In Time (2011) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
484 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.
139 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
268 out of 359 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
28 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
233 out of 363 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
214 out of 337 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
187 out of 293 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
150 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
145 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
231 out of 386 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
189 out of 316 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A disappointment
chris-williams-113-46829622 September 2014
Given the pedigree of the director of this film (notably GATTACA which I'd rate as one of the best science fiction films ever made and criminally overlooked), I really expected more.

The production is very much in the same mould - the 'future' world is understated, in many ways a retro-styled present day bereft of any CGI or flashy special effects. That's in keeping with the high concept underpinnings of the film, which much like GATTACA is based on extrapolating the ramifications on human living of a development of medical science.

So far, so good and it certainly seems to hold promise initially. Unfortunately the subtlety of the earlier film is quickly lost as the plot leads not toward a considered analysis of social implications, but instead a heavy handed adventure thriller which succumbs to a misguided appeal to popularism (or perhaps its stars' vanity), by becoming a melodramatic action-flick.

I can't lay too much blame at the feet of Tiberlake, Murphy and the rest of the cast as the material really doesn't lend itself to credible performance from its cast.

I find myself left to ponder if this is one of those pieces of cinema which started out as something which would have been thoughtfully considered and delivered a genuine emotional resonance, that was then ruined by the desires of producers, actors or other influence to present something which might attract a greater box-office. In the end the effect was just to butcher something of potential into a dog's breakfast of an offering that satisfies as neither a piece of escapist entertainment, nor a work making serious points about serious issues.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's all very familiar, which doesn't make it one whit less awesome.
Rachel Hyland25 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
136 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
145 out of 253 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Such an Intriguing Idea Gone (for the most part) to Waste
michael-colan20 August 2012
What an intriguing idea. This is the type of SC-FI that I usually tend to like over just another film with space battles. SC-Fi films that make you think and make parallels to real life. Once I saw the previews to this film I thought this film would be something special. Not only did the film have an intriguing idea but only draw from mythic arc types like Robin Hood and numinous of great themes but the film falls short on such a great idea with a failure to really understand what type of scope there really could have been with this story along with a less than stellar cast the film is entertaining but only a footnote of what it could have been.

The film's concept is a future where humans have been genetically engineered to stop ageing after age 25 but after that you have only one more year to live. Time is the currency of the time, no such thing as money. You work to get more time but it is a bleak future where the rich have all the power and all the time. Meanwhile the rest live in the ghettos where almost everyone has only has 24 hours to live and they live by the clock.

While the story opens with a man in the ghetto named Will Salas is given the gift of time from a man who doesn't care to live anymore from the rich-infected lifestyle. Will is then accused of murder and on the run from a police force known as "timekeepers." With a rich man's daughter at his side he hopes to effect change in the system.

The film's story should have been one of the best of the decade. I mean the idea is so good it feels awful that it was a bit wasted. The film story does a good job on laying out the ground rules of the universe they live in. This was great about it a short speech in the beginning and then you are trusted into the life of Will Salas. You get a pretty good picture on how he lives just from the first 10 min. You learn a lot about the world and the film starts to set up some story lines but that's where a lot of the film's really strong points end.

The film starts up several story lines and just never delivers. Some just seems abandoned by the end and others that kept building and never got the final "crescendo" or pay off. It seems like not only that with these great ideas and scary parallels to real life class warfare the idea could have been bigger than it ended up being, It hard to say exactly what it was missing. I feel like the film could have been even bigger with its ideas and themes. It fact with this idea the film could have been a great long SC-FI epic. Maybe my expectations for the film was just too high but I feel I was let down by story because of the potential it had and that's just aside from the plot holes and incompletion of certain story lines. There were also some scenes I honestly thought could make for some classic scenes like when we finally get to see what "a fighter" is and how they fight. The scene was too short and was a number of others felt a little short in fact the film overall felt a bit short without a real good conclusion.

The film seems to leave the possibility of having a strong story oriented film instead opting for an action fueled story. The film has no shortage of action sequences and that is properly the saving grace to the film. It does keep the viewer entertained and it does keep the story moving. Without this factor the film would unsalvageable. There are some good car crashes and also on foot chases. A good number of gun battles to be boot. Even with the PG-13 rating it is able to have some real action and violence. However I think I could have done without a couple of these so we would have a stronger story.

The acting is also questionable. I would have made different choices. Justin Timberlake stars a Will Salas and Justin is good here for the action sequences but he isn't the greatest with the dramatic scenes. This is a shame because I thought he would because I really liked his performance in The Social Network (2010). Amanda Seyfried's performance falls flat in my eyes even though she had some nice chemistry with Justin. Cillian Murphy is amazing as the timekeeper Raymond Leon. This is an outstanding performance from Murphy as he usually delivers. The rest are decent but nothing special. Shyloh Oostwald is okay; I liked Johnny Galecki as Borel. I didn't love Olivia Wilde even if she didn't have a big part. Alex Pettyfer is finally getting better roles since his role in Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006). He is good here as Fortis the "minutemen" which a "gangster of the future."

Andrew Niccol is a great talent behind the camera and I don't doubt that either. His look to the film to perfect for this film. Also his of practical effects over CGI heavy effects is defiantly noticeable in a good way. The music by Craig Armstrong fits perfectly.

Really with this type of idea it really could have been something special. The acting hurt the film a bit with the exception of Cillian Murphy. But with a talented director behind the camera and talent behind the scenes also with some really entertaining action sequences makes the film watchable but you can't help but feel it could be so much more. If there was a film that I would like to see remade, this would be it.

Final Score

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
47 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.

23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A movie this bad should not remind its viewers that time is limited.
jayp85101 November 2011
OK, so I had high hopes for this movie. I saw the trailer and as a closet socialist loved the clear underlying theme of the rich having to keep many people down in order to maintain their power. So as I sat down in the theatre I was hoping that even if the movie wasn't up to scratch at least the underlying message would make it all worth while.

But from the very beginning there are so many flaws with this movie that I could not bring myself to enjoy it. The concept itself is so flawed that I could not bring myself to see past it.

The idea is that in the society of the future (which looks strangely like today but with slightly modified cars) there has been a breakthrough in medical science that stops people aging at 25. This is somehow achieved with the price tag that everybody must have a time display on their arm that counts ever down to zero. When you get there, you die. An interesting idea which brings up many good questions such as "is time rationed or is it being hoarded by the authorities?". Sadly these questions are lightly glossed over rather than any in depth exploration.

JT is a character in the ghetto and lives his life permanently "broke". This means he rarely has more than a day or two of life left. And here we come to the first major flaw of the concept. Everybody around JT is the same. They all have almost no life, "in the bank", all the time. And yet these people walk around casually drinking coffee (costs 4 minutes) and drinking in bars (also costs time) when they are just hours from death. Thinking about this for even a second it becomes clear that people this close to kicking it would be doing anything in their power to try and get more minutes. There would be no semblance of society as any body who was prepared to steal time off others would, and very quickly they would be the only people left alive. JT casually gives time to a girl on the street, a very nice gesture to be sure, however completely unrealistic given that at the time he had less than a day to live. Its all very well to give away money when you are broke but to give away time when you are about to die, that is a very different story. People this close to the edge all the time would act very differently from you and me, something this film does nothing to explore.

There are many many more flaws in this film but I won't go on about them. But the thing that finally tipped it for me was when they started trying to expand on the commentary of the capitalist system in the US by having outlets that lent time to the poor people in the ghetto for extortionate interest. These are the same people that seem to constantly have less than a day of life to their name. Once again this does not stand up to any real scrutiny. There is no way that a person who has allowed themselves to get down to less than a day of life is going to have any assets. If I was going to be dead in a day I am definitely selling my TV to try and get more time. I am certainly not likely to have anything that a loan shark considers capital enough to back a loan.

But enough of my whinging. In the end because this movie could have been so good I couldn't enjoy the aspects that where well done. I have focused on the story flaws because they are what annoyed me the most. I am prepared to look past JT's bad acting, I am prepared to look past the fact that the future looks just like the present but with cars that have slightly strange lights, I am prepared to look past all the poorly thought out and completely unnecessary action scenes and I am prepared to look past whatever was going on in that hand of poker. But in the end this movie is flawed from the very beginning when the society they create could never exist due to basic human nature. Very few people would ever allow themselves to be just days from death when so many opportunities exist around them to gain by taking advantage of others. This movie had so many interesting areas it could have explored but in the end it is just disappointing.

In the end if you are prepared to look past these things and you just want to see JT without his shirt drive round in a damn sexy old school E type jag and just generally be cool then you will probably enjoy this one. However if you are like me and have trouble ignoring the big holes in the basic concept and can't watch such an interesting idea be butchered then best to save the time this movie will take for something else.
31 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An awful movie
Ashutosh Jain16 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!
44 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Social Commentary is obvious...but the film still stands out well!
andell28 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It's interesting that this film is coming out now, as the "Occupy" movement is raging in several cities around the world. It couldn't be more opportune for a film like this, which makes an obvious statement about the concentration of resources in the hands of a few, and the pain and complexity the creates in the lives of the many.

Justin Timberlake is impressive as Will Salas, a 28 year old man who is chronically living day to day, literally, due to the fact that he was born in a slum, in a world where your life span is the only currency out there. Of course we are left with no doubt that although he feels the pressure acutely, he is still very generous to the people in his community.

One night at a local bar, Will happens to meet Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), a man who has lots of time, but is weary after having living for more than a century already. Will saves Henry from a gang of time hustlers known as "Minute Men" by hiding out in a factory. It is there, after Will sleeps, that Henry empties his clock of all but 5 minutes, topping up Will's life span before leaving to secure a poetic end for himself.

Will all this time on his clock, Will gives some to his drunkard friend, and intends to use much of the rest to treat his 50 year old Mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde), only to get to her too late to prevent her from "timing out" for good. Devastated by her loss, Will decides to work to help others and shake up the system.

Along the way, Will is pursued Timekeeper Leon (played effectively by Cillian Murphy) and by Fortis (supurbly played by the gorgeous Alex Pettyfer) and his Minute Men gang. While trying to evade both men and their factions, Will takes rich girl Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) hostage...which turns into a romance There are some scenes that are fun to watch...among the funnest for me was the showdown between Will and Fortis. Fortis and his men capture Will and Sylvia, and as he was holding a personal grudge, Fortis decides to fight Will, man to man, as they do it in that futuristic day. Of course little does Fortis know that Will learned how to fight from his Father...and before he knows it, his men are shot dead, and Fortis himself is "timed out" (or in other words, killed) by Will. It is an excellent scene in a very good film!

The film itself however works because the commentary is so relevant: Will sees the system for it's cruelty, but as he works to change it, he's unable to do it without the help of Sylvia. Timekeeper Leon was once in the ghetto like Will, and he seems to be a fair man, but he believes that the system is the best one available to THIS society at THIS it's best to uphold it and accept it. Fortis is the scumbag criminal (albeit gorgeous) who plays dirty and cannibalizes his own community to get he likes the system because it lets him do what he wants to do. Sylvia is the curious and insulated branch of affluence who knows the system is unfair, but is unsure of how to change it.

Check out this's certainly worth it!
35 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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...
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Time is Money
Girish Gowda8 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Its the year 2161 and genetic alteration has allowed humans to stop aging after their 25th birthday thereby making it possible for them to live forever. But due to concerns of overpopulation, the system is tweaked so that money is replaced by 'living time' as the standard currency and people must acquire more time through labor and commercial means after turning 25 years of age, or die within a year. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a 28-year-old man who lives with his 50-year old mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde) in the ghettos and works in the factory. He encounters a 105-year-old Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who has more than a century on his clock and is attacked by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), the 75-year old mobster boss of a gang called the 'Minutemen', who are infamous for stealing other people's time by force. Will helps Hamilton escape the confrontation. Hamilton tells Will that there's enough time for everyone, but it is being stockpiled for the rich to use in becoming immortal. An upset Henry describes how he is tired of being alive. He commits suicide, but not before transferring all his time to Will. Raylond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and his Timekeepers investigate the death and believe Will killed Henry for his time. So now Will is on the run from the law. After the tragic and unjust death of his mother later that night, Will promises to bring down the system and exact revenge. He forages into the upper class New Greenwich and along his travails, he meets the beautiful 27-year-old Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) who is the daughter of the 90-year old millionaire, time-loaning businessman Phillipe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser). Will kidnaps Sylvia while escaping the Timekeepers.

If not for the extremely powerful performance by Cillian Murphy, this movie would have been less than mediocre. He brings a level of complexity and intensity which is much needed to the movie. A few scenes on his back story wouldn't have hurt. Alex shines in his role as the bad guy. This is the first time that I thought Timberlake was actually an able lead actor who could carry a movie all by himself. Seyfried was amazing as well. She was perfect in her transformation from a doe-eyed, young, bored rich girl to a fighter who is rebelling against the system and more so, against her father who suffocates her life. The movie isn't too subtle about raising the issue of the huge divide between the rich and the poor or the human bodies which lay about the ghettos in broad daylight while the people never seem to be interested in them and move on like its normal, as in our society. But it never came across as heavy handed. The movie could have done away with some of the cheesier dialogues and scenes though. The opening scene where we find out that Olivia Wilde's Rachel is actually the mother of Will amazed me. Her death was heartbreaking and Olivia played her role wonderfully. It was a bit disconcerting to see everyone being so young in a movie and yet playing the parts of mothers, fathers and family. Also the use of guest stars was done really well. Johnny Galecki had a forgettable outing, but Bomer really impressed in his short screen presence.

Andrew Niccol who has brought us really good movies such as Lord of War and Gattaca has let go of some of the intellect he had there. "In Time" is a slick action movie which is quite ingenious and has a terrific concept. Its like a Robin Hood movie, where time is the money. But it is almost undone by some of its fatal flaws in screenplay and writing. The lack of security in time banks and video cameras on the streets, Will infiltrating the security of Phillipe, the apparent lack of Timekeepers who are the law enforcers and many other improbable, jarring flaws. But it does make us look at life from a different perspective and raise interesting questions. Its not as good as it should have been given the rich narrative. Despite that it is entertaining and I enjoyed the movie. The way i see it, people will be highly opinionated about it. But in the end, I think it is worth a watch and definitely not a waste of your time.

25 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ironicaly 99% have to see this projection cos 1% made it. Even without buying ticket.
jorgeshtefan11 December 2011
Too many people are missing point in splitting hair looking for plot holes. And movie IS full of that, but thats not why this movie is worth to watch.

Point is world is *beep* place with 100 billionaires and 7 billion poor people who live just like protagonist in this movie, from day to day struggling every day for food, clothes, mortgage... Life.

Movie is about injustice and poverty imposed by parallel "Time (life) owners" which in real world would be : Bilderberg group, FED, EU, USA, G8, IMF, Banksters, WTO, WB, London Club and other global institution whose purpose is to indirectly kill as many as they need just to make few people immortal. Just like in movie.

This film is pure reality, obviously written and produced in a hurry to support "Occupy movement".

Never the less I gave it 10.

I didn't watched just to find some plot holes, or to say Justin is bad actor, which i think he is. I watched cos it was interesting and true.
52 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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