The 2011 science fiction film In Time has been trending on HBO Max charts over the past week. This surge is likely due to many viewers who missed it when it was initially released. While not a significant failure upon its 2011 release, In Time was overshadowed by films like Puss in Boots and Paranormal Activity 3, which concluded what was anticipated to be a prominent year for Justin Timberlake in cinema on a less glamorous note.

Prior to In Time, Timberlake’s year had shown much promise. After his notable performance as Napster co-founder Sean Parker in 2010’s The Social Network, Timberlake seemed set for movie stardom. Previously, he held smaller roles, often in indie films that did not gain much traction. Bolstered by his breakout role in an Oscar-nominated film and his reputation as a favored SNL host, he appeared ready to dominate the movie scene. In 2011, Timberlake starred in Bad Teacher, a comedy with Cameron Diaz that grossed $100 million—a significant feat at the time. He also led the rom-com Friends with Benefits to modest success. However, when In Time released, it halted his pursuit of more serious, leading roles.

The impact of In Time on Timberlake’s career trajectory might not have been solely responsible. Even though the film, directed by Andrew Niccol of Gattaca fame, opened to $12 million and made $37 million—a figure considered acceptable for mid-tier stars today—it marked a turning point. Though Timberlake didn’t experience a major flop until 2013’s Runner Runner, a gambling thriller, In Time was significant in transitioning him back to supporting roles and indie projects.

Timberlake’s In Time performance isn’t bad. It’s more that he’s not exactly suited to sell a premise better-suited to a Twilight Zone episode, where you wouldn’t have to linger in the absurd logistics. The movie is set in a retro-futuristic world where time is currency. Citizens stop physically aging at 25, but they’re also born with digital readouts on their arms. At age 25, the countdown clock starts: They’ve got one year left as a default, and that time can be spent on shelter, food, travel, anything. Working can get precious minutes added back to your clock, but of course, that takes time, too. Because of the arbitrary single-year figure, this world creates artificial scarcity and plenty of suffering. Essentially, writer-director Andrew Niccol cuts out the middleman of traditional money in order to emphasize how the rich don’t just have access to material wealth, but the means to live longer, healthier, and easier. In case that’s somehow unclear with lines like “the cost of living keeps rising to make sure that people keep dying,” Niccol doubles down with more lines like “this is merely Darwinian capitalism.”

Will (Timberlake) has always been poor, but a chance meeting leaves him with an unexpected windfall: a century on the clock that’s usually less than a day from expiration. He uses his newfound wealth to barge into a new “time zone” – a rich-person’s paradise that costs years just to enter. The idea of time disappearing from your personal clock in a flash, of watching it ebb and flow on your body, is poignant; with Timberlake in the lead, it occasionally feels more like a Saturday Night Live sketch where Andy Samberg might pop up at any moment. Cillian Murphy, who plays the cop convinced that Will has come into his time illegally, has the stronger handle on mixing gravitas with movie-star charisma. For that matter, so does Amanda Seyfried as Will’s rich-girl love interest; her glam bob-and-bangs look has movie-star confidence, while her co-lead is just rocking the standard buzz-and-stubble combo that looks both effortful and standard. Timberlake is best either as a charming lightweight (as in Friends with Benefits) or a jackass who’s maybe secretly a lightweight (as in The Social Network). In Time has him driving sexy cars and playing poker, like he’s James Bond. (Between this and Runner Runner, Timberlake’s failed leading-man bids involve a lot of gambling.)

But In Time is still pretty fun, not least because it was shot by Roger Deakins, a master of sleek shadow and otherworldly glows. During the night scenes especially, the movie looks like a color noir, set in a world that looks familiar while feeling unsettlingly off. It’s also a weirdly fitting movie for watching Timberlake’s movie career falter, with its meta reminder that there’s a clock on everyone, even/especially the seemingly young and beautiful. (It probably would have worked even better with Seyfried as the star, given the pressures put on actresses in particular.) Appropriately, In Time is full of potential next big things: The extremely handsome Matt Bomer, who has had a healthy career but never became a movie star. Olivia Wilde, who pivoted to directing. Alex Pettyfer, once thought to be the next big YA star. Vincent Kartheiser, who played Pete Campbell on Mad Men.

Murphy and Seyfried are the ones who went on to bigger careers – Oscar nominations and, in Murphy’s case, a win. Timberlake’s most successful movies since have been the Trolls cartoons, where he voices the grumpy but golden-voiced Branch (and honestly, that may be his lasting cinematic legacy; kids will know him from those movies for decades). Those cartoons and his small part in Inside Llewyn Davis go back to depending on his musical talent, making movies feel more like something Timberlake dabbles in, rather than really exploring in depth. He’s clearly not as pressed for time as the character he plays in this sci-fi movie, but maybe the story resonated with him anyway. There’s an ever-shifting and ultimately limited amount of time everyone is afforded; for a while, Timberlake seemed like he wanted to do it all – pop music, movie stardom, comedy-variety TV – more or less simultaneously. At some point, time (and maybe fans’ attention) starts to run out.

Jesse Hassenger (@rockmarooned) is a writer living in Brooklyn podcasting at www.sportsalcohol.com. He’s a regular contributor to The A.V. Club, Polygon, and The Week, among others.

Stream In Time on HBO Max