See Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in First Look at In Time
· Justin Timberlake shows off his charming comedy chops in Friends With Benefits, but in the upcoming Andrew Niccol sci-fi film In Time (heinous title, FWIW), things are slightly more laugh-free. After all, it focuses on a future society where aging stops at 25 and the rich are immortal because they can "buy time." OK, then! Click through to see Timberlake and co-star Amanda Seyfriend (doing her best Lindsay Lohan impression) running from some danger, then stick around for more Buzz Break.
[via Rope of Silicon]
· Marisa Tomei, not a fan of scary movies. Per Page Six, the actress ran out of a screening for the thriller Daylight when a particular scene got a bit hairy. [NYP]
· If you thought Bryan Cranston had too many movies on his plate, you're right; he did. That's why he had to drop out of Gangster Squad. "He got offered Argo, and we were hoping he would be able to do Argo and then do our film, but it doesn't look that way. Everybody wants a piece of Bryan now. He's the belle of the ball," Squad director Ruben Fleischer told BlackBook. [BlackBook]
· Did you know that Matt Salinger -- J.D. Salinger's son -- starred in a version of Captain America in 1990? Well, he did, and it was never released theatrically. "To my way of looking at it, when we didn't finish the film, I would have been surprised if it had gotten into the theaters," he told Mike Ryan for GQ. "If they didn't have the budget to finish the film, they weren't going to have the budget to distribute it. [The director] told the editors to put it together the best they could then they released it on video. That was that. Everyone under the age of ten seemed to really love it [laughs] and most people over the age of ten saw it for what it was--they saw it as a missed opportunity." [GQ]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Hollywood, repeat after me, "Justin Timberfake is *not* a movie star!!!"
But what about that piece Bill Simmons wrote for Grantland that said he was not only a movie star, but a bigger one than Ryan Reynolds! (Sarcasm.)
First it was called "Im.Mortal", then it was called "Now", now it's called "In time".
Hardly seems like an improvement, does it?
Also, it's a shame this movie depicts a future in which aging has been effectively cured as dystopic. There is real scientific work underway to slow and reverse the aging process, with results in the lab that are so promising as to suggest our generation may make the cut, and the biggest hurdle those in the field face is that so many in society ludicrously and irrationally believe that defeating aging would be a bad thing. This movie will probably contribute to that (almost incomprehensibly dangerous) problem, even as it moves the discussion more into the mainstream.
100,000 lives will be saved per day once medicine defeats aging, not to mention a massive amount of suffering alleviated and many trillions of dollars saved per year. The sooner it happens the better, for all of us. The time spent delaying this research due to irrational doubts as to its legitimacy will, in retrospect, have contributed to a holocaust.
Some posts are so absurd that it's difficult to respond to them, due to the difficulty involved in replying to a certain level of stupidity, but here it goes. First, we're not on the verge of a massive breakthrough in slowing or reversing the aging process. We can't cure a virus, not even the common cold. We can't extend the life of internal organs. We can't cure cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or any of the other diseases that frequently kill old people. Put down your copy of Men's Health (and your massive collection of vitamins and supplements), or whichever other idiotic self help magazine you've been reading, and accept reality. You won't make it to 100, and you wouldn't have if In Time had never been made. If you are truly foolish enough to believe that medicine will defeat aging anytime in the next thousand or so years, just remember that the pinheads who can't cure the common cold are the ones you're relying on to keep you going till you're a ripe old 350.
As far as In Time goes, it's set in a society where people have to pay to stay alive after their 25th birthday. Time has replaced money as currency, and yet society is more unequal and unfair than it is now since a person can literally die from poverty. The rich can live forever, everyone else scrambles to make enough money to buy time to stay alive, and the system is gamed to kill poor people to prevent overpopulation. It isn't medical science that the movie criticizes, it criticizes greedy bastards at the top for hogging resources (in this case, time) to the point that others die, and the Orwellian society in which they live for going along with the system.
BTW Rosen, nice cheap shot at Amanda Seyfried. Doing her best to channel Lindsay Lohan? You're very clever to see the obvious connection between the two actresses since Seyfried is wearing a wig in In Time that is similar to Lohan's natural hair color. I suppose that when Seyfried goes back to being blond in her next movie, you'll say that she is channeling Scarlett Johansson?
Hi, I posted a reply to Brian providing details of current lab studies into slowing down and reversing elements of the aging process, and it has since been deleted. Can someone explain why?
Oh well, I'll just repost it.
---
Hi Brian,
I don't know if you'll see this as it's been a few days, but I thought I may as well respond.
The content of my post was not absurd, and I do know what I'm talking about. I do not read Men's Health, nor do I take any supplements. I'm not a quack and I'm not a fitness junky. I do, however, know a few things about regenerative medicine and cell biology.
It may surprise you to learn (given your unbelievably pessimistic 1000 year estimate of progress) that the aging process has already been slowed many times over in laboratory animals. The same is happening currently in late stage human trials, and it is likely drugs will be on the market within the next few years that will add one or two years to the human lifespan by acting on aging process regulating genes (most notably, the "sirtuins"). Moreover, these drugs will extend the period of youthful health, so while lifespan will only be marginally impacted upon, "health span" will be dramatically improved. The current pharmacological leader in this field is probably Sirtris Pharmaceuticals (bought by Glaxo SK for close to a billion dollars in 2008) but there are many others.
Further afield, regenerative medicine promises to yield more dramatic results, not by slowing aging, but by reversing it. The degenerative aging process (senescence) can be summed up as the accumulative damage inflicted upon the cellular and molecular architecture of the body via it's metabolism. Our metabolism is VERY complex, and to think we could bring aging to a complete halt by intervening in it would indeed be naive. But while metabolism is complex, the DAMAGE in question is decidedly less so. All categories of cellular damage that contribute to aging appear to have been identified, and have been so for over twenty years. Interventions which target and UNDO that damage are very much in the pipeline, and involve things like gene therapies, stem cell therapies, allotopic expression of mitochondrial DNA, introduction of enzymes so as to eliminate intracellular garbage, etcetera. Were such regenerative, and totally foreseeable, therapies to be applied rigorously enough, the expected result would be a partial reversal of the aging process. Were these therapies to be applied repeatedly, say every twenty years (remember, people would keep aging), then the result of THAT would (in theory) be an indefinite extension of the human lifespan.
Of course, all of this is not without controversy, but then no one said medical science was easy. The work being done in labs all over the world right now is difficult and largely thankless, at least for now. But that's how medical progress happens. Through hard work, rigorous experimentation, and the abiding belief in human potential. It certainly doesn't happen by cynically dismissing everything you hear without doing any research into what is being discussed.
Keep an open mind. And if you feel like it, do some reading. Start by researching research initiatives like that of the SENS Foundation. Prominent researchers in the field you may want to google include Dr David Sinclair at Harvard University and Dr Aubrey De Grey.