We Live in Time covers a decade in the life of a divorced Weetabix representative and a chef exploring the trials and triumphs of modern love, however a terminal diagnosis forces them to figure out what truly matters. It explores life and death, reinforces that we should live in the moment, and holds a mirror up to our own mortality. It tries to for sure. Romance is hard, in real life and on screen. Or at least it is for me. I’m such a cynic that even my favourites get forensic scrutiny. Romantic dramas have certain formulas to follow that can grow stale, so it’s nice to see a film attempt authenticity; even if it’s doing too much and not a lot all at once.
The film is moving mostly due to the work of Pugh and Garfield who are so utterly charming that I could on occasions suspend all my disbeliefs and set aside all my questions surrounding filmmaking decisions. Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield are brilliant. Lots of lovely chemistry and British accents, their work is full of sincerity. For the most part they carry the film and the romance carries us for as long as it can. Garfield’s lead is the soft-boy every hardened girl needs and he’s a weepy one; let’s break gender norms. But Garfield cried a lot more than me.
Not that all romantic dramas should be weighed down with its tear-jerk factor but I’m not rating We Live in Time on that; I’m rating it on how much it earns the ending. I want to give it credit where it is due. It has some great scenes including a traffic accident meet-cute and a crushed Terry’s Chocolate Orange. I will say the petrol station scene drew some genuine laughs as did the diner scene. But a handful of scenes do not make for an outstanding film. Mostly because it’s not the life-affirming humanist drama it wants to be. It was like watching Edward Scissorhands eat his peas. The film drops the ball before I can engage in the real meat of the matter. Director John Crowley, known for Brooklyn (2015), does little of the prep work to earn his emotional scenes leaving them hollow and the ending lacklustre. Of course, it’s a fine line and tackling terminal illness can earn easy tears or eye-rolling. For someone like me I have too much to hold the film up against and by witnessing it lean neither way the final product was bland.
On the topic of what came before perhaps seeing too many movies is a huge problem. Its narrative tricks, if anything, become perplexing as the film progressed. I kept wondering why it chose to tell its story in non-linear. Without it the film would have lost its steam by act two. After all, it chucks its aside by the third act once it’s served its purpose.
With a title like We Live in Time, I think it offered itself up for some interpretation. Or maybe I’m a certified fool. You see, despite its non-linearity it’s a straight-shooting film. There are no elements we need to put things together; it’s just a device to keep us more invested in their relationship and to offer a scene in a hospital a little more weight. In my defence, why rely on the non-linear narrative so far if we’re not seeing a sort of About Time-loop. We weren’t looking at unreliable narratives or fractured memories as in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind because the film very much wants to be grounded, as much as it can be. However, it wants to be all these things and turns up the heat in the finale with a cooking competition I was not overly invested in, and winds up feeling totally under baked in the middle and riddled with garnish to cover all the burnt bits (maybe I need more cooking metaphors in this review).
Perhaps it suffers from an identity crisis. The film tiptoes around the real gut-punchers all the time. Too self-aware, losing its confidence along the way, it began to shove in everything they could to raise the stakes. I felt this most with regard to Pugh’s character. You see she is too career-driven to the detriment of her health and family; a great conflict for a drama. Because we never feel like we have enough as we do. Perfect. Got it. Sold. Until the film presses on; she was also an ex-champion skater and she must compete in a cooking competition and run a successful restaurant… it shoe horns too much in for her; Pugh is a superwoman.
I understand its attempts to portray the modern dilemma for women: she wants to be more than just a mum and to have a legacy. I get that. So do I. Giving that conundrum to a complex female character is a breath of fresh air. But why must she be a thousand other things? Complex women don’t need to be everything all at once. It bogs the story down, clutters it. Maybe I’m jaded by all these ‘empowering’ evocations of women and sickness attempting to elevate it into something to be beaten or lost. But, Pugh’s character begins to feel as though she is being held up on a pedestal.
It's greatest strengths are the small, intimate moments. It should have had faith in itself for that alone. This is where the true human drama arises. That conflict the film has with itself is frustrating at times, emphasising the wrong elements as though it fears its own mundanity, a good thing when wielded well; just look at Wim Wenders powerful Perfect Days (2024). less is more. Will I ever crack an egg the same way? Yes, because no matter what method I will mess it up every time so turns out there’s no such thing as fool-proof when you’re the certified fool. But I like what it means. Because that's the kind of thing that matters.
The last few years have seen the genre parched for much quality; I suspect this has been why the general consensus towards We Live in Time has been positive. Maybe I'm too hard to please. The film is flawed but at least it tries to be genuine and authentic if more than a little convoluted. But is it as complex as Past Lives? Is it as engrossing as Terms of Endearment? We’ve seen this story time and again, that’s okay. Packed full of conviction which carries it further than most romantic melodramas, in the end it’s just comfortable.
***
Comments