In Time (2011) User Reviews (699)

Not pushed far enough

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 1 November 2013]

In the future, science has stopped aging at 25. Everybody is allowed one more year. However there is the ability to transfer your time. Your life becomes currency and you work to earn time. In that way, society has divided into people who live day to day and people who are basically immortal. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives day to day in the ghetto. Rachel Salas (Olivia Wilde) is his mother. One day he rescues a rich Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) who is tired of life and leaves him 116 years of time.

This is a great sci-fi concept. It's awkward to try to keep track who are older and everybody's relationships. However I feel there's something missing. The concept wasn't exploited enough. Half the time it's trying to explain the world rather than showing you the world. And the 'ghetto' isn't as rough as it ought to be. When the clock ticks down to zero, I can't believe that people aren't going crazy robbing everybody that they can. The idea of an apocalyptic world isn't pushed far enough.

Great start, decent follow-through.

[droze01 · 7/10 · 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.

Interesting idea, poorly executed

[JanTornado · 6/10 · 19 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.

Great idea, mediocre execution

[Treyroo · 6/10 · 24 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.

Great idea. Poorly executed.

[kgmarra · 6/10 · 1 November 2011]

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.

Very unique film

[tr91 · 8/10 · 30 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.

8/10.

In Time is Surprisingly Time Well Spent

[primona · 7/10 · 1 March 2013]

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.

In Short, Thoroughly Entertaining.

[rajan-stwf · 8/10 · 9 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.

Bonnie and Clock

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 1 September 2015]

This movie is fine if you don't think too much. First of all, there is the fundamental premise that one can use time as currency. Who decided that at 25 years of age the denizens of the future, would die unless the begged, borrowed, or stole time. We are never given that explanation but all people have a sort of countdown clock on their forearms. Those who have accumulated time become hunted by those who wish to steal it. There is also a set of sectors where people have as much time as they want. Everyone stops aging at 25 and either dies or maintains that age (hence mothers may be 100 years old and look just like their 25 year old children). Also, a grasp of the wrist of another person can transfer time. Justin Timberlake is given a huge cache of time by a suicidal man and sets out to avenge the death of his mother, who has succumbed before she can get "reloaded." He takes a spoiled young woman with him and they go around blowing up the system. They are pursued by a sort of latter day Javert, who has dedicated his miserable life to being a timekeeper, arresting those poor souls who are just trying to live. Anyway, it's all pretty absurd, unless you look at it as a parody of our own grasping society and our social classes. Pretty far fetched, even if disbelief is suspended.

Interesting concept, but ...

[wittmann73 · 5/10 · 9 December 2011]

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.

Make Time for this Movie.

[derekblake · 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.

GOT A MINUTE?

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 9 May 2019]

In the future "time is money." Literally. People live to 25 years old, after which time they have one year left, then they die. The good news is that you can buy time and live forever, but only the rich can do that. Everyone else is struggling to stay alive. Currency is done in time, transferred by computer chips installed in the forearm. A cup of coffee will cost you 4 minutes of your life. I kept thinking about "Logan's Run" as I watched this film.

The cliche possibilities are endless and they are not shy about using them. "All the time in world." "Got a minute." "Too much time on my hands" "Who's got the time?" "You must come from time." "Taken years off my life." "Drank his life away." "Too much time in the wrong hands..." "I had the time to buy one of these." "Thank you for your time." "The time he has taken." "It would take a million years." Ouch!

"Hey big spender, spend a little time with me." "I'd give a year of my life just to spend an hour with her." These didn't make the cut.

Timberlake plays Will Salas, a man struggling to pay the bills and stay alive along with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde). Will saves the life of a rich man who was 108. He wanted to die. From him we get the class warfare speech of the movie. Many must die so a few might live. Taxes and prices are raised to make sure the poor die. Like most science fiction features, they have a social commentary.

While Will was asleep, the rich man gives him his time so he can die. Rich people literally live in a different "time zone" so they don't get mugged by those who work for the weekend.

Timberlake is 5 stars in comedies, but as a dramatic actor, he was unconvincing in this role, which may have been the director's fault. Will is supposed to have passion to distinguish himself from the cautious rich. He lacks, he should have never been in that role (Keanu Reeves spoiled us). Timberlake would have been more convincing as a rich tycoon. Much of the acting was stiff by design, but that made for a bad movie. Other than the time devices, the technology was circa 1985 with no pay phones, 80's automobiles, and no cell phones.

No real sex or nudity. One f-bomb.

Time is money and the science fiction romance genre is money for Hollywood

[napierslogs · 7/10 · 13 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.

Nice idea, poor execution

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 17 October 2015]

IN TIME bears some similarities to LOGAN'S RUN in its depiction of a youthful society who never outwardly age and who are consigned to oblivion at the age of 25. However, the narrative then takes on an extra twist and runs with it (literally, as it happens) in its depiction of time being treated as a currency; you can buy, sell, and steal it, and when it runs out (which you know thanks to a handy tracker on your wrist) you die. It's as simple as that.

I actually like the premise, which has the potential for lots and lots of suspense; it's like having a ticking bomb strapped to your wrist. What could go wrong, right? Well, the answer is most things. IN TIME is an insipid, soulless Hollywood blockbuster, happy to copy the look and style of recent films like JUMPER without ever bringing anything new to the table. Kiwi director Andrew Niccol once made the excellent GATTACA so it comes as a surprise he made a film so unoriginal and uninteresting.

One of the worst things about this film lies in the central casting of Justin Timberlake as the hero. He's wooden, never less than wooden, and merely cast due to his popularity with audiences. I hated his protagonist throughout, so that made the film as a whole hard to sit through. Amanda Seyfried is better, and Cillian Murphy is always a pleasure to watch on screen, but when you have such a vacuum of acting talent in the central role then your film's going to be flawed. It doesn't help that the family-friendly rating means that there's nothing contentious or powerful here, or that for a film with a chase-focused storyline there aren't really any good action or suspense scenes to enjoy.

Time well spent!

[ArtandJoyofMovies · 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.

What A Pity

[greytuol · 6/10 · 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

A awesome idea wasted

[thomasajjouri · 6/10 · 7 December 2011]

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...

It's all very familiar, which doesn't make it one whit less awesome.

[rachel-673-19946 · 8/10 · 25 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

Values and a High Concept

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 23 March 2012]

You should know that this movie will never delve into deep psychological nor sociological studies. It will never satisfy anyone who wanted something deep and thoughtful. What is is, is an entertaining movie with a very good idea to back it up. While some may argue that Timberlake might not have been the best choice as lead actor, I think he does a good job with the role he has on hand here.

You also get Alex Pettyfer in a role that hints at him being more than a pretty face. Still not a real challenge of course, this may lead to more serious roles for the guy. While the film got quite a lot of momentum during the "Occupy" movement (you can see why, after you watched the movie), it will never be able to get close to movies like Blade Runner and others. But try not to judge it like that and you will have a good time watching this tension filled Sci-Fi Thriller.

Better than I had envisioned.

[kimjarman19 · 8/10 · 6 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.

Time is Money

[GirishGowda · 7/10 · 8 November 2011]

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.

7/10

The Social Commentary is obvious...but the film still stands out well!

[andell · 9/10 · 28 October 2011]

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 time...so 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 ahead...so 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 film...it's certainly worth it!

This movie was a waste of time for me. Great concept, badly executed.

[ironhorse_iv · 6/10 · 6 November 2014]

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.

The word 'time', time and time again.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 11 August 2018]

I wonder how many times the word 'time' is mentioned in In Time. It's a lot of times, I'm sure, but I didn't take the time to count. Maybe next time.

Starring Just-In Time-berlake and Amanda Seyfried (whose name doesn't really lend itself to any clever time-related puns), this film has a very intriguing premise - that time is a commodity that can be bought or sold, allowing the rich to live indefinitely while time runs out for the poor.

Sadly, writer/director Andrew Nichol fails to do the idea justice, his film spending most of its running time being little more than one long chase, as his photogenic leads try to bring down a big-time time magnate, while Timekeeper (i.e. cop) Raymond Leon works around the clock to call time on their antics.

It'll only be a question of time before you'll be picking holes in the plot, Nichol having clearly not spent enough time ironing out In Time's wrinkles.

4/10, just for keeping me amused for most of the time with its incessant use of the word 'time'.

Best line of dialogue: 'Time'.

In Time is definitely IN!

[azeeliramli · 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.