1. potatoes351

   9

   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

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
2. tvchicano07

   8

   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

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
3. MarcDoyle

   5

   It's not a bad film, but it lays on the social commentary a bit thick - and I don't think you can properly analogize from this story to the current income disparity situation in the world in general and the in the US in particular. The first 60 minutes are excellent, but it seems to me the writers never figured out a good way to end it. It's becomes rudderless, and it detracts from experience. Timberlake is solid as usual, and Olivia Wilde is terrific in a brief role.… Expand

   • Helpful? 3 of 3 users said Yes.
4. smijatov

   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

   • Helpful? 2 of 2 users said Yes.

See all 76 User Reviews