User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 289 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 37 out of 289

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  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. Expand
  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. Expand
  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 Expand
  4. Oct 29, 2011
    0
    Terrible movie, terrible attempt at sci-fi, forgettable characters and bad writing and bad premise. Acting is okay, but with terribly written characters it's hard to see the acting talent.
  5. Jan 10, 2012
    4
    It surely has an interesting concept behind it. Has an interesting cast. Has a decent production and technical value to it. However, the actual screenplay of "In Time" is rather weak and disappointing. With a number of unthought-through ideas/occurrences/actions to just bad writing with dialogue scenes, it does not quite get it right. The director/writer Andrew Niccol is no newcomer to films, having written "The Truman Show" and having directed a number of (not so good) films, which makes it even more surprising that he had so many weak points in the film. Inconsistencies and just stupid ideas were all over the film, and made me (and my friends watching the film) really annoyed. Also, tons of film clichés are used and abused all over the film, which makes it even less bearable. The best thing about the film was Amanda Seyfried, who was mesmerising with her hairstyle and look (yet, nothing special acting-wise) and Justin Timberlake's shirtless scenes (which were too few and too short to make up for mediocre acting). The only reason why it'd be worth the time to watch the film is because of the idea, which is quite interesting, but, as I pointed out, not really thought through and properly developed. Expand
  6. Aug 12, 2012
    3
    An interesting concept that started well but quickly diminished into a muddle of unbelievable characters, plot holes and Deus ex Machina that left me feeling more than a little disappointed.
  7. Jan 25, 2012
    2
    Rubbish. Has a Titanic poor man loves rich girl storyline interwoven with some cop knows what ur dad did sub-plot which is completely uninteresting. Cheap movie set coupled with cheap acting results in a cheap farce of a movie.
  8. Nov 6, 2011
    0
    The plot was ridiculous and the political agenda behind the story was obviously communist leaning. The premise beingâ
  9. Feb 13, 2012
    0
    What an appalling film........I knew I was in for something less than special when the movie started with JT telling us all what was going on with about 6 words....
    The concept was solid and the trailer enthralling, how did it all go so wrong....
    Cilian Murphy is better than this.
  10. Nov 26, 2011
    0
    This film is really disappointing. See the trailer is very sickening. Acting "Justin Timberlake" is very standard, nothing special always. His handsome face that always get people to see the movie. Do not waste your money and your time to see this garbage movie.
  11. Aug 6, 2012
    4
    The movie was okey i guess, but however the movie failed Drama, visual effects, and the movie does a couple things too easy like(at almost the end when they drive through the district gate witch is made of tree when all the other stuff around the district gate is made of concrete witch do not make sense.
  12. Jan 8, 2013
    2
    The story to this movie makes me wonder what life would be like and gets me very philosophical but then I realize what I am watching and I want to blow my brains out.
  13. Nov 3, 2011
    4
    For GATTACA fans: Firstly let me say that I love Gattaca, it's one of my all time favorite films, and, of course, it is the director of In Time, Andrew Niccol's, first film. Unfortunately Niccol has never quite delivered a movie since Gattaca that has been on the same level and, I'm sorry to say, In Time is no different. You'll see similarities between the two, a futuristic society that's retro not scifi, a cop trying to catch our hero, muted colors, excellent music (though not Michael Nyman unfortunately), a handsome cast of actors and actresses, the battle between upper and lower economic classes, and really cool cars and architecture. As you can see, most of these similarities are superficial. The elegance and sophistication behind Gattaca's story is not present here, and In Time has very little going for it otherwise. There is one thing that In Time does have going for it and that is a really interesting concept: In the future people's bodies don't age past 25 years old but once they reach age 25 they have to earn hours or days like income in order to stay alive. Also, money is no longer a currency. Instead people pay with time off their clock for food or rent. So, for example, a person might wake up in the morning and have 8 hours to live. They get to work and might pay for a cup of coffee with 4 minutes of their life. When they leave work if they got their job done they might get paid 1 day of time back to their clock. It's an interesting parallel to our current society's dependence on money. Of course there are people in In Time's universe who are considered rich by having centuries or millenia of time on their clock--which, by the way is located on the forearm as a countdown to the moment when your body will suddenly give out. These people who are rich in time can live (very) long lavish lives in luxury while the poor live day to day just trying to survive. Unfortunately, In Time does not explore this concept enough, and instead resorts to the cheap thrills of a typical action movie. The hero character, Salas, played by Justin Timberlake, initially quite poor comes into a large sum of time and proceeds to go on a Robin Hood-esque crusade of taking time from the rich and giving it to the poor. His partner in crime, played by Amanda Seyfried, helps him rob time banks and creates a Bonnie and Clyde element that, again, transforms this movie from an intellectual exploration of time and money into a dissatisfying popcorn thriller. In Time also hurts itself by all the terrible "time" one-liners and puns and the general lack of sophistication in the dialogue and acting. Things that can be said for In Time include the interesting concept, music, good looking people, clothes, and cars, and Cillian Murphy, but unfortunately these aren't enough to save In Time. If you are hoping for another Gattaca, look elsewhere. Or better yet, instead of going to see In Time, watch Gattaca again and enjoy an afternoon or evening well spent. Expand
  14. Mar 23, 2013
    4
    In Time is a muddled mess of a movie. Among it's problems are notable continuity gaffs (only 2 hours left to live at night... and suddenly it's daytime with 30 seconds still on the clock), huge unbelievable coincidences, stupid plotting (exactly how does Justin Timberlake's character suddenly switch from a simple factory worker into a super assassin?!) and weird character logic (anyone who can fathom the motives of Cillian Murphy raise your hand now). In Time is a nicely designed but ultimately dud effort from the director of the excellent Gattaca. Expand
  15. Oct 31, 2011
    4
    A+ for the concept, creativity, originality. A for the cast. B for the characters. C for the one dimensional stuff. F for the ending. When I saw the previews for this movie I was beside myself. I was all over it and so excited. Definitely down my alley. When I saw the movie I was disappointed. I'm one who places a lot of value on the ending. A movie can be stellar but if the ending does not do justice then forget it, it loses points in my review. I am intrigued by the idea of rich, poor, social issues, perspective, attitudes, heart aches, tough times. The movie did an okay job at this, but could have done better. I still loved the concept that time is the currency. I loved the cast too. Justin Timberlake, despite his former card carrying horrid boy band membership, has actually turned out to be pretty cool. And Cillian Murphy - what an interesting person! Methinks it is his eyes and chin. Though I would have liked to seen more out of his character.
    http://iplaythecomputerkeyboard.blogspot.com/
    Expand
  16. Nov 2, 2011
    4
    Some great films have been Sci-Fi with a unique twist. Even Andrew Niccols previous film Gattaca was great because of its subtle yet unique premise. However In Time has a great premise but no pay off. Its one of those films that thinks because it is a good idea, it will instantly be a good film. The main problem is the script which doesn't seem to know where it wants to go that at times its anyones guess what the characters are going to do next, they could go to Disneyland and it wouldn't seem illogical. However that being said the cast meshes well and Cillian Murphy is great as always. Justin Timberlake gets by on charm alone but does solidly as the everyman on a mission. However Alex Pettyfer is just downright abysmal it turns scenes of tension to comedy in the blink of an eye. Its a novel concept (which should have played into the novelty factor more) but it just needed a little more work on the script and a better idea of the direction it was planning on going in. Not bad but no where near good enough. Expand
  17. Jan 20, 2012
    3
    Abysmal film hindered by an interesting story, but terrible plot, second-rate acting by some of the bubblegum actors, and every line dripping with almost every cliche regarding time. Everything about this is predictable apart from the terrible production design (though it's a $40M budget) and not enough money in the budget to hire some extras for crowd scenes, while using the same 10 customized cars on the road. Expand
  18. Nov 9, 2011
    3
    In Time could be a great Sci-Fi movie like Inception or the Matrix. But it falls flat in most areas.
    The first problem I had with the movie was the boring characters and setting. The acting was ok but this movie did not connect emotionally like Inception. inception made me believe that this world was real (Because most of it was true) And in In Time the whole thing like a b rated sci fi
    show.
    The story is terrible and the only thing these people could think about was how long they had to live. I don't want to watch a movie were all they do is think about time.
    I would skip this movie if I was you and go watch Inception or the Matrix.
    Expand
  19. Nov 12, 2011
    3
    In an era of remakes and sequels, I remember optimistically thinking "Hollywood may yet have a chance at something original" when I first saw the previews for this movie. A true-to-life paradox, such as the ironic twin concepts of working both through and for your life, made the movie easy to relate to an average-joe audience. The acting was NOT one of the film's finer qualities. Timberlake and Seyfried, whose main assets lend more toward their sex appeal than toward the vigilante characters portrayed in their roles, were given FAR more credit than the underrated and short-lived part played by Olivia Wilde. The plot was mediocre, neither earth-shattering nor boring, for the first 30 minutes...that is, of course, until the stereotyping and the ideological rhetoric came along. Greedy corporate hoarders, thriving on the misery of others while manipulating currency (life) from extravagant offices in the sky, and the "Robinhood" protagonist's quest to "liberate the downtrodden from the yolk of corporate slavery" were weak and disappointing themes at best. I wanted to see an action movie, not communist propaganda. Expand
  20. Nov 21, 2011
    4
    In Time has a great concept. A world in which time is money, and where you die without it, is a great idea. Too bad it was implemented so poorly.

    Justin Timberlake can NOT act to save his life. Early on in the movie, in which there should be a quite emotional moment for the character, JT simply ruins it, his moans of apparent emotional pain almost making me laugh instead of feel sympathy.
    He seems to be there just so he'll look pretty. The concept, which starts off great, is good enough to overshadow a bad actor. However, the film falls in to the pits of regular-action-movie hell. The scenes about half way through are predictable and have been done before. Another crappy car chase? Damn, never saw that coming.

    In Time is not very good. I do not recommend seeing it in a theatre. Wait until it's on TV and it's free.
    Expand
  21. Dec 10, 2011
    3
    Crap. It could have been a great story without that stupid bonnie and clyde mixed robin hood part!
    I liked the serious, resigned and hopeless mood in the beginning of the movie but then it turned to a ridiculous story without sense.
    I could not find any character-development, for a sci-fi-movie it was too less innovative - just some digital screens and future-looking cars do not make a
    sci-fi world! the counterparts of the main characters reminded me at characters from dark city or matrix but to not to take them serious. the story lacked logic at all.
    too bad. could have been a thrilling story, but around the middle of the movie - they missed the right turnout.
    Expand
  22. Nov 29, 2011
    2
    The movie concept may seem interesting when you lay eyes for the first time, but this feeling disappear after watching 15 minutes. Even knowing "In time" is a work of fiction, this do not help to minimize the sense of absurd and stupidity which surrounds every relation and act in the movie. The lack of proper motivation on some scenes and a great appeal to "coincidences" really bothered me. The course of actions just not feels right Expand
  23. Jan 4, 2012
    4
    This is one of the most boring movies that I have ever watched. It's an incredibly original concept, I'll give the creators that. It is a world where you stop ageing at some age ( I forgot because I really didn't care for the movie at all) and time is the currency. Taxes cost time. If you pay time, then you'll have less time on you clock, thus less time to live. You can live for hundreds of year if you're able to. But to be honest the rest of the movie extremely disappointed me. A good movie is a movie that makes me care about the characters. This didn't happen here. I cared so little about them, that I don't even remember their names. In time could've been so much better, but instead it's a poorly made movie that fails to grab my interest. Expand
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: 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.
  2. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Oct 31, 2011
    50
    It's a great idea that Niccol can't translate into a great movie.
  3. Reviewed by: Melissa Anderson
    Oct 29, 2011
    70
    A pleasing, often rousing movie for the 99 percent, In Time is not without flaws.