L'amour au présent

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.

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.

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.

I just got done watching We Live in Time (2024) and I got to tell you that this is genuinely one of the most emotionally and realistic romance movies I've seen in recent memory.

Positives for We Live in Time (2024): The leading performances from both Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh are phenomenal in this movie. That really isn't surprising given these two have been nominated for Oscars in the past and I hope they both get nominations this year. I appreciated that this movie manage to tell a love story of two strangers falling in love with each other after meeting for the first time in a realistic way. Now don't get me wrong, I do enjoy my fair share of romance movies where the two lovers meet up in the most cynical and ridiculous way possible, but at the same time I do like it when a movie approaches these stories in a more realistic fashion. The things these two character go through in this movie all manage to be heartwarming, devastating and even wholesome depending on what scenes these moments are taking place. I also appreciated that this movie manages to keep the balance during these moments to where they don't feel overly dramatic or overly emotional to the point where it feel like cringe. And finally, I love how the movie's ending manages to avoided the all of the traditional cliches of other romance movies while also giving the audience the satisfaction they want to see in this movie.

Mixed for We Live in Time (2024): While I certainly appreciated the route this movie took with its story, there are going to be some people who are probably going to have a hard time watching this movie. Now to be fair, the movie did achieve its primary goals with the approach, but it also might hit hard for some people who have gone through similar situations in their lives.

Negatives for We Live in Time (2024): I only have one thing to say about this movie in this area and it's very small. This is a movie that I can only see myself watching once and that's it. But, if this element is the only negative with your movie, then that tells you how good your movie is.

Overall, We Live in Time (2024) definitely gave me what I wanted and I couldn't be any happier about that. If Garfield and Pugh don't get nominations for their performances in this movie, then I'll be very disappointed with the Academy. Regardless, if you're looking for a romance movie that feels genuinely realistic with its approach to the story, then this is the movie for you.