User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 301 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 41 out of 301

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. Sep 1, 2014
    One of the ABSOLUTE WORST movies I've ever seen, especially considering the cast and budget of this movie. The one thing this move has going for it is the setting, which LA fits nicely.
    The whole "time" premise is fantastic (it had to much potential!), but it's implementation and writing is awful. A terrible, horrendously predictable, cliche storyline provides the backbone. The characters
    are stereotypes and are so predictable it hurts. They are not developed at all, and their personalities resemble those of cartoon characters. In fact, the whole movie is so cartoonish it seems suited better to 10 year olds than adults.

    Now, I have no problem with a movie with a political agenda, but this has preachy, overbearing, extremely in-your-face political themes, and they are so hilariously childish it makes my brain melt. Topping it all off is the extensive list of gaping logic/plot holes, which really ties together this steaming pile of utter garbage. It's hard to take a movie seriously when the logic behind the main concepts of the movie are totally undeveloped and not addressed whatsoever.
    Also, the few special effects they have are horrible. This movie is a huge, festering, rotting pile of hopes and dreams.
  2. Aug 24, 2014
    In a world where everyone is genetically engineered to stop aging after 25 years - and given one year extra before their clock starts ticking and they need to work to earn more time to live - it seems the rich have once again found a way to harvest more of what others fight for to survive; while common people use their last seconds to pay for rent and food, others live on for centuries.

    Will Salas (portrayed surprisingly good Justin Timberlake) is a man of good will; he gives to others though he rarely has more time in his clock than there are hours in the day. When by a strange coincidence he comes to possess centuries of lifetime, his simple fight for survival changes.

    After a personal loss, he decides to take onto those who allow good people to die, while having unlimited time in their own hands - especially when there is more than enough time for all.

    From this starts a journey to get to the source of all the evil corruption and manipulation, but in the end it seems the movie never really gets to grasp the real crooks by the balls, so to speak. As much as things are explained, of how the system works, it still seems not every event is thought of in depth. In the end I was left to wonder whether Will and Sylvia (a daughter of one of the wealthiest men on the planet) managed to do anything but cripple a system that was the only one they had.

    The pace of the movie was good, and it was thoroughly enjoyable, feeling quite real. Considering this was a future world, there were very few sci-fi elements to it, and the action was human rather than grabbing onto big explosions for help.

    I guess I would have wanted to have a deeper understanding of the whole system, because it felt we only scratched at the surface here. Also, the flow between scenes, shooting from one character to the next, wasn't always flawless; the movie could have been cut a bit better.

    Other than that, a thoroughly enjoyable experience. A nice concept, and many different characters got to show their faces and true colors.
  3. May 25, 2014
    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 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
  4. Apr 22, 2014
    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 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.
  5. Jan 5, 2014
    A very well-done movie, and a very original idea. I like the creation of this world with buying and selling time, and how this idea soon gets corrupt. Very intriguing movie.
  6. Sep 24, 2013
    I dont get it bad reviews? Did you really see this movie? I think not.
    This movie is incredible. I usually dislike guys who jump all the time on the scene like Justin Bieber, but Timberlake was awesome. He played his role almost perfect. Concept like time is money is unique and holding deep thought as we all wasting our time in real life using money. I also enjoyed the music. This is not
    like sci fi movie, there is no cyberpunk, this is mostly action. I strongly reccomend anyone to watch it. Expand
  7. Sep 18, 2013
    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 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.
  8. Mar 24, 2013
    Although the screenwriting wasn't quite the best, the overall idea of the film was great.
  9. Mar 23, 2013
    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
  10. Feb 28, 2013
    In Time is not a bad science-fiction thriller, it gets quite a few things right such as half-decent acting, good scenery and a very, very good concept. Unfortunately, it also gets quite a few things wrong and it starts with the half-decent acting, why on earth would it pop in anyone's mind to ask Justin Timberlake to star in a movie? To me that looks a lot like asking Vin Diesel to orchestrate an orchestra. Don't get me wrong, Vin Diesel is an awesome actor but that's what he is: an actor. Justin Timberlake can barely be considered a musician, let alone an actor. Anyhow, regardless of my personal dislike of Justin Timberlake I have to say that he didn't do a bad job at portraying the protagonist but it's really his female counterpart Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) that steals the show with her stunning 90's outfit. The other actors are all so-so, A lot of people are supposed to act much older than they look since people stop aging at 25 in In Time but only a few actors pull it off convincingly. The technology used to transfer time from one person to another is never explained and we have to settle for a 'it's just the way it is' at the start of the money, never learning how the system came into place or why it seems like everyone and everything is permanently stuck in a 90's setting. Many say this movie is a critique of Capitalism. I believe it is more than that, I believe it to be a critique of time itself. However it fails to properly materialize this critique and ends up being just an interesting action-thriller with a whiff of science fiction that invokes a sense of familiarity in us because we all know we're being cheated, lied to and forced to waste our lives for power-hungry demagogues. A sort of modern day, cinematized Bonny and Clyde, if you will. For those truly looking for solid critique on Time, turn to John Zerzan's Time and its Discontents. Expand
  11. Feb 26, 2013
    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
  12. Feb 22, 2013
    Time is money and money is time in Andrew Niccol's epic, In Time. In this film, human beings are genetically engineered. At the age of twenty-five, your clock starts ticking and your goal is to work in order to survive. The wealthy are immortal, while the poor die at a young age. The story is refreshingly unique and the film is done very well. Justin Timberlake stars, and shows that he's come a long way in a short time. When I heard he was starring in this film, I thought it would be another great idea destroyed by a cast of good looking people who can't act, but I was wrong. Timberlake shows he's got definite potential to be a big action star and that his n'suck days are way behind him. Cillian Murphy is also terrific as the timekeeper. What I love about Murphy is even when he's a good guy, he's still the guy you're rooting against. His personality makes him the perfect adversary in just about everything he does. In Time, is original, unique, fast moving, and intense. In a Hollywood full of re-makes, sequels, and uninspiring ideas that mimic one another, In Time is a breath of fresh air and was one of the most enjoyable and original films I've seen all year. Expand
  13. Feb 7, 2013
    This film is better than average but not excellent. It contains many socialist ideas and as such conservatives will hate this film and those on the left will enjoy it more. However the casting was not great the two leading actors are not the best that could have filled these roles. The allegory of the film meaning that the wealthy stomp the poor and exploit them for their labor is magnificently developed. Hollywood should make more films like this instead of producing the week to week poopfests that they produce to keep the masses ignorant and complacent. Expand
  14. Jan 8, 2013
    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.
  15. Nov 20, 2012
    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, I found this one quite odd to look at (even a bit ageist! Expand
  16. Aug 18, 2012
    This movie is incredible. Negative reviews about this movie just reflects how much people can't enjoy life for one second. This movie is very rich in profound values. Without spoiling anything, I can definitely tell that the relationship in the movie between the rich people living forever at the cost of the poor people's life is a direct reflection of our world's rich people making millions/billions while paying ridiculous salaries to their employees. In the end, the movie simply illustrates that humans should enjoy every second of their life to the fullest and to not hold back on anything because life can be taken away from you anytime. Expand
  17. Aug 18, 2012
    In Time tells the story of Will. Will lives in a world where you stop ageing at 25 and time is currency, we each have our own personal clock, once that clock is up we die. The world is split into 12 districts each getting poorer as you go up, Will lives with his mother in District 12 the poorest district. Will and his mother wake up everyday with barely enough time on their clocks to make it through the day, their huge hours of working shifts help to keep them alive day by day. But when Will saves one of the richest people on Earth from some thugs he is given the mans remaining time as a gift, 100 years. Will decides to move to the richest district in hope of a new life but instead gets caught up in a fight which his father started with a man with over a million years on his clock. With the man's daughter will and she must try to survive with only hours on their clocks and give the man's millions to the poor. The story is enchanting and mesmerising, even if it lacks in certain areas of detail. The casting is unlikely but works well and gives a very varied cast. However great this film is, I cant help but think this would have been better as a TV series rather than a film. Expand
  18. Aug 12, 2012
    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.
  19. Aug 6, 2012
    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.
  20. Aug 1, 2012
    I liked the movie. First of all ---- it is original. Always when there are hundreds of remakes, a movie like that shines. And even Mr. Timberlake did not manage to make it bad. I have always loved what-it`s-like-in-the-future flicks, so "In Time" definitely gave me some entertainment. A story of people being genetically engineered to die in 26 years time is a little over the top, but still tries hard to be based around believable circumstances. I appreciate that the story did not bombard with star-trek mumbo jumbo explanation of things. It just gets in the way and wouldn`t enrich the movie. Ofcourse, the plot is a titanic-like nonsense but that doesn`t ruin the whole picture at all. It has a message too ----- time in it is just another concept of money ---- which is a way for the elites to control and manipulate societies. Doesn`t really differ from what we have now in the world. I could criticise the ending but it`s pointless since the story is well, on the light side. Expand
  21. Jun 26, 2012
    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 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
  22. Jun 2, 2012
    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. 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
  23. May 4, 2012
    This movie is not going to get any awards, but it is an interesting movie that is worth seeing. This is also a star-studded cast, but do a good job with it
  24. Apr 18, 2012
    "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
  25. Apr 6, 2012
    This was a very original concept: a world where money is actually time: the time you have to live. It seems a great play on words. The actors were much better than some, not as good as others, but all in all, a very enjoyable movie.
  26. Mar 28, 2012
    I love this action film, is amazing, but have some mistakes. The trama is amazing. Use the time like money sound interesting, but the development of the history is so strange, and in some parts you say: what? for example the scene in that the character of Alex Pettyfer kill a guy, and after watch the anounce of Wanted, you ask: what is the reason for kill the guy?. Now the cast is good or excellent. but some performance like Amanda don't be amazing, be acceptable and do that the film don't be interesting. And for other part is like a new Bonnie and Clyde, with all the theft scenes. In no much words IN TIME is an interesting experiment, have some mistakes and you say, the movie can be better. I think that if this movie have a sequel, the studio can correct the mistakes of this film.But for me is great. Expand
  27. Mar 28, 2012
    In Time is a really fun entertaining, once again Timberlake is annoyingly good, the other key cast members are also very good, in particular Cillian Murphy, some of the bit part players struggled a bit acting wise and were a bit cheesy but on the whole this is a great entertaining movie with a fantastically original concept.
  28. Mar 27, 2012
    Enjoyable thriller from the writer of The Truman Show, Andrew Niccol. Set in an age when time is the global currency and all humans are given only one year to live from their 25th birthday with additional time having to be earned or collected. This inevitably results in an imbalance between the time-rich and the time-poor who cling to every second they earn. Justin Timbalake is likeable as the lead character and strikes a good chemistry with Amanda Seyfried, who plays the Bonnie to his Clyde. Ultimately, the film falls short of delivering a truly great experience that the intriguing concept could warrant but is definitely worth a look. Expand
  29. Mar 25, 2012
    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.
  30. Mar 13, 2012
    it's been called 'too obvious', but that often is an unfortunate necessity when appealing to a mass. there are many clever moments.

    the female protagonist develops through the film, but her development often was dependent on the male lead. this can be off-putting to a female perspective.
  31. Mar 12, 2012
    One of the most original sci fi films you will ever see. The plot was incredibly interesting and worked out very well through out. Although they could have shown people with less time struggling to live day to day, Sort of build an emotional connection to them in a way. The cast was ok but Timberlake was a terrible lead. Not terrible as in bad acting, He was actually pretty decent through out but he just didnt sit well with me. Id have prefered someone else as a lead.

    Still, Its a pretty good and original film. Definently worth watching imo.
  32. Mar 9, 2012
    In Time was a decent enough movie, you're not wasting your time here. It borrows alot from Logan's Run, Bonnie & Clyde, gangster films, and Atari game cartridges. And it features alot of familiar faces, Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, and "White Collar" star Matthew Bomer which no one mentions at all. The film is full of social policy statements but it's harmless stuff, material you've seen and heard countless times before. It's just packaged in a slightly different way than the very similar Logan's Run. I watched it at no charge via Dish's Blockbuster@Home so I'd advise the same or RedBox, don't spend pay per view prices on this. Expand
  33. Mar 2, 2012
    one of those few movies that I think deserves a sequel. The movie has a unique idea that I would have never been able to come up with. Great story, okay action.
  34. Feb 14, 2012
    I liked this movie a lot, it was an original story which tried to mix love and politics in a weird way. Original but the politic philosophy was same as all the movies we saw before. (Prevent the rich from being richer, give the poor another chance) The plot was good, the actors & actresses were playing well. But even though that the movie told the story in far future, it was not actually different than 21st century in appearance. So don't expect a movie which has teleportation, flying cars, flying cows. That would also mess the movie in bad way so actually this movie is good as the way it already is. No overrated technology or geeky sci-fi. Expand
  35. Feb 13, 2012
    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.
  36. Feb 5, 2012
    This movie has an excellent plot that in some ways parallels the society in which we live. The only difference is that in the film the currency is time instead of money. It shows the disparity between the lives of the rich and the poor and demonstrates how difficult and near impossible it is for a person in a lower socioeconomic class to move up in life. It also shows how society is segregated into communities depending on the amount of wealth one has. In the film, the communities are literally segregated by a gate that one must pay a large amount of time in order to cross into the next community up. Overall, I thought this was a very through-provoking and action-packed film with great acting. It is a must see! Expand
  37. Feb 5, 2012
    As a left-wing liberal with socialist leanings, I can't help but have a strong affinity to this film. So rarely does Hollywood stop endorsing the status quo and try to use its power to challenge the system and demand change. This movie isn't perfect but it is heroic, and if it has failed, then it's a noble failure. This is a sci-fi thriller, a dystopia apparently set in a futuristic time but more likely set on another planet that is an Earth look-alike. That would clarify why there is no explanation for how this system came into being, for it appears to have always been so--a planetary system for indentured servitude, which instead of being based on money, is based on time. You can save time, waste time, spend time, but mostly you live on borrowed time, literally, because you are guaranteed 25 years, and then you stop aging and you are granted one full year on your biological clock that ticks away on your arm. If you were not born into a rich family, which would allow you to live hundreds of years or more, you live below the poverty line, working long hours under poor conditions to earn more time. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried are a very effective sci-fi Bonnie and Clyde, challenging the system and attempting to overthrow it single-handedly to wipe out the huge disparity between the lives of the rich and the lives of the poor. Timberlake's character, Will Salas, a poor wretch from the ghetto whose own father died trying to challenge the system, never has more than one day at a time on his clock, but he is suddenly granted a hundred years of time by a rich centenarian who is tired of living forever. But the suicidal millionaire gives Salas something more--he tells Salas the truth about the prevailing ideology: "There's enough time for everyone." That information stuns Salas, and he realizes that everyone is buying into this reality unquestioningly, when they should be rioting in the streets and overthrowing the system. The poor think this is the way things have to be, the rich are protecting themselves and their lifestyles, and in between is a kind of petite bourgeoisie, who are neither rich nor poor, but survive nicely by working with the system. The film explicates the horrors of capitalism, somewhat simplified but still convincing, and there is a secondary theme concerning the cult of youth. On this planet, no one ages after 25 years, so it is hard to tell the difference between mother, daughter, and grandmother. The lifestyles of the very rich and eternally youthful are lavish and completely self-centered, with the only justice being their eternal boredom, their spiritual emptiness, and their complete lack of usefulness. The slogan of the rich is, "For a few people to be immortal, many must die." And the response of Timberlake's character is the response of the revolutionary, "No one can be immortal if even one person has to die." So when Hollywood wakes up and starts filming these themes, you know something must be brewing, because the rich producers and directors of southern California are not overly famous for their anarchism and their revolutionary fervor. Expand
  38. Jan 31, 2012
    This movie is clever. Andrew Niccol probably while in rush to drop his latest script to a would be movie executive thought to himself "Time is Money" and voila next thing you know you've got Robin Hood, meets Pip, meets Bonnie and Clyde, meets John the Savage, meets Justin Beiber. This movie is brilliant in a word. It begs the question does society have to function as a zero-sum game? I know some will just see this as a action packed , bang bang bang shoot him up, flaunting as a critique on society but this movie is profound. If this were not a film and written as a book it would go down as a classic. Well as they say , nuff said. Expand
  39. Jan 31, 2012
    Could have been excellent. Sadly acting was awful despite strong casting choices. But maybe I am missing something the director was going forâ
  40. Jan 26, 2012
    its the best movie ................................................................................................................................................................................................................
  41. Jan 25, 2012
    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.
  42. Jan 22, 2012
    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 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 .
  43. Jan 20, 2012
    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
  44. Jan 18, 2012
    If there ever was a movie to capture the "Zeitgeist" then In Time is it. I know for alot of people the movie may have to many political statements to make but for me its a good thing that it does. Also it does it in a cool scifi concept with such an energy. Like 24 TV show the sense of a ticking clock gives the sense of tension and keeps the movie moving along at a brisk pace. Downsides are some of the one dimensional characters and script with bad dialogue. However I can't help but say to watch this movie then watch the business news and show me the difference. Expand
  45. Jan 10, 2012
    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
  46. Jan 4, 2012
    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
  47. Jan 1, 2012
    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.
  48. Dec 17, 2011
    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.
  49. Dec 17, 2011
    Brilliant concept and well delivered. Perhaps not as well executed as it could have been but great acting, and storyline. Well worth seeing!

    It really is true that we all want more time and yet we all continue to waste so much of it!
  50. Dec 10, 2011
    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.
  51. Dec 5, 2011
    La verdad es que es una buena pelí de acción en un futuro donde se vive del tiempo, esta bastante entretenida , no es una obre maestra pero pasar el rato esta muy bien
  52. Dec 1, 2011
    In Time is a movie that takes the phrase â
  53. Nov 30, 2011
    In time is a fun movie to watch but it is also much deeper then what meets the eye. Many will think it is about a class strugle but they dont have the entire piece of the puzzle yet. Their is also symbolism through out the whole entire movie.
  54. Nov 29, 2011
    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
  55. Nov 28, 2011
    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 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
  56. Nov 26, 2011
    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.
  57. Nov 23, 2011
    Fast past and exctiting! My heart never stopped pounding! The plot was very interesting and well thought out, and puts a fun spin on the phrase "time is money." I would definately go to see it again, and most likely will!
  58. Nov 22, 2011
    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.
  59. Nov 21, 2011
    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.
  60. Nov 17, 2011
    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.
  61. Nov 12, 2011
    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
  62. Nov 10, 2011
    Released this year, 2011, director Andrew Niccol brings us as a sci-fi, action thriller featuring some top well known actors. With a cast of Justin Timberlake, Cillian Murphy and Amanda Seyfried, this film is sure to be a hit!

    Set in a futuristic time where people stop aging at the age of 25, their clocks begin ticking to how long they have left to live. The film centrals around the
    difference between upper and lower class in comparison to how much time they have on their clocks. The main character Will Salas, played by Timberlake, finds himself with more time than anticipated, his first thought is to run. With the time keepers on his tail to claim back the time, Will Salas gets himself a hostage who proves more than beneficial when it comes to getting more time for those less privileged. Although the film is filled with action and fast paced narrative lines, there are a few minor points to the film. The puns against the title 'In Time' become more frequent as the film goes on losing the effect the film is trying to have on the audience. The story line also conveys an obvious structure making it predictable for the viewers to work out what is going to happen. With plenty of action the special effects could have been more explosive and prominent in the film itself. Overall this film lives up to its expectations, it is an easy to watch, gripping enjoyable film. The star cast prove to be a massive hit throughout the film conveying their emotions onto the audience. The thrilling plot keeps the audience hooked and hearts pounding. A definite must-see film...before you run out of time. Expand
  63. Nov 10, 2011
    I enjoyed this movie. Can't say it was a great movie, but it was worth the money I paid to see it. I thought the premise was original and interesting, though thinking about the economics of it everyone would die out pretty quick. I don't think the writers thought about the math. No one would become rich with time, everyone would just die.
  64. Nov 9, 2011
    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
  65. Nov 9, 2011
    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
    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.
  66. Nov 7, 2011
    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 the creativity of this movie. Expand
  67. Nov 6, 2011
    The plot was ridiculous and the political agenda behind the story was obviously communist leaning. The premise beingâ
  68. Nov 5, 2011
    In Time is a movie with an incredibly interesting and creative concept. It has a great sense of place and the good scenes are REALLY GOOD. However, the movie stumbles in bouts of poor writing, stiff acting, and some small plot holes. All in all though, It is a very entertaining movie that will leave you with a lasting impression despite its shortcomings.
  69. Nov 5, 2011
    This movie is entertaining and definitely an above average thriller. The premise is interesting, and the actors do a nice job. I agree that it doesn't quite reach its full potential that is the premise, but worthwhile nonetheless.
  70. Nov 5, 2011
    I have not seen a movie this creative in a long time. I feel Justin Timberlake did wonderful in this movie.I hope to see him in movies to come.I will give this a 10 rating because I will go back to see it again. It is very true that the government trys to kill citizens because theirs to many people on earth and the only way to do it is by raising cost of everything. I loved this movie! :)
  71. Nov 3, 2011
    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
  72. Nov 2, 2011
    In Time may be a sci-fi actioner that takes place in the future, but it is ever so relevant for the time we live in right here and now. It is class warfare and in this case, the rich have all the time in the world and the poor are just trying to survive. Director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Lord of War) takes an intriguingly clever premise and makes it look slick and stylish. He surrounds himself with an attractive cast and a story that offers some intelligence and originality, even if there is a lot of Bonnie and Clyde towards the end. Overall, Niccol is able to execute what he needs to pretty well and makes In Time entertaining for the masses, but also makes you recognize that this world and ours are not so different.

    Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives in a world where everyone at least gets to live until they are 25 years-old and they never look any older than that. But once they turn 25, their clock starts and are only given a guaranteed year to live. Now you can add time to your life clock by working or if some one is nice enough, time can be transferred from one person to another by simply grabbing arms. Or you can steal it, which seems to be the most popular way to keep your clock ticking. You can have hours, months, decades, and even centuries on your clock, but once it runs outâ
  73. Nov 2, 2011
    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
  74. Nov 2, 2011
    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. Collapse
  75. Nov 2, 2011
    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 from experience. Timberlake is solid as usual, and Olivia Wilde is terrific in a brief role. Expand
  76. Nov 1, 2011
    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.
  77. Oct 31, 2011
    Maybe not be included in the 2011 best of films (I'm talking of ranking it at Top 10), but very entertaining! This movie is a futuristic-modern day Robin Hood who, in the end, gets the girl. Overall, the plot is predictable but the theme of the movie and relevance to today's society more than make up for it. In Time presents a very interesting capitalism vs. communism debate. In the end is presents its obvious choice of which is a better path to follow; however, it still does a fair job at presenting both sides with a decent amount of support. Overall, In Time was plagued with some poor written lines and bad delivery from the actors. Nevertheless, it maintained my attention through its intriguing concept and plot progression. Justin exceeded my expectations and proved he can lead a film. Cillian Murphy was amazing! He totally stole the show. The storyline: Great concept, but, failed to delivery I think. The whole idea of ''Time is Money'' is really interesting; but the way it's presented didn't really piece together to me. Such as the idea of having your bank on your hand and anyone can take it with a simple touch. Expand
  78. Oct 31, 2011
    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.
  79. Oct 31, 2011
    it's a good attempt for sci-fi movie, 'cause it's hard to find a sci-fi movie which doesn't talk about aliens or alien invasion. i love its brave ideas and i agree that time's more important than anything including money. this movie also states the fact of modern and past society where the rich could live more longer than the poor. corruption's happening around the world, the movie just performs it well. Expand
  80. Oct 29, 2011
    In Time is one of those movies that is fun to watch. The plot of this sci-fi flix was completely original. It was filled with plenty of action and drama to keep you engaged. The two main characters were easy to connect with and it was fun to cheer for them. Due to the low technology, it didn't seem like the future. There were some flaws in the plot but none were too important. The movie wasn't outstanding but it had a clear message, and it kept you on the edge of your for most of it duration. The acting was good but not great. It was thought-provoking at some points. It was pretty good and I found it difficulties easy to overlook. Expand
  81. Oct 29, 2011
    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.
  82. Oct 29, 2011
    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
  83. Oct 29, 2011
    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
  84. Oct 28, 2011
    What happens when "time is money" is no longer a metaphor but a stone cold fact? You won't want to be found with too much time on your hands, lest it be pried from your cold, but-very-alive fingers. And who are the real slaves? Those running down the clock - living timecheck to timecheck? Or the guarded lives of the uber timerich? The treatment of "time as money" throughout this film is fun, sometimes thought-provoking, and sometimes sobering... very sobering. The rich can't really figure out how to do this yet, right? Deeper issues are not explored here. Not just because it's Justin Timberlake... but because there's, well, no time. I left asking, "why can't anyone protect their time? No time lock? No banking of time? No unforseen circumstances like a timevirus?" Probably saving that for the sequel... Expand

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
    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
    It's a great idea that Niccol can't translate into a great movie.
  3. Reviewed by: Melissa Anderson
    Oct 29, 2011
    A pleasing, often rousing movie for the 99 percent, In Time is not without flaws.