We Live in Time

I saw it for Andrew Garfield , one of magnificient actors of present , for John Crowley , in memory of their fantastic film Boy A.

And, indeed, We Live in Time is a pure beautiful film. Its first virtue is the kick to viewer to discover his past moments and future perspectives. The second virtue is represented by acting. I do not ignore romance or problems of life together or the knife of near death.

But it is a profound subjective masterpiece for the fine portrait of ages. For message, to. For the honest definition of unique moments of life. And for the fantastic performance of Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield .

So, see it !

Like everyone else (it seems), I had quite high expectations for this film - especially given the buzz surrounding the emotional weight and sadness of the movie.

Very sad to report that unfortunately it just didn't translate that well for me. At face value, it's a very simple story with a lot of touching moments and incredible performances, but something still felt missing.

I really wanted to love it. The movie ended and I still thought there was 30-40 minutes left. I guess it literally felt unfinished.

Overall, not a total dud but definitely nothing groundbreaking besides the performances.

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.

Never has the gap between my expectations and the actual impact of the film been so vast. The possibilities were so high with casting two of the greatest actors of our time- and even they could not make the movie have a soul. The writing and soundtrack were totally forgettable, despite Pugh and Garfield putting in great performances of what was available to them. The back and forth timeline made for an incomplete emotional journey, as there was no build up or stakes to be invested in. Both characters fell very flat, and I felt very little emotional investment in them. I had such high hopes and was counting down the days for this film, and was sorely disappointed upon leaving the screening. Hope someone casts the two together in a future film and gives them a better opportunity to create a masterpiece.

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.