In Time

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
In Time

51% Liked It
liked it

In Time

Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser

When Will Salas is falsely accused of murder, he must figure out a way to bring down a system where time is money - literally - enabling the wealthy to live forever while the poor, like Will, have to ... read more read more...beg, borrow, and steal enough minutes to make it through another day. -- (C) 20th Century Fox

Id: 11151008

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

In Time Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

In Time Recent Reviews
  • kiriyamakazou
    May 25, 2012
    kiriyamakazou
    Great idea with incredibly dumb execution. In the future, time is currency and everyone stops ageing at 25 for some reason. Timberlake finds himself receiving thousands of years from some guy tired of immortality. He ends up being chased by the cops in charge of time, and by some... read more very non-threatening gangsters. The idea is wonderful, and the perfect vehicle for social satire. The poor spend their lives on food and essentials, literally living day to day, meanwhile the rich just spend, spend, spend. It also has the great chance to view the pain of immortality and how it's not how long you live but how you live. Which is why I'm so angry at the stupidity and nonsense in this film. I understand that nobody ages, but why does everyone look like a model? Characters just vanish, and it just becomes one huge assault on the 1%. Like a teenager with a good idea, but doesn't understand what they are talking about. There are huge lapses in logic. A major character dies because of time running out, even though simple maths would show that she would have survived. People run at each other in slow motion, with dramatic countdowns, but it doesn't play in real time. Timberlake's character knows how to fight, which I put down to his mention of his father being able to fight, and then we find out that fighting just involves holding hands. This makes for the most boring confrontation between Timberlake and the antagonist. Let's hope for an intelligent remake in the future, because this just ruins the premise.
  • MrMarakai
    May 23, 2012
    MrMarakai
    Writer/director Andrew Niccol is no stranger to scientific ideas. In 1997 he delivered the Orwellian genetic engineering "Gattaca". In 2002 he tackled computer generated imagery in "S1mOne". He also penned the predictory script to reality TV in 1998 with "The Truman Show". Fantas... read morey and Science Fiction seem to be genres that he's comfortable with but this is not one of his better efforts.
    In the not too distant future, people stop ageing when they reach 25. If they are wealthy though, they can buy time. The rest, have to work for it. Lifespan has replaced money in this dystopian world. One of the workers is gifted time from a suicidal friend, which allows him to escape his poor background and experience the life of the rich. But there are state police, known as "Time keepers" who are out to thwart his new life.
    The premise to this is quite an intriguing one and the dystopian futuristic setting is wonderfully captured by the Coen brothers' regular cinematographer Roger Deakins. It's just a shame that with such a strong base to work from, it becomes nothing more than a chase thriller and abandons any attempt to delve into some possible existential theories. Even as a chase thriller, it lacks any form of excitement. It has it's moments but ultimately the film takes too long in getting to it's destination. Time is of the essence for it's characters and ironically, it also gets taken from us, having to slog through this. I'm not Justin Trousersnake's biggest fan, but he delivers a decent performance. However, the progression of his character as a future 'Clyde' to Seyfried's 'Bonnie' is uneasy and a little hard to take. Cillian Murphy's 'Time keeper' police officer is quite an intriguing one but he has little, to no, backstory. When we are given a glimpse into his character it's too little too late. It's this overwhelming feeling of emptiness that, as a whole, the film suffers from.
    I didn't go into this film expecting a masterpiece or anything but I still expected more than I got. Despite looking good on the surface, it's ultimately hollow. Fans of the likes of "The Adjustment Bureau" may find more to savour though.
  • lewiskendell
    May 1, 2012
    lewiskendell
    "The truth is, for a few to be immortal, many must die."

    In Time is a decent action movie, but nothing more. It's enjoyable for an afternoon, but never rises above disposable entertainment.

    The cast is likable. Timberlake and Seyfried have good chemistry, even though Timberlak... read moree occasionally seems like a less than convincing fit. I like the guy as an actor, but he doesn't entirely match the character he's asked to play. To be fair, though, the character (Will) is like an amalgam of every positive protagonist trait in movie history. He's completely selfless, generous, smooth, charming, crafty, and seems to be able to transform into an invincible action hero any time the need arises. That would be tough for any actor to sell. Amanda Seyfried is here only to look hot running around in heels and be won over by the hero. She does a good job, but since those criteria are accomplished by her genetics, wardrobe and the script (in that order), that's only to be expected.

    Cillian Murphy isn't given anything more than a generic "tough and relentless, but fair" detective/antagonist role to work with. Vincent Kartheiser, on the other hand, is the one actor in the movie that's absolutely perfectly cast. No one can play a rich d-bag like Vincent.

    The main problem with In Time is that the script needed a lot more polish. The concept is cool (people are essentially immortal, but every moment after they turn 25 must be "bought"), but the "time is literally money" angle could have worked a lot better if it was wielded with a bit more subtlety. Yes, we get that the rich and privileged few are "living" off of many. The story hums along at first, but then seems to waver in tone and purpose. What's simple and straightforward at first eventually unravels to the point where even the characters themselves seem to not know what they're doing or why. Timberlake and Seyfried never seem to be in any real danger, and the climaxes are thoroughly anti- climatic (the fight scene between Timberlake and a bad guy in the third act is absolutely, though unintentionally, hilarious).

    Still, I didn't dislike In Time. It has a lot of flaws and certainly didn't live up to its potential, but if you take it as a faintly ridiculous Bonnie & Clyde-lite action movie with a thick and cheap coat of social issues slapped on, then you can have a good time with it. The movie definitely wants to have substance and a message, though, and it fails at that.
  • Deano78
    April 25, 2012
    Deano78
    It was ok, far from great or that original to be honest. Felt it could have been a lot better. In the end just ends up very similar to other future set films with a big social class divide. Does have some cool Dodge Charger cars though.
  • skactopus
    April 7, 2012
    skactopus
    Andrew Niccol's In Time has 100+ minutes to work with, but fails to deliver anything extraordinary.

    It's difficult to argue that the concept surrounding this picture is prime for a high-grade science fiction movie; however, as intriguing as this film sounds, it falls sho

    ... read morert of surpassing mediocrity. The plot is weak and the story leaves a feeling that is far from fulfilling.

    The suspense and intensity of this so-called thriller is minimal at best. Many of the plot details are explained just enough without the much needed details or back story, which would make things much more interesting. In the end, some pieces just seem silly and a bit unbelievable.

    Justin Timberlake isn't much of a lead. He is lucky to have Amanda Seyfried to help him along the way, but she suffers from a thinly written character. Despite a good performance out of Cillian Murphy, he too is held back by an under-developed character.

    In Time is watchable, but not one to make time for. Pardon the pun.
  • fb701560354
    March 30, 2012
    fb701560354
    Even with a very interesting and intriguing storyline, In Time is so predictable, the cast can't do anything with the horrible script, and the characters are so thinly written. I laughed at parts that weren't supposed to be funny, cringed at some dialogue, and knew what was goin... read moreg to happen from early on. The premise could have made a great film, but In Time is for pure entertainment, and it's not very good entertainment at that.
  • cosmo313
    March 18, 2012
    cosmo313
    In the near future, time is money...literally. It's the new currency. Not only that, but everyone has been genetically engineered to stop aging when they turn 25. However, when they reach that age, they are only given a year's worth of time. If you want to live longer, you've got... read more to earn more time, either legally or illegally. The world has also been segregated into Time Zones, separating everyone according to their wealth and social class.

    This is a brilliant set up, and it's really engaging and thought provoking. And for a while, the film really cooks. However, plot gets in the way, and the film devolves into an action movie pushed forward by both the Wrong Man Syndrome, and the Bonnie and Clyde/Robin Hood Principles. Will Salas is a poor man, living in the ghetto. One day he is given over a century's worth of time by a wealthy man tired of living. The wealthy guy gives all but a few moments of his time to Will, allowing him to commit suicide by "timing out".

    Will becomes wrongfully accused of murder, and is then on the run. DUring his flight from the law, he takes a young girl hostage: the daughter of one of the most wealthy and powerful men around, a man who, for all intents and purposes, is so rich he's basically immortal. From there, the girl, Sylvia, starts to side with Will, and together they set out to distribute as much time to as many people as possible, as a way of letting all people know what it's like to not have to literally live day to day.

    As I said, the initial concept and set up is terrific. Then the film does turn into a typical aci-fo action thriller type of film. Oh sure, some of the action is well done and entertaining, but there's just a few too many chases and overall, the action is the least interesting aspct of things.

    There's a good cast here. Timberlake is decent as everyman Will Salas, though I do think he struggles to completely pull off the more challenging emotional parts of the material. Olivia Wilde is okay, but underused as Will's mom, and Johnny Galecki is nice in a change of pace as Will's grungy best friend. Where the film really gets interesting characterwise is with Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia, the priviliged girl Will takes hostage who becomes his partner. She's the most itneresting character, and it reallyt hsould have been about her. Cillian Murphy is fine, but unremarkable as the determined cop out to stop Will and Sylvia. There's nothign fresh here, and he seems to just be going through the motions.

    All in all, this is a good film, but pretty flawed. I should knock this down by at least a half star, but I won't. There's a lot to like here on several fronts, especially with the concept, cinematograhy, and art direction. It's also never boring, even if it ends up being not what I expected, and not quite as mentally engaging as it could and should have been. B-
  • MizturY0da
    March 10, 2012
    MizturY0da
    two stars
  • Crashinkov
    March 1, 2012
    Crashinkov
    why all of this negative reviews? it wasn't that bad, and I think It was a good sci-fi movie and the story line was really fine, and the only defect in it is "Justin Timberlake", I guess the movie would be a much better with a real star.
  • StarCrossedVoyager
    February 22, 2012
    StarCrossedVoyager
    It's such a shame that a brilliant idea, with good characters and a great cast can end up like this. It seemed too floaty and flitted between scenes sometimes with no real reason. I felt like it wasn't as developed as it could have been and there were quite a few inconsistencies ... read morelike how it took them a long time to pass though to Greenwich but then it took what seemed 5 minutes and one toll booth to get back. Very flat and not pace-y enough which ended up with a film that wasn't ready to be made.
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD