News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
Director John Crowley's newest project “We Live in Time” is the sappy, British love story that film fans and Letterboxd users have been craving for years. Still, it may sadly disappoint those hoping for a new cinematic classic.
The film follows Almut (Florence Pugh) and Tobias (Andrew Garfield) throughout their lives, blending the highs and lows of love as they tackle transparency, building a family, and terminal illness. After Almut and Tobias have a chance encounter, their relationship grows, but Almut’s battle with cancer forces her to decide what path is best for her. Pugh and Garfield bring star power to the film and their performances are compelling, but overall “We Live in Time” lacks the directorial vision that could have made it truly shine.
Despite the film dealing with heavy topics, it still manages to come across as a bit bland. The story is sad but predictable. Although Almut and Tobias meet in an unexpected manner (divorce, car crash, chocolate orange — it’s a lot), their romance progresses quite uneventfully, and nothing about their struggles will surprise the viewer. This problem is worsened by the fact that the cinematography is uninspired. An attempt was made to bring creative lighting to the film — orange and blue appear to represent Almut and Tobias, and the two colors merging showcase their love. Otherwise, the color grading is sadly beige and the shots are disappointingly static. These boring choices didn’t do justice to the script’s poignant themes of death and love.
The biggest let-down of “We Live in Time” was how it dealt with its titular theme: Time. Each scene jumps to different periods in Tobias and Almut’s relationship, instead of consecutively following their story from start to finish. The nonlinear approach seems to hint at the idea that we can never truly understand how much time we have left with our loved ones, and that each moment has equal importance. Yet this choice felt a bit too obvious to be truly effective; the garbled timeline feels like a flashy, “artsy” idea that doesn’t contribute to the story. In fact, the plot would have been more hard-hitting if the audience had followed Almut and Tobias’s growth from the beginning of their relationship to the end of Almut’s illness.
Nevertheless, the film is sure to still be a tear-jerker for general audiences due to Pugh and Garfield’s powerful performances. Almut’s battle with cancer is portrayed with passion and care by Pugh. In one heartbreaking scene in which Almut cuts her hair before starting chemotherapy, Pugh actually shaves her own head — showing her commitment to the film. Garfield plays up Tobias’s nervous energy to make his character seem awkwardly endearing. The excellent work of these two actors may make most viewers look past the movie’s sterile visual language and strange timeline twists.
The most unexpected aspect of the film is its comedic power. The script (written by Nick Payne) is as funny as it is tragic, pairing laugh-out-loud moments with emotional scenes. This is most apparent in the scene in which Almut gives birth in a gas station bathroom. Yes, you read that correctly. Almut accidentally locks herself in the station’s bathroom stall on the way to the hospital, and Tobias has to help her deliver their child on short notice. Garfield and Pugh play up the absurdity of the situation, yet tone down the hilarity to focus on the tenderness of parenthood when their child finally arrives. Payne’s pairing of humor and serious story beats shows that life’s ups and downs are unpredictable and that having a partner can make any trial feel manageable.
“We Live in Time” is sure to please audiences — it has a strong pair of actors at its core and hits touching emotional beats. Still, its bland cinematic qualities and predictable elements prevent the movie from gaining any lasting power. The film has a message at its heart and projects it clearly, but it’s directorial trips leave the project feeling off-tempo.
—Staff writer Hannah E. Gadway can be reached at hannah.gadway@thecrimson.com.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.