'We Live in Time' review: A starry cancer drama that should have been weepier

A kiss is the hallmark of a love story. The new “We Live in Time” should have kept that other K.I.S.S. in mind: Keep it simple, stupid.

Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield are splendid together and give strong performances as a British couple navigating personal and professional obstacles, including a cancer diagnosis. But the romantic drama (★★½ out of four; rated R; in New York and LA now and nationwide Friday) utilizes a nonlinear narrative that doesn’t do anyone any favors and actually stymies the film's potential as an effective tearjerker.

Directed by John Crowley, who went from the astounding “Brooklyn” to dull “ The Goldfinch ,” “We Live in Time” bounces between three different periods in its core couple’s life.

Join our Watch Party! Sign up to receive USA TODAY's movie and TV recommendations right in your inbox.

There’s the first few years, starting with rising-star chef Almut (Pugh) and Weetabix marketing guy Tobias (Garfield) enjoying an unconventional meet-cute when Alma hits him with her car while he’s out getting a pen to sign his divorce papers. That initial period intertwines with the birth of their daughter on a seriously nutty day and an important six-month window where Almut’s ovarian cancer makes her choose between a treatment that could lengthen her existence but add suffering or making the most of her time left.

The film ticks off some tropes, such as a hokey bit where they ride a carousel and some rom-com hokiness as Tobias and an extremely pregnant Almut have trouble leaving their parking space to get to the hospital and have their baby. (It does lead to one of the stronger sequences in the movie, where the couple is forced to deliver their kid in a gas-station bathroom amid a tornado of heartwarming and hilarious chaos.) Much of the emotional stakes feel earned because they skew real, especially as Almut and Tobias weigh children and marriage early in their relationship and need to make important medical decisions later.

“We Live in Time” nicely flips tired stereotypes and features a modern couple where the woman is the competitive one whose job is high on her priority list and the man is the devoted support system. Yet the movie goes so all in on Almut – even giving her a backstory as a champion figure skater – that Tobias is a character lacking needing development.

Whereas Almut has a cool job and a lot of time is spent on her making personal sacrifices to be in a major world cooking competition, Tobias is a loving dad and boyfriend whose wants and desires outside of getting married are left unexplored. Garfield at least is great at bringing nerdy warmth and awkward earnestness to Tobias, Pugh is enjoyably fiery as Almut and each gives depth to their characters’ features and foibles alike.

What mutes their emotional impact is the time-jumping aspect that differentiates the movie from similar tales. Crowley veers from the usual overt melodrama and emotional manipulation, though the way the film unfolds disrupts the natural emotional progression of their characters. A film like, say, all-time weepie cancer tale “Love Story” crescendos toward the eventual waterworks – while it may leave some looking for a tissue, “We Live in Time” ends up thwarting rather than boosting that catharsis.

Sometimes, you watch a film like this because you need a good cry. Armed with good intentions and better actors, "We Live in Time" boasts complex feelings and overcomplicates everything else.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'We Live in Time' review: A starry cancer drama that should have been weepier