Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 36
  2. Negative: 4 out of 36
  1. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    Oct 28, 2011
    38
    This future looks awfully passé: The stimulus didn't work out. Neither did 1917 Russia.
  2. Reviewed by: Kimberley Jones
    Nov 2, 2011
    20
    They have some fun playacting at class warriors on the lam – and Seyfriend, it must be said, rocks a killer bob – but it's all just big-budget dress-up in a futurescape that reeks of phoniness.
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Neumaier
    Oct 28, 2011
    20
    Sadly, for 99% of its running time, this muddled sci-fi drama is filled with enough overplotting, bad acting and riddle-speak dialogue to stop a clock.
  4. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Oct 26, 2011
    16
    Niccol fashioned an uninspired and downright dull sci-fi gimmick and doesn't even explain how it happened.
User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 287 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 80
  2. Negative: 13 out of 80
  1. Nov 9, 2011
    2
    In Time is a prime example of Hollywood crap. The characters are forgettable and the acting is amateur at best. Based on the idea of equating money to time, the movie portrays a world in which the wealthy live for centuries and the poor don't make it past twenty-five. Frankly, I think this concept, though somewhat limiting, is interesting enough to inspire a significantly better movie. In Time, however, is nothing more than two hours of empty entertainment; it's "good" the way Taio Cruz is "good." If you're set on seeing it, bring some good friends or, even better, a date, so you have something to focus on. Full Review »
  2. Nov 2, 2011
    4
    The real strength of In Time is its core concept - a world where everyone has a literal body-clock that acts as everything from identification to currency, and which can be topped up to extend your life. The idea is clever and unexpectedly original, and it's such a shame that it isn't taken further. The premise of the film could have been used so much more effectively to say something profound about the possibility of immortality, and what it could mean for the planet, but instead, In Time uses it as an excuse for a lot of running, broken up by a lot of filler. The actors' performances aren't particularly memorable, and a mediocre script doesn't help matters either. Timberlake just about gets by on charm, and Seyfried on sex appeal, whilst Olivia Wilde isn't in the film long enough to make any real impact, and Alex Pettyfer is truly awful. The only noteworthy performance is the ever-excellent Cillian Murphy, whose dedicated "Time Keeper" (basically a cop with a watch) is hands-down the most engaging character in the film. It's a shame really that In Time didn't amount to more, as writer/director Andrew Niccol clearly has some interesting ideas, but they remain just that, ideas, rather than a fully developed concept. Sadly he piques your interest, but doesn't give you the payoff you crave. In Time is never dull, but it's pretty forgettable. Full Review »
  3. Oct 29, 2011
    4
    This is one of those sci-fi flix with a cool concept and lousy execution. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried live in a world (not necessarily the future by the looks of the low tech design) where time is literally money and people stop aging at 25. Everybody has a countdown timer on their arm (the only neat element of the film), which keeps track of the minutes and hours until they die. The duo teams up to become renegade Bonnie and Clyde time bandits. All that sounds good, butâ Full Review »