Critics reviews

The time-hopping chronology is an elaborate structural conceit in conversation with the film’s theme, but it feels rather manipulative – a way for the narrative to withhold reveals and build to three climaxes, and to hopscotch from highlight to highlight whenever things threaten to become too prosaic.

A terminal disease heart-tugger that leans heavily on the charisma and chemistry of stars Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield, [We Live in Time] adopts a (500) Days of Summer-style non-linear structure that injects a degree of playful experimentation into an otherwise fairly familiar story.

[We Live in Time is] evasive about the uncinematic reality of what serious illness and death actually looks like, and the final choice is too simplistic. But the film is still something to see, if only for the marvellous performances from Garfield and Pugh.

We Live In Time’s central gambit — to tell its love story out of chronological order — is more than just a stylistic flourish... It’s an inspired choice that adds a layer of unpredictability to John Crowley’s weepy romcom. And thanks to a couple of powerhouse performances, its straightforward story packs a punch.

As Almut and Tobias, [Pugh and Garfield] feel less like lovers than actors, trying to gin up some tenderness and heat that ends up persuading no one in the room, least of all themselves... The amatory mechanisms here are so basic they make 1970’s Love Story look like Wuthering Heights, but at least Love Story had the courage to wring every last drop of pathos from its tragic-romance premise.

We Live in Time is unquestionably a quality release. It looks beautiful. The music swirls evocatively... So what doesn’t quite land here? It’s too calculated, it’s too sweet, it’s too complacent. Most damaging of all, the two leads, for all their gifts, seem to be acting in different registers. An odd creature.

The strength of Garfield and Pugh’s performances keep even the weakest scenes free from cliché... Crowley, having nailed his casting, directs with a light hand and follows the emotion through, to good effect. It feels real, and honest, in a way that too few romantic films manage.

There’s a certain understatement and reserve that keeps the drama intimate even when life events threaten to blow everything up. Crowley doesn’t blink at the cradle-to-grave graphic intimacy of Payne’s script, and in Garfield and Pugh he finds a duo who understand the deceptions and devotions of a beautifully flawed relationship.

As with Brooklyn and The Goldfinch, Crowley knows how to perfectly present the idea that love can alter the future, and he does so brilliantly again here... With Pugh and Garfield leading this tremendous love story, We Live in Time becomes one of the best movie romances in years, and proves that few filmmakers can present the power of love quite like Crowley can.

Come for the jumble-puzzle Scenes From a Marriage, sans an actual marriage for most of the narrative. Stay for the connection that [Pugh and Garfield] communicate wonderfully enough that you almost don’t mind the storytelling mind games.

[Pugh and Garfield] carry We Live in Time on their backs and frequently make a convincing case that you’re watching a real movie about love and loss and connection and other stuff that sometimes flashes in quick succession in movie trailers when a vaguely humanist relationship movie doesn’t know how else to sell itself.

[Crisscrossing time frames] allows Crowley to deliver untethered moments of such startling and rarely glimpsed intimacy, brought to emotional life by the astoundingly expressive faces of the two leads, that you almost don’t care that the movie containing them doesn’t entirely hang together.