Florence Pugh, left, and Andrew Garfield in the movie “We Live in Time.” Credit: A24 via TNS
When people think of A24, the production company behind films like “Everything Everywhere All At Once,” “Moonlight,” “Midsommar” and more, against-the-grain films tend to come to mind — a breath of fresh air against cookie-cutter, mainstream studios.
However, as A24 has begun pumping out more films, it seems to have become more mainstream; perhaps its focus is shifting to more easily accessible films.
A24’s latest romance movie, starring Andrew Garfield (“The Amazing Spider-Man”) and Florence Pugh (“Midsommar”), is certainly much more by-the-books than what was previously expected of the typically quirky, arthouse studio.
“We Live In Time” is a broad examination of what it means to be committed to a loved one over a long period of time. Told mostly nonlinearly, it follows a couple, Tobias (Garfield) and Almut (Pugh), as they grapple with the struggles life throws at their relationship, including complications around Almut’s pregnancy and her battle with cancer while trying to maintain her job as an esteemed chef.
Though the film begins from Tobias’ perspective, as he shifts to being a supportive partner, so too does the narrative switch to concentrating on Almut’s tribulations.
Like Tobias’ and Almut’s relationship, the film itself is full of ups and downs. On one hand, it has some really poignant moments, particularly during Almut’s treatment and in Tobias’ relationship with their daughter. The ending’s payoff is very well orchestrated, tying together this narrative that jumps back and forth throughout long swaths of time in a satisfactory, albeit heartbreaking manner.
The issue is that these heartfelt, heavy moments never quite hit as hard as they could because “We Live In Time” jumps right into them from the second the projector starts rolling and doesn’t let up until the credits roll. The movie leaves too little time to get to actually know and care about Tobias and Almut as real people, and not just vessels for suffering.
The first half of the film mostly focuses on their budding relationship, which is the least compelling part of the film, feeling pretty airport romance novel-esque. Their romance is never given time to breathe because it’s constantly undercut by flashbacks and flashforwards to different times in their relationship.
The second half of the film is much more endearing, maybe because the nonlinear storytelling is ditched, allowing for the characters’ lives to play out sequentially.
Though the major emotional beats still sting in a way that will leave a lot of people in the theater shedding a tear, they feel awfully predictable.
Maybe “We Live In Time” suffers from the success of a studio in A24 that’s taken the world by storm, winning multiple Academy Awards — including many Best Pictures — in the past decade. Regardless of its brand, “We Live In Time” constantly feels like it’s afraid to throw a curveball that would allow itself to stand out from the abundance of other films that tell a similar story.
Rather, it relies on tried-and-true storytelling methods and the acting prowess of its two superstar leads to get a response, which might just be enough for “We Live In Time” to get viewers’ eyes misty as they exit the theater.
Rating: 3/5
