Here’s something both tea partiers and the Occupy Wall Street gang can agree on: When wealthy, powerful interests get the keys to Big Government, nobody wins.

But just because we can agree on the problem, doesn’t mean we can agree on the solution.

The tea partiers, for example, believe the sulution is to reduce the size and power of Big Government (and to enforce the kinds of constitutional constraints that would limit both monied influence and federal overreach).

The occupiers believe the solution is to … well … they haven’t exactly agreed upon that just yet. But give them time; it seems their answer is to make Big Government bigger, under the delusion, frankly, that a socialist government … will somehow be too big for moneyed interests to control? Not that that’s a logical conclusion, but that seems to be where this is going.

It’s just the kind of fallacy that is easily embraced by inexperienced and idealistic young people who have been subjugated to the indoctrination of academia.

So it seems fitting that in the new film, “In Time,” where every character is exactly 25 years old, Hollywood would unveil a radical, messianic socialist to take on the evil rich people and fulfill the mostly young occupiers’ wildest dreams.

In the future of “In Time,” humans have been genetically modified to live to exactly 25 years old, before a clock implanted in the forearm ticks down every person’s last year of life.

People can buy, sell, earn, borrow and gamble for more time, however, creating a form of currency that is literally life and death.

In this future world, the very rich live in posh circumstance for centuries, while the poor live day-to-day – literally – in the slums.

Throughout “In Time,” however, the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism is treated as a zero sum game (an economic lie believed and perpetrated by the political left), where there are only so many minutes to go around, and one man becomes rich only at the expense of another man’s life.

In such a world, “In Time” identifies the enemy, even names it point-blank, as “Darwinist capitalism,” defined in economic terms as “survival of the fittest” and “only the strong survive,” literally.

Even many tea partiers, at least many Christians in the bunch, would agree that Darwinism is an enemy to ethical society, and an amoral Darwinism in economics gives excuse to irresponsible greed.

But though we may agree upon the enemy, “In Time” presents the solution in the form of a radical socialist neither Christian nor tea partier could support.

“Is it really stealing,” the film’s hero asks, “if [the time] is already stolen?”

With such a justification, the hero then goes on a rampage to make the evil rich “share” their time with everyone, by force if necessary.

The rest of the film goes on to demonize the rich, glamorize stealing from them and preach populist redistribution of wealth – a perfect socialist propaganda film.

For example, when the rich girl has most of her time stolen by thugs and faces imminent death, the hero from the ghetto turns to her and says with a snide tone, “Let me guess: Now you like the idea of sharing.”

To make matters even worse, the film includes obvious parallels to a messianic theme (perhaps symbolic of the false contention that Jesus was a socialist?), because the hero is frequently portrayed, for no apparent reason, as the Son of Sharing.

“I heard another man talk like that,” the hero is told, “but you were probably too young to remember your father.”

But let’s introduce a bit of truth into this Hollywood fantasy: Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is not “sharing,” it’s government-sanctioned theft.

The Bible is an advocate of real sharing, voluntary sharing; in fact, it commands it, commends it and exemplifies it (Acts 2:44-45, which is far from the communist mantra many make it out to be). But the biblical purpose of government is to punish evil and commend the good (1 Peter 2:14), not to steal people’s property in order to create socioeconomic equality.

So while we may agree that Darwinist economics, greed and a society devoid of ethics are the collective “bad guy,” the solution presented by “In Time” cannot be commended by a Christian worldview.

Despite decent acting and great scriptwriting, “In Time” is just too warped in worldview to recommend.

Content advisory:

  • “In Time” contains about a dozen profanities and obscenities, rarely intrusive on the script.
  • The film, filled with nubile 25-year-olds, is naturally long on short skirts, barechested men and cleavage. There’s some kissing, some dancing and a couple of references to prostitution. A pair of characters go skinny dipping, with some partially obscured nudity seen through the water. In the film’s steamiest scene, a game of strip poker leads to a quick disrobing of a female character into her undergarments and an embrace that would normally lead to a sex scene, but it’s interrupted by events.
  • The film has a fair amount of gunfire and car chases and foot chases, some thuggery and several killings. Rarely gratuitous or gory, however, most of the violence advances the story rather than revel in bloodshed.
  • Outside of the parallels mentioned above, the only significant religious or occult reference in the film is an urban “mission” that gives away time to the needy.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.