In Time (2011) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
511 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Great start, decent follow-through.
droze0120 January 2012
As others have said, the idea of this movie was excellent. You could call it a skeptical analogy of what is happening in some parts of the world – the richest people of the planet abusing poor.

What I liked about the movie, especially in the early stages, was how much the movie made me think. It was also bizarre to think of what things would be like if nobody looked older than 25. The movie played upon the possibility of multiple generations would look the same age – at least for those rich enough to afford to purchase the additional years. The story was also well thought out in relation to how people would act within the differing classes of society: the rich would take their time and take few risks. The poor would treasure their time, moving quickly, and, with less to lose, would be less risk adverse.

Great premise, great start to the movie, decent follow-through. Although I wish the strong start was able to be carried throughout the movie, I found this movie quite enjoyable to watch.
158 out of 195 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great idea, mediocre execution
Treyroo24 November 2012
Everyone is on a clock. What keeps the general population from devolving into id-driven mobs is the fact that no one knows how much time they have left on theirs. If you had a constant reminder on your forearm, however, you might simply go about your life in a desperate attempt to prolong it. Or not.

Will Salas (played by Justin Timberlake) is a 28-year-old factory worker whose one year clock started and aging stopped, like everyone else in the film, when he turned 25. He and his 50 year-old mother Rachel (played by Olivia Wilde) live in the ghettos of Dayton hoping to earn and save enough to at least see the next day. All while wages in the ghetto are constantly going down and the cost of living is constantly going up. Then, while out drinking with his friend Borel (played by Johnny Galecki), he learns of a man with more than a century left on his clock who has unadvisedly advertised his good fortune while in the same bar as Will and Borel. A local time-thief enters the picture and, rather than retreat like his friend did and advised him to do, Will comes to the aid of the fortunate stranger. While saving his life was all for naught, the stranger gives Will all the time left on his clock before allowing the time on his own clock to run out while he's sitting on a bridge overlooking a dry river basin.

"Time is money" was a phrase first coined by Benjamin Franklin. While the idea of reversing that concept to "money is time" is interesting, I don't believe the cast was up to the challenge of exploring it. Whatever success Justin Timberlake might've had in supporting roles, he doesn't have what it takes to be the leading man. Amanda Seyfried, whose role has her playing off Timberlake for a lot of the film, is another professional whose appeal tends to overshadow her abilities for some reason. Perhaps an independent production could provide actors with genuine talent, who are young enough to look the part, but this is closer some sort of CW melodrama.
40 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great idea. Poorly executed.
kgmarra1 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Live forever or die trying. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star in the new sci-fi action film "In Time". Will Salas (Timberlake) and Silvia Weis (Seyfried) live in a futuristic world where time is the currency. In this world, people stop aging at 25. Once they turn 25, they only have one year to live, unless they find a way to get more time.

Will lives in the ghetto where people constantly are timing out (running out of time and dying), while Silvia lives in New Greenwich where people have centuries. It's extremely dangerous to have too much time; those with centuries are usually accused of stealing and are immediately killed.

When Will is accused of murder, he takes Silvia hostage and they run from the timekeeper (Cillian Murphy). Several times, they find themselves cutting it close with only seconds left on their clocks.

The concept is extremely unique and innovative, which made me think it was going to be an "Inception"-type film. However, it was disappointing to see "In Time" fall short of my expectations. It pains me to say this, but Justin Timberlake should not have been chosen for the role of Will Salas. He just can't pull off the character of a tough guy from the ghetto. Amanda Seyfried is decent as Silvia, but she and Timberlake don't have much chemistry.

I also don't think the script was very well written, which causes Timberlake and Seyfried to be even less believable as their characters. In addition, the characters are not developed enough; it's difficult to get a sense of whom these people, from opposite worlds, really are.

I found myself checking my watch multiple times throughout the movie. I was distracted and the movie felt much longer than it actually is. For all of these reasons, I give "In Time" a 6 out of 10. Great idea. Poorly executed.
281 out of 377 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Interesting idea, poorly executed
JanTornado19 December 2013
If there's something instantly captivating about a movie - it's when the idea's new. In "In Time", the plot revolves around the interesting idea that time is the new currency and rules the world like the Dollar once used to. The poor must fight to live for a few days, the rich are practically immortal.

This could have become a new scifi milestone, if it wasn't for the poorly executed script, stiff acting and highly predictable plot. The scenes are thrown together and feel like reenacted from typical "Bonnie and Clyde", "Romeo and Juliet", two against the world and enemy of the state type movies. None of the scenes seem original or well executed. Actions and reactions by the actors seem unnatural or rushed, unrealistic even. Some character development just feels plain wrong. Not because of the plot, but because the characters don't seem to be portrayed very well. Although a scifi movie, realism is still necessary. "In time" shows a world that is not believable and many scenes seem straight stupid.

It's not a great movie. If not for the cool plot idea and the likable main character, it wouldn't be worth watching at all. But if you want to see a world, albeit fake, where people fight over time to survive, give it a go.
28 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Interesting concept, but ...
wittmann739 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Let me play the nitpicker here: First off, the idea that your "clock" is always visible is pretty stupid to begin with. That's like us walking around with a bank balance stamped across our arm. It should become visible with a touch on the wrist or something.

The fact that all you have to do is touch arms to take time is stupid, ,too. There's no way to make it voluntary? No kind of security? I mean, it's you life for crying out loud!!

Will and Sylvia robbing their first time bank. How did they get a hold of an armored truck in the first place? All you have to do to rob a bank and get all the time you want is crash into the front? If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it! There are people dying in the streets everyday and no one has thought to do this?

Olivia's death, it was too cliché. Literally missing it by like a second? Come on!

Why would the lead Minute Man want to 'fight' Will? (also, they never made that concept clear until they sat at that table) Why wouldn't he just take his time and be done with it? He had nothing to gain from it. It was just weak writing in my opinion.

And what happened to that subplot of Will's father? They kept alluding to some great reveal or that Leon knew something Will didn't, but then the film just forgot about it. Are they trying to tell us that Will's altruism was hereditary? When Will got to Greenich, what was his plan? It seemed to me like he was just buying his way into high society and playing with the rich. I couldn't figure out what his endgame was going to be.

This one is again not a flaw, but can we all agree that car crash into the ditch looked just ridiculous? Terrible CGI and not believable at all.

And how they got the jump on Weiss, Sylvia's father. He's got more security around him than the President, but all you need is a pair of sunglasses to get the jump on him? Does the "security team" consist of random people who do not know each other? Then once you got him to lead you upstairs, all his bodyguards did what? Went out for lunch? Why didn't they go after him? Why weren't they waiting downstairs for him? Why weren't any alarms sounding? Stupid. So you have a million years in you hand and presumably only an hour on you wrist, yet you don't take any for yourself? I guess handing a little girl 999,999 years, 11 months, and 28 days just doesn't have the same resonance.

You can pay one year to get into Greenwich zone ... or you just walk in, there is no security or guards anyway.

"Wire me my per diem- wait, never mind ..." that was stupid. All he had to do was put his arm out. Also, it made it obvious from that point how Leon was going to die.

Conclusion: If you're the kind of viewer who can overlook flaws like this, I can see someone finding this movie enjoyable, it had an interesting premise, with a good cast, but plots holes you could drive a monster truck through.
48 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great film
richieandsam24 February 2013

I loved this film. I have never seen a film like it... the story was awesome.

In this film, there is no money... you buy everything with time. Everyone has a clock in their arm which they can see. The time just keeps ticking down and if the counter gets to zero, you are dead. You work for time... to get paid you have to put your arm in a machine that adds time to your clock... to buy things you have to use the time you have to buy it.

The story really did appeal to me... i thought it was a great idea.

It has got Justin Timberlake in it... Now, I don't like Justin much, but the more films I see him in the more I like him as an actor.

He does a great job. The main actress in it is Amanda Seyfried. She does a good job too... the film also stars Cillian Murphy.

There were 2 things in this movie I was not really impressed with. Firstly, there was a scene where a car crashes and falls down a hill before crashing to a halt at the bottom... the effects were terrible. You could clearly see the car was computer simulated. It didn't fall like a car would. Secondly, in the film people could fight for time... I liked the idea of this, but Justin had a way of winning these fights... but his way of winning was weak... i just didn't get how he could win the way he does. Watch it... you will know what I mean.

All in all this film is great. I really enjoyed it.

I will give it 8 out of 10.

Justins best film so far.

For more reviews, please like my Facebook page: Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very unique film
tr9130 September 2013
'In Time' was a film that I saw advertised when it was released and thought it looked good but then I didn't hear any more about it until I came across it on DVD. I'm glad I did manage to see this at last because it was very enjoyable.

The plot for this film is very unique, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this. There was a lot of familiar actors in this (Cillian Murphy, Johnny Galecki, Vincent Kartheiser to name a few). The acting was very good overall I thought, even from Justin Timberlake in the lead role.

There was some good drama as well as good action scenes (car chases, shooting etc). It is the sort of film that will keep you guessing as to what will happen next and it was just a very interesting concept overall.

It would have been nice if there was a bit more back story though, it was never really explained why the world was like it was. Apart from that, just take it for what it is and enjoy it.

Would recommend it to anyone who fancies watching something a bit different.

42 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Time is wasting and you may want your time back at the end of the film
skepsci30 October 2011
I'll start straight off the cuff. Niccol is one of my favourite writer/directors. In fact, one of my favourite films is Gattaca, which has been so under-rated over the years since its release. To me he's been a great Sci-Fi writer, so going into this I was hopeful of something of quality.

Alas, "In Time" is not for the true Sci-Fi thinker. It paints a world in which time is money. That isn't that new an idea, but Niccols does succeed in pushing the metaphor as a commodity. Those with time are rich, those without time are poor. It's a simplistic analogy. As with Niccol's other films, the cinematography is beautiful. The best actors in the film aren't the main characters, rather Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser and (surprisingly) Alex Pettyfer present more interesting characters. They all shine, especially Murphy. The film seems like one long car chase, when what you actually want to delve into are the complexities - the debates between the characters themselves over the issues of the world they live in. Not a single clever conversation happens between anyone. Murphy is a great actor and I would have been interested to see the debate about right and wrong become greyed through some thinking. Life is not black and white. The film ending is unrealistic and I wonder if this was the ending envisioned by Niccol or the ending the producers wanted to boost sales.

Sadly this film could have been a great deal more. It had a good topic. It had some great actors, yet it failed because the story lost the nuances and complexities to meet the lowest common denominator, rather than raising questions or making the viewer think critically. See it, but be prepared to be disappointed. It isn't subtle.
248 out of 390 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Make Time for this Movie.
derekblake1 November 2011
A very unusual film screen-play, well written and shot, don't expect any CGI effects here, this is a very down to Earth sci-fi that bears more than a passing resemblance to our current problem with world banks. Surprisingly Justin Timberlake puts in a very professional performance, and not a song in sight, Timberlake carries the part with a very grounded performance being so laid back that he is almost horizontal. Amanda Seyfried submits a polished performance although her make-up makes her look like one of those Japanese animations of what a European looks like, complete with over-sized eyes. The film holds the attention from the first to the last frame and provokes some emotion from the viewer on several levels. Certainly worth a watch, not quite a Rolex, but much better than a Timex.
221 out of 347 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This movie was a waste of time for me. Great concept, badly executed.
ironhorse_iv6 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It's time to review this dystopian sci-fi thriller film. Written & directed by Andrew Niccol, the movie open up in 2169, where people are born genetically engineered with a digital clock on their forearm. To help avoid overpopulation, when people turn 25 years old, they stop aging and their clock begins counting down from one year; when it reaches zero that person "times out" and dies instantly. Time has become the universal currency. The country has been divided into "time zones" based on the wealth of the population. The movie focuses on two specific zones: Dayton, a poor manufacturing area where people like Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) live day-to-day and New Greenwich, the wealthiest time zone, where Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfield) can live nearly forever. This is an everyday struggle for Will until he ends up rescuing a rich guy named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer). For this favor, Henry gives his time to Will, so that he take revenge for the death of Will's mother (Olivia Wilde). Now with plenty of time, he plans to give the people, the freedom of their lives, by making the upper class pay. Too bad, Will Salas is a hypocrite. He delays all this, so that he can spent time, buying nice cars, eating at fancy restaurants, trying to hook up with Sylvia, attending rich people parties and playing high stakes poker. It takes forever to get to the 'Robin Hood' plot that the movie trailer promise us. Lots of filling scenes that slow down the pace to a crawl. The movie plot is a thinly-veiled allegory for the Occupy Wall Street movement against the 1%. It's supposed to be social commentary about the growing global divide between the haves and have-nots. It's an intriguing premise, but unfortunately, the movie follows a really predictable formulaic plot, ending with lousy satisfying conclusion. Robbing banks will solve the economy?!? What? This is a good example of Hollywood not understanding economics. Do they think, robbing banks would solve the economy? It would make it worst. "Is it stealing if it's already stolen?" quotes the movie. Yes, it is. This movie is just a mess; trying to add a Bonnie and Clyde type heist story with political overtones doesn't work. There was no depth to the movie's resolution other than everyone deserves equality. The movie lacks good exposition. It's too heavy-handed, explaining a lot of things that didn't need to. The movie takes a lot of Artistic License in science and economic causing a lot of things to make no sense. Obviously made for a teen demographic, everybody in the film cast is beautiful as hell. It's implied, they are genetically engineered, but still, I didn't know, the really poor, can still look amazing gorgeous, despite only have hours or minutes to live. It's really jarring. I do hope that the film makers know that aging isn't a gene. Even if the rich can live forever, the skin will still be thinner and wrinkled by time manly due to exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Aging can't be stop. Only postponed. Also, why 25 year old is the cut-off date? Isn't that the age frame where most people do the most work? Why not, use the ones that you selection to be born, longer like until 50 or 60 year old until terminating them? They isn't no point to eliminate them in the first place. You kill a lot of young people, who does the majority of the work? There is no reason why children should even being born, if they're genetically engineered and nobody dies from old age. Another thing, why waste resources waiting for the children to reach 25 in the first place? Just create a fully grown male and female. It doesn't make sense why people still need to eat and drink, when they don't feed on energy. How can you get alcohol poisoning if disease are eradicate in this world? There are so many loose-ends that I can go on, about like what happen to the time, when people die due to mauling to their bodies. If they are genetically engineered, couldn't they just get fix up? The movie even forget sub-plot like what happen to Will's late father. The movie is also very insulting. A lot of over the top rich people have Jewish last names pushing the Greedy Jew stereotypes. The acting is mediocre. Justin Timberlake is pretty lackluster. The best actor in the film, had to be Cillain Murphy. Amanda Seyfield is just there to be the love-interest, despite Will kidnapping her at gunpoint and almost killing her in a car accident. How romantic, Stockholm Syndrome, Patty Hearst right there. How stupid! The good things about the film is the score, the action, and the set design. It really does look futuristic. I love the time fighting race against the clock tense moments. Still, there were a lot of stupid suicidal disregard of time allowance by characters that makes you wonder. Are these people, stupid? Will himself keeps coming into large quantities of time, then giving it away and leaving himself only a few hours or even minutes instead of a few years. There is a strongly reminiscent of this film to other media works. Due to that reason, the film got often dealt with copyright lawsuits. One is Harlan Ellison whom believe that the film's plot was based on his 1965 short story 'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman". Another is Lee Falk who believe it was taken from "Mandrake and the Goldman: Time is Money", a comic issue. Many of the elements of In Time can be found in the 1987 short film 'The Price of Life' & the Hannu Rajaniemi's novel 'The Quantum Thief' as well. Overall: There isn't enough time in the world, to get me to re watch this bad movie. You're probably better off just watching 1997 Gattaca than wasting time and money on this movie.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Really Good Drinking Game
Fields20130 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The only way In Time could be fully enjoyed is make a drinking game whenever someone says "time" in the movie. You will be drunk halfway through the movie and most likely dead at the end of it.

There were two things that made me want to see this movie: 1) The premise sounded interesting. The fact that it's about people living off time, with the rich living forever and the poor living off borrowed time is a rather thought-provoking one. And 2) I like Justin Timberlake. What saddens me is that he just wasn't very good in this movie, as he and the dowey-eyed Amanda Siegfried both just seem so bored throughout the entire movie. They have zero chemistry and I'm even going to say that they are just as bad as Anakin and Padme in Star Wars. That's the lowest bar you can go in the chemistry lab.

Not only did Justin Timberlake seem bored, but he also has a hard time conveying certain emotions. Take the scene where his mother dies in his arms, for instance. Wasn't convinced, Justin. His crying felt forced and it was. After that he vows revenge against all the time people, and risks being chased by the Timekeeper (the always awesome Cillian Murphy), and after he is given a decade worth of time from someone who is tired of living, he meets up with some rich people and kidnaps a rather high Amanda Siegfried and then starts taking time, and giving it to people, you know, like Robin Hood.... except with time. They work together, bored the whole way through, and they try to convey emotions like love.... because if you have a guy and a girl on screen together, you have to make them full in love. That's Hollywood 101 right there!

This is really disappointing to me because I expected better out of In Time. What I got is pretty much a boring movie, with a premise that sounded interesting but then it turns the movie into a one-note-wonder. If I could turn back time, I would have seen Puss In Boots instead.
196 out of 310 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Time well spent!
ArtandJoyofMovies5 November 2011
This is a really cool idea for a film. A day in the future when the commodity of value is not cash or gold, it is time. Everyone gets to live to age 25. After that you have one year to live, or less. It all depends upon whether you use all your time credits or you earn more. Regardless, if you live to age 100, or longer, your body physically remains looking twenty five.

On the plus side is Justin Timberlake coming back and showing that his misstep in Bad Teacher (2011) was just one of those embarrassing Hollywood screw ups. Timberlake has real drama and acting talent and is definitely here for the long haul. (Too bad Elvis was never given such chances.) Timberlake gave us a glimpse of his depth last year in The Social Newtwork (2010) , but his talents were not fully developed for Friends with Benefits (2011).

The script starts with the eerie, sobering reminder, and all too familiar words, "We don't have time...we don't have time..." Think if today you had to buy everything with time, instead of bank credit or cash. Coffee costs four minutes. A bus ride costs an hour. A car costs two years. People can give or take time from each other. Just don't run out of time or you will die on the spot. If this were real, would you treasure and spend time more wisely? The real interesting question may be that time really is the currency we live by now, we just fail to see it that way. The simple fact is that you can earn countless piles of cash and gold in this world, but you really cannot buy time. Despite the wealthy in today's world sometimes being able to cheat a few years with better health care, we all are going to die in the same average years.

While the script is the superficial tale of Will Salas (Timberlake) and his Mom (Wilde) trying to pass time in a futuristic world, the messages of the film go far deeper. It is really a tale of class warfare. People who have time, like the mega "eonaire" Phillipe Weis (Katheiser) and his rich daughter Sylvia (Seyfried) and those who constantly struggle to keep time (or run out of it) like the Salas family. Will gets the chance to move up into a better time zone thanks to a man who has just decided that after a hundred years or so, he prefers to "time out." He leaves Will the prophetic warning "Don't waste my time." How Will chooses to spend his time, for himself or for the benefit of all, is now the story.

I really did not mind that the future depicted in this film was not futuristic looking and all the cars were vintage 1970's models with updated lighting and electric sounding motors. It saved a huge budget rather than try to make the world look like it probably will in 2013 or so. And I think the point was that the future is really now.

As an entertaining film, my 7.5 rating is spot on. As a thought provoking experience, I might have given it a 10.0. After seeing this film, you should go out and visit with friends. Your own clock is ticking down. Are you really using it wisely? Unlike the time down clock on the arm of the people in this film, you never know when your time is about up.

This's worth your time.
161 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In Time is Surprisingly Time Well Spent
primona1 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I found this movie original and enjoyable. It's about a futuristic world where people stop aging at 25. They all have a digital clock on their forearm bearing a year's worth of time. The clock begins its countdown once you turn 25. There is no money in this bleak future world. Instead the currency is time. Everything you do from getting coffee to riding the bus is paid in time so literally time is money. Within this backdrop is a love story and revenge tale. Justin Timberlake is suitable as factory worker Will Silas and Amanda Seyfried plays the beautiful, pampered Sylvia. They are likable and the chemistry between the two is believable. The main downside to the movie is the subplot involving Timekeeper/Cop Raymond Leon and his cronies. I found his character annoying and his zeal for the job unbelievable. However, the plot is strong enough to make-up for this distraction. As someone not expecting a lot, I was glad I took the time to watch this movie.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In Time is definitely IN!
azeeliramli26 October 2011
I had the privilege of watching this movie earlier than most people in the world because its released early in Malaysia, to profit from Deepavali public holiday crowd on 26 Oct.

The story is simple. Time is the commodity in the future. But the best part is how the filmmaker show the audience how to use this commodity in normal everyday life. How much time you pay for certain things, where to get extra time, etc. Simply brilliant.

I never cared too much about Timberlake before, but his performance in Social Network caught my attention, and In Time further proves that he can act. The pace can be quite a drag here and there, but its full of suspense all the way, many chase scenes and all.

For those of you who are tired of prequels, sequels, three-quels, superheros, robots, aliens, etc, give In Time a shot, its definitely worth your time. The most original movie this year. 109 minutes is a commodity well-spent.
238 out of 395 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty faces, Ugly script... Don't waste your time
justicewillprevail27 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Why does Hollywood insist on spending on stars, but not enough on script? Massive fail, gaping plot holes. You will know what you're in for when the opening line is "don't know how it happened, it's just like that". Suspend my disbelief is fine, just don't insult my intelligence.

*Spoiler begins* Time is the only currency, and once out you get a massive heart attack and die. Transfer of currency is by skin contact and doesn't even need compliance from the owner... Which is called a "fight". This is my most major beef with the script. Even credit cards need verification to process transactions, in this show one can can just touch and take. Gives a whole new meaning to touch of death.

The nonsense continues: I seriously LOLed when the stars "rob" a bank (just crash a car through the front door) and the "villain" Cillian died. He plays a "Time Keeper" but dies by forgetting to watch his time... the mysterious stranger who gives away time also needs no reason to, other than being tired of living.

There was even an oversight somewhere in the middle, whereby JT asks AS for a "loan" only to get rejected though he has but hours to live. He handles rejection by falling asleep only to wake up in the morning (presumably sleeping past his heart attack). Surprised ANYONE in this make-believe world could fall asleep, seeing as you might be death touched in the night... *spoilers end*

If anything, this show taught me the importance of time. Don't make my mistake, do NOT watch this movie.
157 out of 256 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What A Pity
greytuol1 November 2011
Looking at this film and its concept I was intrigued. With this said the film does fail to live up to the potential of its concept. One of the few major issues i have with this film is the lack of back-story with regards to the implementation of the 'body clock', along with the lack of true quality acting and a well written script. As a result of this what the viewer will get from this film experience are moments (and i mean moments) where you are enjoying the film, but by the end of it all you can reflect on what you have seen and notice that you could have done a lot more with your money if you had not gone to watch In Time.

...What a pity
201 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In Short, Thoroughly Entertaining.
rajan-stwf9 May 2013
I don't know about you but looking down at the reviews there seem to be an overwhelming amount of negative responses. I was completely disheartened by this.

In my opinion, In Time was an original well written and well acted and truly thought provoking production and I loved it. The fact that it subtly questioned our morality and made us question real world issues such as poverty and political stance was just one of the things that made me love this movie.

To the people who dislike the feature and to those negative reviews which I have read I have a few responses. Firstly, I saw a point about not enough back story into the body clock. The first thought that struck me was really? The movie is not centred around the body clock, and furthermore throughout the film we are told of its uses and get to a fairly good understanding to how it works. Do you not agree that any more back story would waste time and most likely just bore the typical viewer? Finally to those who disliked the acting and script I strongly disagree. I though both Justin and Amanda played there parts very well and there chemistry was as good as any action film I have scene.

I would highly recommend this film to anyone, and suggest if you haven't already seen it you should definitely make some time if you think you will enjoy this movie.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's all very familiar, which doesn't make it one whit less awesome.
rachel-673-1994625 October 2011
I went into this one with the lowest expectations, and boy was I wrong. For one thing, before I saw his name in the opening credits, I had no idea this was an Andrew Niccol film, and since he is the stylish, stylized genius who gave us GATTACA, suddenly things were looking up. Then, wow, this cast! Sure, I knew about Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, but check out the rest of them: Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy, THE BIG BANG THEORY's Johnny Galecki, WHITE COLLAR's Matt Bomer and genre-It Kid, Alex Pettyfer. I mean, come on! How can a movie be directed by Andrew Niccol AND contain so much of the pretty AND also be science fiction and NOT be completely, exactly, entirely the kind of movie that I would love, love, love?

Want to know why my expectations were low? I'd seen a snippet of the trailer -- which just looked to me like a bunch of TRANSFORMERS-style running around the place -- and had read the basic film synopsis sent to me by Fox Studios' publicity department. So what I knew was this:

"Welcome to a world where time has become the ultimate currency. You stop aging at 25, but there's a catch: you're genetically-engineered to live only one more year, unless you can buy your way out of it. The rich "earn" decades at a time (remaining at age 25), becoming essentially immortal, while the rest beg, borrow or steal enough hours to make it through the day. When a man from the wrong side of the tracks is falsely accused of murder, he is forced to go on the run with a beautiful hostage. Living minute to minute, the duo's love becomes a powerful tool in their war against the system."

Why was I hesitant about this premise? Because, come on! How many sci-fi tropes do you want to hit? Predetermined age-limit to combat overpopulation: LOGAN'S RUN, among many others. Being able to effectively purchase immortality: Elizabeth Moon's Familias Regnant series, among many others. Falsely accused and on the run in a future, dystopian society: hello MINORITY REPORT, THE ISLAND and who knows what all else! But you know what? Much like he did in GATTACA, where he took the already well-worn path of the genetically-superior being not necessarily being superior and made it his own, writer/director Niccol brings a freshness, almost a whole new sensibility to these and the other trappings of classic sci-fi he offers up to us here. We also get action, suspense, romance, humor, social commentary, gorgeous visuals and, as I mentioned, bucket loads of the pretty -- I would pay good money to see Matt Bomer and Olivia Wilde in anything; impossibly beautiful doesn't even begin to cover that blessed pair -- and wow, what a thoroughly, unexpectedly fun, truly thought-provoking and utterly engaging time this movie was. I am still flabbergasted at just how much I dug this. I actually broke into spontaneous applause as the credits rolled. And I can't wait to see it again.

But the big question: how was JT? He was, I will have you know, excellent. I have long felt that there was something effortlessly engaging about his whole persona, whether in interviews or on SNL or in roles as diverse as beleaguered rookie cop in EDISON, Napster hipster Sean Parker in THE SOCIAL NETWORK or squirrelly substitute Scott in BAD TEACHER. He doesn't really seem to act: he just IS. Here, he is an unlikely action hero, but somehow, he pulls it off in grand style, looking simultaneously earnest, dangerous and adorable, and easily holding his own even alongside someone the likes of Murphy, whose hypnotic eyes can convey more in one blink of an eyelash than many a lesser actor can get across in an entire soliloquy.

All of the other performances are top notch, particularly from Wilde and Galecki -- who brings most of the funny in the film -- and hey, you know who else is in here! Vincent Kartheiser, AKA Connor from ANGEL! And he's not bad at all, either. In fact, he and Pettyfer are our main bad guys, and both pull of criminal cool pretty damn well.

The long and the short of it? See this film. It's entertaining, it has a message, it is a feast for the eyes, and we definitely need to be encouraging more of this kind of genre filmmaking. True, it's not a truly original piece of work. In fact, in addition to all of the other things it reminds me of, it also brings to mind EQUILIBRIUM -- not so much in its content but in the way that it is essentially a mashup of a whole bunch of established ideas out of speculative fiction, but gives them new life (Equilibrium went with BRAVE NEW WORLD, FAHRENHEIT 451, 1984 -- and also LOGAN'S RUN as its inspirations). But that's okay; I really like EQUILIBRIUM, too.

In doing a little research for this review, I discovered that the ever-litigious SF luminary Harlan Ellison is suing Niccol and various studio-types for plagiarism, given this movie's similarity to his 1965 short story "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman." Having not read the piece in question, I can't comment, but considering Ellison's unrelenting pursuit of copyright infringers, one would think that if Niccol WAS to knowingly steal from anyone, he'd have picked a safer target. After all, most of the ideas in this movie can be found all over Sci-Fi, not to mention in Action, and Drama and Crime, as well.

But sometimes it's not about the provenance of the ideas, it's what you do with them. And here, Niccol has done wonders. (As long as you suspend your disbelief and go with the fact that Timberlake, Seyfried and the rest are, biologically, only 25. Luckily, Hollywood's been conditioning us to do just that for years.)

-- Rachel Hyland, Geek Speak Magazine
148 out of 250 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than I had envisioned.
kimjarman196 February 2012
Well this film was surprisingly better than I was expecting it to be.. Justin Timberlake isn't a very strong actor in my opinion, but he took the spotlight in this one. Amanda Seyfried looked beautiful as ever with her little bob, and the acting really wasn't too bad.

There's sad and happy moments all with that little bit of constant tension as you'll find if you watch it.

It was a really good concept and an enjoyable film, I gave it an 8/10 as I think they could've thought of a better lead actor but it was enjoyable none the less. I would recommend it to anyone, it doesn't really ever become boring and the tension keeps you focused at all times.
55 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In time, this movie will get the credit it deserves!
pedroedro21 October 2018
A lot has been said about this movie, the most common critique is : great concept and premise, poor execution. In some level, I can understand this critique, but I think this movie suffers from a concept that´s too good for it´s own good, if that makes any sense. Yes, the concept it´s better than the execution, but that doesn't make the execution poor in anyway. Justin Timberlake, it´s competent enough, as is Amanda Seyfried and Cillian Murphy. A ground breaking movie, none the less.Super original concept with a competent execution .
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worst movie i've seen in a cinema for a long time
jhonny-201-7053111 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
So we went to see this movie with my girlfriend, she was eager to see JT so i said oh well, my friend said it's a one-timer so we can give it a shot... and a shot in my head too.

I don't know where to begin. The good things: only one. The whole concept of the film is a great idea that money=time, and that rich people are greedy and they steal all the money(time) and poor people have to live day by day or they just die, not literally. Which is just like how the world is going, and which way the world is going atm. So that i liked. There were some OK suspense moments also, but seriously, those are the only good things i can say about this film.

What i didn't like: everything else. So there is this 28 year old badass guy from ze "ghetto", * (OBVIOUS) SPOILER ALERT * they get together with this gal from uptown, and after figuring out what to do, they break into a bank in the middle of the ghetto. There are no cops or security to stop them, they just drive through the glass, open the vault, hand out all the cash, then drive away. Seriously, why didn't any of the ghetto people EVER thought of this before? And after that, they rob one of the richest people of the USA, get away with so much money(time) that the whole economy could collapse... and they just drive away in their car. No police, no nothing. Oh yea, did i mention that cops don't have any radios or anytin? Super- future where computer interfaces are all over the place that can read human DNA, but not a single cell phone or any mobile device, NOT EVEN FOR THE POLICE!!! ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDIN ME? Is this for real? And all the time, all the same 3 people chase our heroes around. The girls father walks around with like 15 security people, and they have 3 cops to chase the big bad villains. Yep, that's the future for you. And these 2 always get away just by running & driving around. JT beats every1 and any1 not even breaking a sweat. But hey, what did i expect, i guess it's my fault...

Conversations are like if they were written by 5 year old, and i'm not kidding. I can't even remember one, but it's something like this: stupid question, stupid obvious answer, rince & repeat.

And i could go on and on, but there's only 1 more thing i'll mention. The structure of the film. Holy Cr*p. It's like they just made cuts and scenes, pasted them together and thats it. They just get from one situation to another and i was scratching my face, what the hell are they doing here now? How did we get here? And seriously, WHY? Why is that everything in this film is soooo obvious, that i would've liked to scream out loud in the cinema while tearing my own hair out. The first few mistakes you smirk and get over it, but they just keep coming and coming at you like if someone deliberately wrote this to test your nerves.

So that's it. I've never written a movie review before, but i just had to put it out there to warn everyone. I'm only giving this film a 2 out of 10 because the idea wasn't that bad to begin with. But everything else is screwed up, almost as if someone would try to deliberately write a bad script out of a good idea.
154 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Time is money and the science fiction romance genre is money for Hollywood
napierslogs13 November 2011
In the world of "In Time", time is money. Literally. Set in a future where everybody ages until 25, then they have one year left to live, except that one year is currency. The rich can live at age 25 eternally and the poor don't always have a chance to live. Time zones are classes of wealth and you can't cross over without upsetting the order of the world. It's quite possible that they have taken this time is money equation too far.

But I enjoyed this twist on the same old action movie. It even starts with some thoughts on philosophy. A rich boy finds himself in a poor man's bar where everybody wants a piece of him, so much so that his considerable wealth and time line are in danger. While the poor are in constant need of money, it turns out that the rich don't have the same drives for life. This rich guy is impressed by Will's (Justin Timberlake) honesty and earnest desire to find out how the other side lives. Will is then faced with the possibility of an infinite life time of money.

From there, we get a Robin Hood action movie. Will pairs up with a daddy's girl vixen, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) and they are on the run from the time keepers (Cillian Murphy). I have enjoyed Timberlake's recent foray into the world of movie stars, but I like him more as a comedic straight man than as an action hero. Seyfried, on the other hand, proves that she can play pretty much anything. A mysteriously innocent, sharp-shooting, sexy action girl suits her well.

The logic that this new world presents is pretty easy to figure out, but as you are doing that at least you are distracted from the usual action movie set-up. Hollywood has ventured again into the science fiction romance genre, and has again come out with an intelligent, action-packed film with something for everyone.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A awesome idea wasted
thomasajjouri7 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I honestly didn't know what to give this movie. The idea is truly awesome and the movie is actually entertaining, which for me is perhaps the most important thing. But at the same time it could have been so much better.

The main problem is simply that it is insanely unrealistic. For example: why has the CELLPHONE been uninvented? They don't exist in the movie. Only phonebooths :/ The death of the mother could have been easily prevented with a simple phone call or SMS. And why on earth is the security in general so weak? It is WAY too easy for them to rob banks and do whatever they want. Just one guy and one girl with handguns. Why hasn't someone done it before? If I knew I was going to die in a few hours unless I robbed a bank or something I think I would at least TRY it. Would you? Doesn't make any sense at all! So in the end I'll give it 6 because the idea was great and the movie kept me entertained. But besides that I think it was a waste of a really good idea...
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
time keeping
pennyelenabooks20 February 2013
'In time' introduce us to a new world, the world were the time is something that can be bought. Very good idea, futuristic and interesting, is developing very well and smoothly, if someone can use that word about an action movie. Enough drama and thriller to catch the breath of the audience, followed by strong performances. In the end, it leaves you with lots to think about, even though the ending is not in the same volume as the rest of the movie. The director did a great job in keeping the love story in normal paces and emphasizing in the main idea, the resistance to the unfair time system. Dramatic characters, with passions and strong believes, are combined nicely into the story, which has also heartbreaking moments, such as the scene when Will's mother dies in his hands. All in all, a strong movie that rewards the ones who spent the time to see it.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An awful movie
jain_ashu16 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I went to the movie with high expectation generated by really good trailers. But the good part ends there. The storyline is too simplistic and out of depth. The protagonist is modern day robin-hood who takes it upon himself to rob time rich people and distribute the excess time to the poor. He robs the bank with such an ease and without any resistance that I wonder why anybody before him didn't try that!

The movie is a series of goof ups.

1) The girls gets her hand on the gun first time and she shoots like a pro.

2) She and the hero have and argument, runs down a long road, negotiate and sells the ear rings and then hide from the police but the two minute that was left of the girl's life doesn't end. ROFL!

3) When the chase between the cop and the protagonist begins suddenly the road turns lively teeming with cars and trucks and as soon as it gets over the road suddenly gets deserted.

4) The building into which the protagonist takes a man in course of saving his life is nondescript and empty except for two costly looking pieces of sofa kept right in the middle of the floor. As if somebody knew that they will be coming and arranged so that our hero doesn't face any discomfort.

Leave along the hero, even the villain does't lives up to the expectation and dies without a whimper. Clearly, the movie lacks strong storyline. The direction was without the direction and acting average.

Its a total waste!
51 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed