IMDb > In Time (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
In Time
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
In Time More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 44:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 436 reviews in total 

242 out of 321 people found the following review useful:

Great idea. Poorly executed.

6/10
Author: kgmarra from United States
1 November 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

196 out of 306 people found the following review useful:

Time is wasting and you may want your time back at the end of the film

5/10
Author: skepsci from United Kingdom
30 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

99 out of 123 people found the following review useful:

Great start, decent follow-through.

7/10
Author: droze01 from Canada
20 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

170 out of 269 people found the following review useful:

A Really Good Drinking Game

4/10
Author: Fields201 from United States
30 October 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

180 out of 289 people found the following review useful:

Make Time for this Movie.

Author: derekblake from Lesvos, Greece
1 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

207 out of 348 people found the following review useful:

In Time is definitely IN!

Author: azeeliramli from Malaysia
26 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

172 out of 286 people found the following review useful:

What A Pity

6/10
Author: greytuol from United Kingdom
1 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

Was the above review useful to you?

136 out of 218 people found the following review useful:

Pretty faces, Ugly script... Don't waste your time

3/10
Author: justicewillprevail from Tokelau
27 October 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

129 out of 208 people found the following review useful:

Time well spent!

Author: ArtandJoyofMovies from United States
5 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 film...it's worth your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

129 out of 218 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie i've seen in a cinema for a long time

2/10
Author: jhonny-201-705311 from Budapest
1 November 2011

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 44:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history