L'amour au présent

It was just as if someone had thrown the scenes up in the air and put the film together in the order that they fell down in. Superb acting but spoilt but disconnected story. Both Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield gave memorable performances. I have seen other films with a non linear plot and can't understand why the filmmakers seem to want to confuse the film goer. I guess I'm not a fan of movies when they have multiple times which jump backwards and forwards. The cinematography was good and polished. The film did not live up to its full potential as the story line was so disconnected. Such a shame!

Well, it was definitely an enjoyable film to watch with a lot of other people. Lots of people in the audience laughing and crying. I didn't feel emotionally wrecked - I felt uplifted by the performances I saw - Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh are both wonderful in this film. They are just so good together - a real sense of trust between them. I heard a man exiting festival hall sarcastically saying to his friend 'and she just happened to be a world class chef... ' I didn't mind any of that because I believed her. I don't want to see a film abt normal boring life - I want escapism, romance, something other than my life but based in truth. A domestic drama but between two beautiful people. I'd definitely watch it again - the time flew by.

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.

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.