by John Tillyard, Contributing Writer
Three interconnected stories set in vastly different time periods, the distant past, the present, and the distant future, explore themes of human life preservation and the enduring hope that the cycle of life continues. The narratives follow a Neanderthal family in 45,000 BC, present-day scientist Claire (Rashida Jones) balancing her research on Neanderthals and her relationship with Greg (Daveed Diggs), and astronaut Coakley (Kate McKinnon) heading to a moon over 200 light-years away, working for the corporation Elixir in 2417 on a ship carrying embryos to ensure humanity’s survival. Currently midway through her journey, Coakley, aided by AI assistant Rosco (Rhona Rees), must decide on her next move for the mission’s success.
In the director’s chair is Andrew Stanton, of Pixar fame, directing only his second live-action film. His first, John Carter, was not well received; however, he has also directed episodes of acclaimed series like Stranger Things and Better Call Saul, demonstrating his ability to produce high-quality live-action entertainment.
Here, he and writer Colby Day, whose previous film was Netflix’s Spaceman, craft a narrative reminiscent of the Wachowskis’ Cloud Atlas, with multiple stories across different eras linked by overarching themes. These themes include the preservation of life and the interconnectedness of all things across time and space. The opening suggests this connection through matching cuts, implying that all humans share fundamental needs and desires. Yet, in the actual stories, these themes and links come across as superficial and feel like a desperate attempt to create a connection. While intercut scenes hint at links, such as a Neanderthal lying in his cave and Claire studying a skeleton that is presumably the same individual, the significance of these moments is minimal, and the scenes seem unrelated outside of this small connection.
Additional links are drawn through shared themes, for example, Claire in the present and Coakley in the future, both juggling work and social life. Claire wishes to spend time with Greg, feels the need to see her sick mother (Karin Konoval), and is mindful of the importance of her work. Conversely, Coakley, genetically engineered for longevity, feels lonely, with only an AI for company, during her voyage through space over hundreds of years. Similarly, it raises themes of helplessness amid people and things dying, as well as the idea of self-sacrifice for the greater good. These ideas serve as weak threads connecting the stories, with some items supposedly linking multiple timelines, but they come across a bit feeble. There are a few physical objects that span multiple stories, which also help make the stories feel connected, but this comes across as somewhat half-hearted and a little desperate at times. The most notable connection occurs near the end of the film, when it is revealed that Claire’s work will play an important role in Coakley’s future mission. Unfortunately, by this point in the film, Coakley’s story has progressed so far that this revelation feels irrelevant, like being told the answer to a question you had 20 minutes ago and no longer care about.
As standalone stories, they also seem disjointed and somewhat unfocused. Each begins with a conflict that becomes less relevant as the story progresses. The drama is often forgotten halfway through, making the latter parts less engaging. The Neanderthal story in particular has very little to it beyond the family’s ongoing battle to survive. Nothing about any of the three stories feels like anything that hasn’t been seen many times before. The only original element is the way in which the stories are told and their connecting themes. In the final act, all three shift to themes of family, parenting, and human morality. The ending is a montage of characters having children, passing on their knowledge to them, and eventually dying, reinforcing the “circle of life” idea and the notion that humanity hasn’t changed significantly; only our environment and technology have. While intriguing, this concept feels superficial, and it remains unclear what the characters are meant to have learned. None of them seem to learn any lessons; they achieve their goals and feel content.
On top of that, montages of families bonding and seeing their children grow up seem overly clichéd and trite. Similar to his screenplay for Spaceman, Colby Day presents interesting ideas here without making a clear point or asking questions. It’s like someone pointing out a red car and saying, “Look at that car, it’s red…” and leaving it at that.
The pacing is marginally quicker than the aforementioned Spaceman (a low bar, admittedly). Alternating between stories prevents things from becoming too stale, though the Neanderthal setting eventually feels repetitive, with its caves, woods, and not much else. Likewise, the interior of Coakley’s ship becomes visually monotonous after a while; surprisingly, the most engaging story is the most contemporary, as Claire and Greg’s story unfolds across various locations. However, their story is dragged down by their uninteresting personalities and lack of chemistry.
In the Blink of an Eye attempts to explore profound ideas about humanity and experiments with a more inventive narrative structure. Yet it ultimately fails to tell a compelling story or provoke meaningful reflection. When viewed in isolation, none of the three stories stands out; they feel like unremarkable slices of life with dull characters and tedious visuals. There’s a jarring disconnection between the stories and little notable resolution. The film prioritizes presenting ideas over crafting a clear narrative. While I appreciate stories that make you think and aren’t really about telling a story, I first and foremost need some understanding of what I am meant to think about.
Rating: Didn’t Like It
In the Blink of an Eye is currently streaming on Disney+
You can read more from John Tillyard, and follow him on Instagram and Letterboxd