Strong Performances Hold it Together

Despite its shortcomings, We Live in Time is held together by the incredible performances of Garfield and Pugh. Their chemistry alone makes the film worth watching. Both actors manage to convey raw emotion with depth, carrying the weight of the film's emotional core.

Conclusion

In the end, We Live in Time isn't a revolutionary film, but it is a heartfelt one. It's a deeply personal story of love, time, and loss, and while it doesn't always land every emotional beat, it still offers moments of real beauty. If you're a fan of character-driven romances and strong performances, this film is worth a watch.

It's been a long time since a film has left me this unsatisfied. This had everything good going, A24 production, amazing leads, beautiful scenery and it just didn't deliver. The writing is terrible. I don't know why they decided to make it a non-linear storytelling but it was more exhausting than interesting, with times changing too fast and the whole story lacking any depth.

Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield were amazing in their roles but their characters were very much unlikeable and also lacked depth.

Wouldn't recommend it, my rating is just for the main actors and the good architecture. I was so ready to weep my eyes out while/after watching this, but nothing came.

Tobias (Andrew Garfield) is hit by a car driven by Almut (Florence Pugh). She stays in the hospital until he wakes up and because - despite having a broken arm and being in a neck brace - he has already been discharged (there are not enough beds available - political comment there!) takes him to dinner. He is newly-divorced, she has just come out of a lesbian relationship. Despite this unpromising beginning, there is mutual attraction and the pair begin a years-long relationship.

The two leads make an engaging couple. Pugh, especially, is easy to accept as the fiery Almut. Garfield plays nice guy Tobias a bit too geeky to be completely believable, but he manages to stay on the right side of annoying (and, if the shapely bare buttocks in the bathroom scene belong to him and not to a body double, he has a very nice bottom - just saying...) No other actors get enough screen time to make an impact, although I was struck at seeing Douglas Hodge playing Tobias' father - twenty or thirty years ago, he would probably have been playing the male lead himself.

This is a good example of a chick flick: romantic, cheesy and leaving not a single dry eye in the house. I am not sure I would watch it again, but I am glad I saw it at least once.