For centuries, romance films have been tasked with crafting stories filled with love, loss and family, and “We Live in Time” was no exception, however the romance film starring Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh, which premiered on Oct. 18, framed as an emotional love story spanning years, didn’t give audiences anything but two good acting performances in those “years” because of its choppy narrative.
Pugh portrays Almut, a chef who beat ovarian cancer, and Garfield portrays Tobias, her husband. The two meet unconventionally and their love story begins instantly. They navigate life-changing decisions, explore what modern relationships look like and eventually learn how to balance becoming a family amidst Almut’s cancer returning.
The movie starts off rocky with writer, Nick Payne‘s decision to make the storyline non-linear, not following a strict timeline.
In the first scene, Almut brings Tobias breakfast in bed. The sweet moment between the two would have set the movie off well if the scenes continued chronologically, but the next scene flashes forward several years to a time when Almut is in labor, Tobias by her side. Years of details were lost in the time jump, and from then on, the time hopping from the past to the future and back again, continued throughout the entire film.
Because of the choice to switch from their early romance one minute to life-altering moments like childbirth and cancer the next, it felt like a trailer for a good romance movie, not a whole one. Instead, the movie leaves viewers with more of a feeling of whiplash than empathy. Because of this, the film lacks depth and forces viewers to fill in the gaps without giving them the chance to connect with the characters.
Additionally, the film tries to juggle themes of love, illness and family, but none are done justice because it’s all overshadowed by the continuity issues.
One movie that comes to mind when thinking about the storyline of “We Live in Time” is “About Time,” a 2013 romance film starring Rachel McAdams and Domhnall Gleeson. It also relates to the concept of time and has extremely similar themes; however, unlike “We Live in Time” it pulls off adorable moments and tear-jerking scenes so much more efficiently because it is told chronologically, allowing viewers to understand the characters and their story fully.
While the timeline hurts the overall impact of the story, the cast’s talent almost makes up for it. Garfield’s portrayal of a worried, soon-to-be dad and then devoted father is truly endearing. Additionally, Pugh captures her character’s struggle with cancer and motherhood in a raw, emotional performance that many actresses could not have achieved.
Because of their masterful performances and chemistry, for the hour and 44 minutes they are on screen it doesn’t feel like they are actors at all but instead are a real couple, especially the scene where Almut unexpectedly gives birth in a gas station. Their portrayal of terrified first-time parents is not only captivating but also hilarious.
Unfortunately, time has proven that their outstanding performances were not enough to save the talented pair from the ill fate of the film’s storytelling method. Initially, the movie received stunning reviews, but since its release, ratings have steadily declined. Audiences may have that although they hoped for a gut-wrenching, beautiful romance, they only get a compilation of moments of a couple they didn’t get a chance to know that well.
Overall, the disjointed narrative of “We Live in Time” left the audience emotionally robbed of all the potential this film had. While some may find beauty in its fragmented structure, most will walk away feeling that there could have been more.