In Time

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 345 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 345

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

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

User Reviews

  1. Nov 2, 2011
    5
    It's not a bad film, but it lays on the social commentary a bit thick - and I don't think you can properly analogize from this story to the current income disparity situation in the world in general and the in the US in particular. The first 60 minutes are excellent, but it seems to me the writers never figured out a good way to end it. It's becomes rudderless, and it detracts fromIt's not a bad film, but it lays on the social commentary a bit thick - and I don't think you can properly analogize from this story to the current income disparity situation in the world in general and the in the US in particular. The first 60 minutes are excellent, but it seems to me the writers never figured out a good way to end it. It's becomes rudderless, and it detracts from experience. Timberlake is solid as usual, and Olivia Wilde is terrific in a brief role. Expand
  2. 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 toIt 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
  3. 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 somethingThe 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
  4. 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.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
  5. Jan 22, 2012
    5
    The concept of the film was amazing . In is definitely a new kinda si-fi film. But the problem was the story . Andrew Niccol's directing was average but his writing was so bad. Justin and Amanda was not good at all.It seemed like it was their first time on camera.Cillian Murphy on the other hand tried . It sure wasn't his best role but he was the best among the other cast . The whole filmThe concept of the film was amazing . In is definitely a new kinda si-fi film. But the problem was the story . Andrew Niccol's directing was average but his writing was so bad. Justin and Amanda was not good at all.It seemed like it was their first time on camera.Cillian Murphy on the other hand tried . It sure wasn't his best role but he was the best among the other cast . The whole film was like One minute something interesting happens but the next ten minutes is super boring .

    If the year stoppage wasn't 25 and the lead role would played by Bruce Willies or Ben Affleck or Mat Demon Or Mel Gibson (or someone like them) this film would be phenomenal .
    Expand
  6. Apr 18, 2012
    5
    "In Time" is a 2011 film directed and written by Andrel Nicoll, and
    which stars Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in the lead roles.
    The story is about a dystopian future where people live to 25 years, stopping the aging process by this age, but that is the limit age of life and they may live only another year after that. When they turn 25, by some means of biotechnology, a
    "In Time" is a 2011 film directed and written by Andrel Nicoll, and
    which stars Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in the lead roles.

    The story is about a dystopian future where people live to 25 years,
    stopping the aging process by this age, but that is the limit age of
    life and they may live only another year after that. When they turn 25,
    by some means of biotechnology, a fluorescent green marker appears on
    the right wrist, that shows the remaining lifetime. In this future
    (which is similar in part to our own world), instead of money, the
    exchange of lifetime between the people is used to buy things, pay
    salaries and everything else.

    There are a kind of police in this future, called Time Guardians who
    control everything, and investigate cases of theft of time: this is
    necessary, for the world and cities (in case a version of Los Angeles),
    are divided by time zones, which divide the poor citizens of the rich
    (and the amount of lifetime determines this).

    Will Salas (Justin) is a resident of the city's poorest area, who lives
    with his mother (Olivia Wilde), and is always a altruistic person,
    giving time of life for those in need, remaining with 24 hours - he
    ends up meeting a stranger in a bar, with more than a century of life,
    which passes to him his lifetime... from these point and other events,
    the story unfolds.

    Raymond's mother dies and he wants revenge for it, going to the richest
    district, to try to change the system, where he get to know Sylvia
    Weiss (Amanda) - but the claims of life gained by him are being
    investigated, and he is suspected of murder and chased by Raymond Leon
    (Gillian Murphy).

    The film presents an interesting approach to the plot, which has
    appeared in other films by the way, but the future of this film is
    different: it is interesting to see how everything has a price
    advertising that is marked in minutes or hours instead of money, a very
    nice feature that the production did well.

    The rest of the movie is set in suburban neighborhoods and some
    locations in the center, with large buildings, but everything else has
    a "clean" and artificial look - the vehicles of the future, are
    modernized versions of classic cars like Mustangs and Shelby Cobras.
    Also the streets are generally very empty, and is even stranger in a
    dystopia future.

    The acting in the movie is very good, but only by the protagonists.

    The great problem of the movie is that from two-fifths of it forward,
    the story fades, and begins not have much logic basis, dealing only
    with the consequence of the initial events, without other
    repercussions, in addition, the "Bone and Clyde" duet that main actors
    become do not have much logic... for example, banks in the future has no security at all? Anyway, the movie contains an interesting plot in the beginning that promised a interesting movie, but it dissipates during it, which is partially saved by the performance of Justin Timberlake. I finished the movie disappointed, hoping that would have been different in the way it was conducted. My score: 5.5 / 10.0.
    Expand
  7. Nov 1, 2011
    6
    The main plot of "In Time" is intriguing: lifespan is the main form of currency. The film has a strong start with some truly interesting and thought-provoking moments. Unfortunately, once the leading lady is introduced, the film is hindered by silly dialogue and contrived situations. While interesting overall, it had greater potential.
  8. Nov 28, 2011
    6
    Finalement, Time Out ne sera pas le nouveau Bienvenue à Gattaca, la faute à une impression de croire que le film n'use que du minimum de son potentiel scénaristique pourtant si prometteur (le temps remplaçant l'argent, voilà une idée géniale pour un film d'anticipation). A la place, nous avons unFinalement, Time Out ne sera pas le nouveau Bienvenue à Gattaca, la faute à une impression de croire que le film n'use que du minimum de son potentiel scénaristique pourtant si prometteur (le temps remplaçant l'argent, voilà une idée géniale pour un film d'anticipation). A la place, nous avons un divertissement purement hollywoodien, aux personnages qui auraient mérités d'être travaillés un peu plus et de quelques clichés (l'histoire du héros, certains plans, la musique), sans parler de certaines transitions un peu trop rapides entre les scènes d'action. Mais Time Out reste un divertissement de très bonne facture qui nous propose une interprétation de qualité, de bons moments et une histoire finalement pas si désagréable à suivre. Et je fermerai les yeux sur les horribles effets numériques, qui sont (heureusement pour le film) quasi absents. Un très sympathique film d'action (et encore!) qui se laisse suivre sans déplaisir, même si, personnellement, j'en attendais bien plus. Expand
  9. Dec 17, 2011
    5
    In Time is incredibly entertaining and well acted especially Olivia Wilde's small but beautiful performance make this film not a complete waste to watch because it sometimes has some juvenile moments that will make some laugh. A piece of storytelling not well told. I give this film a 56% of a good movie.
  10. Oct 29, 2011
    6
    An action-packed sci-fi metaphor for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Not bad, not great. And a tremendous number of time-related puns. See our full, funny review of "In Time" at www.thecomedycouple.com
  11. Jun 2, 2012
    6
    excellent premise, but flawed execution. i was really excited to see this movie, and the first third of the movie was really good but then it when downhill. hat could have been a really great political satire film ends up being a bonnie and clyde spin off set in the future. it never felt like any of the actors phoned in their performance, but the dialogue can be really corny and stale. andexcellent premise, but flawed execution. i was really excited to see this movie, and the first third of the movie was really good but then it when downhill. hat could have been a really great political satire film ends up being a bonnie and clyde spin off set in the future. it never felt like any of the actors phoned in their performance, but the dialogue can be really corny and stale. and the worst part about it is that Andrew Niccol who wrote and directed one of the best scifi movies of the 90s Gattaca and who wrote The Truman Show. Expand
  12. Nov 20, 2012
    6
    On the performance front, I thought Cillian Murphy and Amanda Seyfried stood out with Justin Timberlake lacking the required screen presence to carry it off (IMO). I thought Michael William Freeman who had a small role as bad guy Nardin did a good job of playing a very believable loathsome thug. With virtually everyone on screen being around the same age (25), barring the occasional kid, IOn the performance front, I thought Cillian Murphy and Amanda Seyfried stood out with Justin Timberlake lacking the required screen presence to carry it off (IMO). I thought Michael William Freeman who had a small role as bad guy Nardin did a good job of playing a very believable loathsome thug. With virtually everyone on screen being around the same age (25), barring the occasional kid, I found this one quite odd to look at (even a bit ageist! Expand
  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'sFor 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 whoIn 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. Apr 22, 2014
    5
    In Time is set in an alternative universe in which, for reasons that the film never explains, humans stop ageing at twenty-five and then have only a year to live unless they can continually ‘top-up’ their eternal body clock. The worlds population is divided into distinct zones by wealth, not terms of money that no longer exists, but by how much time they have left. The elite are free toIn Time is set in an alternative universe in which, for reasons that the film never explains, humans stop ageing at twenty-five and then have only a year to live unless they can continually ‘top-up’ their eternal body clock. The worlds population is divided into distinct zones by wealth, not terms of money that no longer exists, but by how much time they have left. The elite are free to enjoy their, almost eternal, lives knowing they have thousands of years to spare while the majority struggle to earn enough time just to stay alive. When factory worker Will Salas (Timberlake) is given over a century of time from a suicidal tycoon he decides to use it to take down the unjust system.

    Andrew Nicol, who brought us Gattaca and The Truman Show, has an excellent track record when it comes to adapting interesting sci-fi premises for the big screen but, while In Time is certainly an entertaining watch, it has far too many problems to be considered alongside his best work. Chief among these issues are the way the movie continually contradicts itself in order to progress to its finale, the use of the central time premise to artificially create tension (why does everyone cut everything so close?), and a lack of any real chemistry between the lead duo.

    In Time is not a bad movie but you can’t help feel it could have been something more.
    Expand
  16. 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
    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
  17. 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 timesSome 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. Collapse
  18. Jan 1, 2012
    6
    Best conceptual idea of the year for a film, but poorly plotted. This could be "Inception" grade film but has fallen into the sea of mediocre films.
  19. Nov 7, 2011
    5
    At first, In Time presented this interesting concept about time being a currency. Afterward, it started to feel like my Socials class again when it came up with the idea of "time zones" being the division between the rich and the poor. The pointless chase between someone with a lot of time made the scenes in the movie feel repetitive over time. The world felt small and so was theAt first, In Time presented this interesting concept about time being a currency. Afterward, it started to feel like my Socials class again when it came up with the idea of "time zones" being the division between the rich and the poor. The pointless chase between someone with a lot of time made the scenes in the movie feel repetitive over time. The world felt small and so was the creativity of this movie. Expand
  20. Nov 17, 2011
    6
    I wanted to like this movie. I really did. The concept of In Time is brilliant. Unfortunately, the film stuffers from a poorly written script and actors not talented enough to compensate for it.
  21. Nov 22, 2011
    6
    In time was a good movie. The idea alone was great but the movie fell through. They overused the word "time" throughout the whole movie. The cast did not fit the kind of movie it was supposed to depict. The lack of story and a predictable ending. I did not have high hopes from this movie but it still turned out fine. It wont stand out in my memory but it was still fun to watch.
  22. 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.
    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
  23. Dec 1, 2011
    5
    In Time is a movie that takes the phrase â
  24. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    I thoroughly enjoyed the concept which is an extreme version of capitalism. The rich live longer and the poor die young. The concept is the only thing that I would call great, besides the sexy girls. There are a few points in the story where I was like well that doesn't make much sense so the script is a little off. But overall I was entertained because I enjoyed the idea it put forth.
  25. 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 hundredsThis 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
  26. Jun 26, 2012
    6
    I noticed several strong similarities between this movie, In Time, and the movie Vanishing Point made in 1971. Both Movies used the 70 Dodge Challenger as main vehicles. A white 440 Magnum in Vanishing Point, and a bunch of flat black ones in In Time. In the movie In Time, they even showed the Pistol Grip Hurst Shifter, just like the one in Vanishing Point. In Vanishing Point, the whiteI noticed several strong similarities between this movie, In Time, and the movie Vanishing Point made in 1971. Both Movies used the 70 Dodge Challenger as main vehicles. A white 440 Magnum in Vanishing Point, and a bunch of flat black ones in In Time. In the movie In Time, they even showed the Pistol Grip Hurst Shifter, just like the one in Vanishing Point. In Vanishing Point, the white Challenger races an older Jaguar, which ultimately wrecks off an embankment and flips into a ravine. In Time shows an older Jaguar of the same body style, driven by Justin, running off an embankment and flipping into a ravine. I would like to know if these similarities were intentional, or are they just coincidence. Expand
  27. 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.
  28. Feb 26, 2013
    6
    Worst movie. I can not understand the storyline and the end of the film. The girl main character said that people should live with their time but in the end, why that she went into the bank and rob it to have more time to live. Can not understand. But the movie is still interesting with people who don't appreciate time
  29. Mar 24, 2013
    6
    Although the screenwriting wasn't quite the best, the overall idea of the film was great.
  30. May 25, 2014
    6
    I have owned this movie for a long time on dvd now but i just never got around to watching it and the only reason i got it was because Olivia Wilde was in it. Well i finally got around to watching it and for the most part i actually liked it but i do agree that the movie does have layers and layers that it tries to set up but fails to deliver a adequate story for them all in a movie thatI have owned this movie for a long time on dvd now but i just never got around to watching it and the only reason i got it was because Olivia Wilde was in it. Well i finally got around to watching it and for the most part i actually liked it but i do agree that the movie does have layers and layers that it tries to set up but fails to deliver a adequate story for them all in a movie that is less then 2 hours. Maybe if it was a 2+ hour movie then it really could have been something great but its not and its ends up being another average movie. Justin Timberlake does a solid performance in this movie i have seen a lot of his movies but this was the best acting i think he has done so far. To be honest i was expecting more from Cillian Murphy from a villain standpoint granted that his character is a cop so it couldnt have been that great but still i was still expecting more from him. I did like that in the end that him and Amanda Seyfried ended up becoming a Bonnie and Clyde type.

    Overall i give it a 6.0 also Amanda Seyfried and that eye makeup was so mesmerizing
    Expand
  31. Sep 18, 2013
    6
    In Time focuses on the future, where the world has decided to remove the gene that causes people to age. As a means to control this, you stop aging at 25 years old and they you will leave one more year unless you earn more time. Time though is also the currency of this era buying things such as coffee, hotel rooms, and meals. Overall, I loved the concept of In Time and was intrigued fromIn Time focuses on the future, where the world has decided to remove the gene that causes people to age. As a means to control this, you stop aging at 25 years old and they you will leave one more year unless you earn more time. Time though is also the currency of this era buying things such as coffee, hotel rooms, and meals. Overall, I loved the concept of In Time and was intrigued from the very beginning. While the concept is very interesting, there are a number of flaws which while not a deal breaker, frustrated me as a viewer such as in a world trying to avoid anarchy, the simplicity of transferring time by touch seems a bit to...simple. Maybe that's just me though. In addition, a few questions are raised that are never answered, and secondary character development is lacking making what could have been a fantastic, robust and believable world a bit cold and confusing. With that said, I enjoyed the premise and the movie. I just wish that more time had been put into it's crafting to take full advantage of the great premise at hand.

    While the film suffered from a few issues, the technical aspects of the film were nice when presented on Blu-Ray. The movie's colors and representation of fleshtones, clarity, etc. were all spot on for the environments the characters were in. The night scenes featured a nice amount of detail on the buildings and in the shadows, lending to the believability of the film.

    The soundtrack, DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1, was nice and took advantage of all of the speakers. Great off camera cues, spatial dimension and subtle effects made this an overall involving audio mix. The film took advantage of the subwoofer occasionally to create solid, deep, and powerful bass. While much of the film did not require this, it was well done when used. The dialogue was solid and at a good volume in relation to the other effects.

    Parents, I would personally peg the movie for a 13 year old, depending on the family. There is some profanity (f word, some s words, etc.), some sexual content involving skinny dipping, There is also plenty of violence, some suicide, and more. While much of this is bloodless, it is something to consider if violence is a concern. There is also some drinking but there is not any use of drugs.

    Overall, I really enjoyed In Time. While it suffered from plot flaws and basic premise issues, the film was fun and brought a new concept forward that differed nicely from the average sci-fi film. I wish more time had been spent on this and developing the other characters, but all flaws considered, I would happily watch the movie again as I feel it plays a nice commentary on modern day america, the constant struggle for life, and the class structure. Personally, this wouldn't be a movie I would purchase though, instead I would recommend renting.
    Expand
  32. Oct 2, 2015
    6
    In Time is a substandard move in most respects (acting, plot, effects) but still worth a view for sci-fi fans. A world is built around the concept (time is money) and the film takes us on a ride through it. Most times serious, sometimes comical, In Time is an interesting watch.
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.