Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: October 28, 2011
6.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 366 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
196
Mixed:
123
Negative:
47
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
MarcDoyleNov 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 firstIt'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 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
smijatovJan 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-throughIt 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
bobbsywAug 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.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
pinattarJun 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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Andys_ReviewsNov 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 aOn 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
TVJerryOct 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 stopThis 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
6 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
4
mckillustratorNov 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 GattacaFor 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SacrificeNov 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 hinderedThe 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
TokyochuchuMar 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 plottingIn 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
allystewJan 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 withIf 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
RavingReviewsOct 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 toIn 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
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
7
MustisTheCatAug 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 "InI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
MorriBeyJan 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.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
7
hollyvOct 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? ThoseWhat 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Jbow95Nov 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. AllIn 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. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
drlowdonApr 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 worldsIn 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
gleenoblyOct 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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
vinylcultureDec 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
HalfwelshmanNov 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 unexpectedlyThe 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
7 of 8 users found this helpful71
All this user's reviews
9
cabritaNov 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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
PaskillOct 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.
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
9
julian_zizzleFeb 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 anotherI 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
AkkharJan 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 theirThe 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
6
avatar16Nov 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 tempsFinalement, 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
hoops2448Nov 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 thinksSome great films have been Sci-Fi with a unique twist. Even Andrew Niccols previous film Gattaca was great because of its subtle yet unique premise. However In Time has a great premise but no pay off. Its one of those films that thinks because it is a good idea, it will instantly be a good film. The main problem is the script which doesn't seem to know where it wants to go that at times its anyones guess what the characters are going to do next, they could go to Disneyland and it wouldn't seem illogical. However that being said the cast meshes well and Cillian Murphy is great as always. Justin Timberlake gets by on charm alone but does solidly as the everyman on a mission. However Alex Pettyfer is just downright abysmal it turns scenes of tension to comedy in the blink of an eye. Its a novel concept (which should have played into the novelty factor more) but it just needed a little more work on the script and a better idea of the direction it was planning on going in. Not bad but no where near good enough. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ClariseSamuelsFeb 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'tAs 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
SirLouenJan 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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Sir_BrandonNov 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 tryingIn 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
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
KatDeeleyNov 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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
moviekretikOct 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 ofMaybe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews