Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 284 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: In a future where time is literally money, and aging stops at 25, the only way to stay alive is to earn, steal, or inherit more time. Will Salas lives life a minute at a time, until a windfall of time gives him access to the world of the wealthy, where he teams up with a beautiful young heiress to destroy the corrupt system. (20th Century Fox)


    Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 36
  2. Negative: 4 out of 36
  1. Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    Oct 27, 2011
    100
    Coming now, today, In Time is not just satisfying. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's important, because that would overstate it, but it certainly feels like part of the national conversation. It arrives in theaters at a time when people are camped out in New York saying the same things as the people in the movie. It's weird the way films often anticipate the near future.
  2. Reviewed by: Melissa Anderson
    Oct 29, 2011
    70
    A pleasing, often rousing movie for the 99 percent, In Time is not without flaws.
  3. Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    Oct 28, 2011
    63
    The problem with In Time, to the extent that it is a problem, is that an intriguing premise turns into window dressing for a somewhat routine "Bonnie & Clyde"-meets-"Robin Hood" action thriller with car chases, heists, and gunplay.
  4. Reviewed by: Tasha Robinson
    Oct 26, 2011
    50
    Much like Niccol's "Gattaca," in which genetic perfection rather than time was the weapon a small group of snobby, unworthy elites used to hold down the meek masses, In Time is a chilly, stiff movie where clever ideas are delivered as self-righteous sermons.
  5. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Oct 31, 2011
    50
    It's a great idea that Niccol can't translate into a great movie.
  6. Reviewed by: Betsy Sharkey
    Oct 27, 2011
    50
    What's missing are the kind of moments that actually matter, the ones that are so gripping that you want desperately for time to stop - to savor them, to feel the fear, the passion, the regret. Ah, well … maybe next time.
  7. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Oct 26, 2011
    16
    Niccol fashioned an uninspired and downright dull sci-fi gimmick and doesn't even explain how it happened.

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 80
  2. Negative: 13 out of 80
  1. Aug 18, 2012
    10
    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
  2. Jan 31, 2012
    9
    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
  3. May 4, 2012
    8
    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 Expand
  4. Nov 17, 2011
    6
    I wanted to like this movie. I really did. The concept of In Time is brilliant. Unfortunately, the film stuffers from a poorly written script and actors not talented enough to compensate for it. Expand
  5. Sep 18, 2013
    6
    In Time focuses on the future, where the world has decided to remove the gene that causes people to age. As a means to control this, you stop aging at 25 years old and they you will leave one more year unless you earn more time. Time though is also the currency of this era buying things such as coffee, hotel rooms, and meals. Overall, I loved the concept of In Time and was intrigued from the very beginning. While the concept is very interesting, there are a number of flaws which while not a deal breaker, frustrated me as a viewer such as in a world trying to avoid anarchy, the simplicity of transferring time by touch seems a bit to...simple. Maybe that's just me though. In addition, a few questions are raised that are never answered, and secondary character development is lacking making what could have been a fantastic, robust and believable world a bit cold and confusing. With that said, I enjoyed the premise and the movie. I just wish that more time had been put into it's crafting to take full advantage of the great premise at hand.

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

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

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

    Overall, I really enjoyed In Time. While it suffered from plot flaws and basic premise issues, the film was fun and brought a new concept forward that differed nicely from the average sci-fi film. I wish more time had been spent on this and developing the other characters, but all flaws considered, I would happily watch the movie again as I feel it plays a nice commentary on modern day america, the constant struggle for life, and the class structure. Personally, this wouldn't be a movie I would purchase though, instead I would recommend renting.
    Expand
  6. Jan 10, 2012
    4
    It surely has an interesting concept behind it. Has an interesting cast. Has a decent production and technical value to it. However, the actual screenplay of "In Time" is rather weak and disappointing. With a number of unthought-through ideas/occurrences/actions to just bad writing with dialogue scenes, it does not quite get it right. The director/writer Andrew Niccol is no newcomer to films, having written "The Truman Show" and having directed a number of (not so good) films, which makes it even more surprising that he had so many weak points in the film. Inconsistencies and just stupid ideas were all over the film, and made me (and my friends watching the film) really annoyed. Also, tons of film clichés are used and abused all over the film, which makes it even less bearable. The best thing about the film was Amanda Seyfried, who was mesmerising with her hairstyle and look (yet, nothing special acting-wise) and Justin Timberlake's shirtless scenes (which were too few and too short to make up for mediocre acting). The only reason why it'd be worth the time to watch the film is because of the idea, which is quite interesting, but, as I pointed out, not really thought through and properly developed. Expand
  7. Nov 26, 2011
    0
    This film is really disappointing. See the trailer is very sickening. Acting "Justin Timberlake" is very standard, nothing special always. His handsome face that always get people to see the movie. Do not waste your money and your time to see this garbage movie. Expand

See all 80 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Fall Movie Preview: The 30 Most-Anticipated Films

    Fall Movie Preview: The 30 Most-Anticipated Films Image
    Published: September 6, 2011
    We preview the 30 top movies arriving this fall, from Steven Soderbergh's "Contagion" to George Clooney's "Ides of March." While you're at it, find release dates and descriptions for the other 60+ fall films, too.