“We live in time” cannot overcome its bland juiciness

Love may be a timeless feeling, but it is strongest in the present, the fleeting now. It’s a sentiment that is close to John Crowley’s heart We live in timea non-linear account of a decades-long relationship in which protagonists Almut (Florence Pugh) and Tobias (Andrew Garfield) find that their romantic odyssey is painfully determined by the boundaries of time.

It’s a film that relies heavily on star power, and even the official credits of the two leads appear when they appear on screen together for the first time. But as stirring as Pugh and Garfield’s performances are, Crowley’s film can’t overcome a touch of sappyness and shmaltz, often coming across as emotionally stagnant and manipulative rather than serious and insightful. At his best, We live in time resembles a whiny page-turner and, at its worst, feels like a glorified Hallmark movie.

Tobias works for Weetabix and Almut is an aspiring gourmet chef. The two meet for the first time in a hospital after Almut accidentally runs over him. It’s the stuff of romantic comedy dreams, but that’s not how we meet these characters. The script, written by Nick Payne, begins in the middle of their life-changing relationship and then jumps back and forth non-chronologically between key moments and milestones – a pregnancy, a family dinner, a cooking competition and Almut’s cancer diagnosis are just a few hand-picked examples.

However, the emotional impact lies in how everything is put together. Carefully placing specific events side by side results in triumph and heartbreak. Moments years apart influence each other, creating a chronological map of emotions rather than events. If nothing else, We live in time is a masterpiece of narrative structure that is sometimes hauntingly reminiscent of the melancholic processes of memory.

But for every raw and authentic moment – candid, unfiltered discussions about family planning, treatment and priorities – there are far more maudlin and silly moments, including a spontaneous gas station birth. Such moments feel at home in a breezy romantic comedy, but in a film that attempts to be an insightful, emotional examination of love and memory, the effect is less amusing and more alluring. At every step, We live in time undermines the emotional palpability it tries to promote, resulting in an experience that feels increasingly generic and dull, a feeling that is reinforced by the all-too-familiar acoustic and piano sounds.

The biggest misstep We live in time makes Tobias and Almut so hygienic and valuable. These are characters defined solely by their external circumstances and lacking any real flaws or shortcomings. The two often feel more like little, idealized caricatures than real people. Almut suddenly goes from a steadfast careerist apathetic towards children to a cancer patient fixated on motherhood, while Tobias is even less characterized. Aside from his position at Weetabix, his desire for children and his undying love for Almut, he remains an enigma – just half of a standard duo. Therefore, any hint of romantic or sexual chemistry between the attractive leads is extinguished upon arrival. Although structurally ambitious, We live in time is so caught up in the idea of ​​romance that it doesn’t give us real love.

We live in time hits theaters on October 18th.