| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
As a storyteller, Andrew Niccol tends to think big, tackling heady subjects such as genetic predestination (Gattaca), the nature of reality (The Truman Show), and celebrity in the cyber age (S1m0ne). In Time, Niccol's first film since 2005's Lord of War, has a typically gigantic premise--a world where everyone over 25 years old must pay for every continued second of their existence--but stumbles in the execution. While the ideas are exceedingly clever, the telling isn't especially witty. Justin Timberlake stars as a goodhearted but desperate minimum-wager trapped in a society where the rich are essentially immortal and the poor see their lifespan shorten with every purchase. (A cup of coffee costs 4 minutes, taking the bus also takes 30 minutes off of your life, and so on.) After being gifted with a century by a mysterious benefactor, he begins a romance with a beautiful socialite (Amanda Seyfried), whose father holds the key to the entire monetary system. Matters are complicated with the introduction of a relentless time cop (Cillian Murphy) with his own motivations for restoring the unnatural balance of things. Niccol has fun laying out the aspects of a world where even the elderly are genetically frozen at age 25 (the scenes where Timberlake interacts with his mother, played by a disturbingly spry Olivia Wilde, are an unsavory hoot), but has difficulty translating the ingenuity of his concept to a compelling narrative, which rapidly devolves into a mix of uninspired chase scenes and a succession of time-related puns that would have trouble passing muster on a Laffy Taffy wrapper. (The bad guys threaten to clean Timberlake's clock. Repeatedly.) While science fiction aficionados will find much to chew on in Niccol's askew reality, In Time never quite hits the marks that its own ideas suggest. As a film, it's more fun to think about than watch. --Andrew Wright
Product Description
Every second counts in this sexy, stylish action-thriller starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. In a future where time is literally money and aging stops at 25, the only way to stay alive is to earn, borrow, steal or inherit more time. But when a poor, working-class man (Timberlake) is falsely accused of murder, he teams up with a beautiful heiress (Seyfried) and must figure out a way to bring down the corrupt system before their dwindling life clocks run out!
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
45 of 54 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
In Time is only the 4th film by New Zealander and The Truman Show writer Andrew Niccol and comes six years after Lord of War (2005) with Nicolas Cage and Jared Leto. While I reserve a special place for Niccol having seen all of his films and being satisfied by every one of them, Niccol has failed to make a film that would put him over the top. His debut Gattaca emerged as a cult classic that failed to find a major audience at the box office. Simone with Al Pacino went largely unnoticed and is never mentioned today. Lord of War, despite its complex setup and departure from Niccol's usual science fiction themes, also was not a major motion picture. In Time may come off as Niccol's most commercial work designed for commercial success.
The film boasts a cast of young actors, a plus for bringing out the younger base. One of its main stars is Justin Timberlake, an international pop superstar who of recent years has made a foray in serious acting roles (as well as sparse comedic roles). Undoubtedly, Timberlake has an audience. And the film gathers together fine visuals, an impressionistic use of the color green with an appealing concept of time running out. It seems that Niccol is going out of his way to ensure a meaningful success on his hands. However, his attempts have been frustrated by claims of unoriginality considering the lawsuit by Harlan Ellison claiming that the film is a rip of 1965 short-story, "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Others see a connection to Logan's Run.
The plot of the film follows Will Salas (played by Timberlake) who lives in a world where time is currency. People don't age past the age of 25 and for most of the poor, time is running out as clearly shown on their forearms. Time is used to pay bills, food and even to travel from place to place. However, Salas is given a gift by a man with almost unlimited time. Set up for his murder, a group of timekeeping individuals hunt him down. Salas further complicates matters by falling for the daughter of a wealthy man after he kidnaps her. Meanwhile, Salas is the subject of a manhunt by Fortis, an elderly man (in age) hell-bent on stealing time.
The plot emerges quite interestingly and provides several literary detours to embark on. The story is complicated by more characters and their motivations. Action and chases are less emphasized in favor of story progression. The problem is that before the middle of the film arrives, it becomes somewhat clichéd and its links to other pre-existing material causes many balk at the film's premise. The slick nature of the material and the lack of risks taken also impede on the film's potential. Justin Timberlake, while not a terrible actor in this film (particularly comparison to his subpar performance in Bad Teacher), is hard to justify as a serious actor. Several more capable actors should have been considered.
The standout actor of the film is the young Alex Pettyfer. Pettyfer, an English actor, has taken less-than-prospective roles in I Am Number Four and Beastly. However, he demonstrates his potential in this film, playing Fortis, a petty bad guy devoted to stealing time. Cillian Murphy seems somewhat out of place as an authority figure. He's more adept at playing quirky loonies than straight-faced, by-the-book, ethical do-gooders. Amanda Seyfried does a fine job as always. Johnny Galecki like Murphy seems out of place seeing that the plot claims that no one ages past 25 and Galecki is 36. But maybe I'm being a stickler.
All in all, I enjoyed the film for what it was worth: entertainment. I didn't ponder the concepts introduced in the film since the product was so slick and glossy. It felt more like a blockbuster rather than the message-movie it was trying to be. The conflict let up too easily and climax were stunted by a quick confrontation in which it always seemed that the good guy was going win, eliminating the sense of conflict and surprise. And while the concept is interesting, it has also been done before, which provides a further disservice. Niccol as usual tries his best to present an original narrative as he did with The Truman Show but in many respects, he often provides long-lasting visual motifs than he does literary excellence. In Time provides plenty of visual dazzle but fails to exhibit exceptional filmmaking but at the very least it's quite entertaining.
The film boasts a cast of young actors, a plus for bringing out the younger base. One of its main stars is Justin Timberlake, an international pop superstar who of recent years has made a foray in serious acting roles (as well as sparse comedic roles). Undoubtedly, Timberlake has an audience. And the film gathers together fine visuals, an impressionistic use of the color green with an appealing concept of time running out. It seems that Niccol is going out of his way to ensure a meaningful success on his hands. However, his attempts have been frustrated by claims of unoriginality considering the lawsuit by Harlan Ellison claiming that the film is a rip of 1965 short-story, "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Others see a connection to Logan's Run.
The plot of the film follows Will Salas (played by Timberlake) who lives in a world where time is currency. People don't age past the age of 25 and for most of the poor, time is running out as clearly shown on their forearms. Time is used to pay bills, food and even to travel from place to place. However, Salas is given a gift by a man with almost unlimited time. Set up for his murder, a group of timekeeping individuals hunt him down. Salas further complicates matters by falling for the daughter of a wealthy man after he kidnaps her. Meanwhile, Salas is the subject of a manhunt by Fortis, an elderly man (in age) hell-bent on stealing time.
The plot emerges quite interestingly and provides several literary detours to embark on. The story is complicated by more characters and their motivations. Action and chases are less emphasized in favor of story progression. The problem is that before the middle of the film arrives, it becomes somewhat clichéd and its links to other pre-existing material causes many balk at the film's premise. The slick nature of the material and the lack of risks taken also impede on the film's potential. Justin Timberlake, while not a terrible actor in this film (particularly comparison to his subpar performance in Bad Teacher), is hard to justify as a serious actor. Several more capable actors should have been considered.
The standout actor of the film is the young Alex Pettyfer. Pettyfer, an English actor, has taken less-than-prospective roles in I Am Number Four and Beastly. However, he demonstrates his potential in this film, playing Fortis, a petty bad guy devoted to stealing time. Cillian Murphy seems somewhat out of place as an authority figure. He's more adept at playing quirky loonies than straight-faced, by-the-book, ethical do-gooders. Amanda Seyfried does a fine job as always. Johnny Galecki like Murphy seems out of place seeing that the plot claims that no one ages past 25 and Galecki is 36. But maybe I'm being a stickler.
All in all, I enjoyed the film for what it was worth: entertainment. I didn't ponder the concepts introduced in the film since the product was so slick and glossy. It felt more like a blockbuster rather than the message-movie it was trying to be. The conflict let up too easily and climax were stunted by a quick confrontation in which it always seemed that the good guy was going win, eliminating the sense of conflict and surprise. And while the concept is interesting, it has also been done before, which provides a further disservice. Niccol as usual tries his best to present an original narrative as he did with The Truman Show but in many respects, he often provides long-lasting visual motifs than he does literary excellence. In Time provides plenty of visual dazzle but fails to exhibit exceptional filmmaking but at the very least it's quite entertaining.
118 of 148 people found the following review helpful
By Mr. Markster
Format:Amazon Instant Video
I'm a sucker for a good sci- fi / action movie. I'm rather forgiving in just how much I will overlook in the name of quality entertainment.
First, the Good: Some of the acting (Cillian Murphy, Justin Timberlake and a few others) are respectably solid. Also, the overall concept is very intriguing... the world currency is time, and when a person turns 25 their "life clock" actually begins. From the time you are 25, life's objective is to keep your life clock from expiring. If it expires, you die. Not a problem for the rich, who have more time than they know what to do with: a "wealthy" person may have centuries to live, while the "poor" continuously struggle for more time. It's a very interesting premise that becomes more interesting when a poor worker (Justin Timberlake) saves a "wealthy" man from a time stealing mob boss while flaunting his wealth in the ghetto. in return, he gives Justine Timberlake all of his time (over 100 years). In a short but very philosophical discussion the wealthy man, who has mentally lived too long, says "We are meant to die."
So begins a science fiction tale that promises to serve up plenty of symbolism, philosophical overtones about economy and the meaning of existence. Could it possibly be the rare sci fi / action film panned by critics but destined to become a cult classic somewhere down the road?
Hell no.
Unfortunately, that's about as good as the film gets.
Actually, the movie starts to go down hill and remains spiraling out of control with the entrance of Amanda Seyfried. Sadly, the story abandons all of its earlier adult-oriented promise to become a vapid "love story" seemingly aimed at a much younger audience. I was not impressed with Seyfried in "Red Riding Hood" and even less impressed with her here. Not only can't she act, but her acting is so horrible that my wife and I kept laughing at scenes that were meant to be serious. She serves well as eye candy, but her acting in this movie was cardboard flat awful. However, in her defense, the characters aren't scripted very well and she really wasn't given much to work with. Whether she simply slept-walked through the production or fell victim to horrible scripting and directing- or all of the above- the movie took a turn for the worst upon the entry of her character.
For example: she plays a wealthy girl who is kidnapped by Justin Timberlake and taken to the ghetto. They are both rendered unconscious and robbed of nearly all their time. Now they have to stay on the move and struggle to stay alive without running out of time. Excellent premise! However, never once does she seem very concerned that she is mere minutes from certain death. She acts incredibly hum-drum for a rich girl who always had an over-abundance of time and now literally has almost none. The sense of non-urgency really detracted from what could have - and SHOULD have been an incredibly suspenseful segment of the film. Just another example of weak script, weak acting and weak directing all coming together.
The third act gets even worse when the two lovers turn into Robin Hood-esque characters, stealing from the wealthy and giving to the poor. The movie becomes so trite that anything once redeeming is no longer a part of the equation.
Also, the 'ghetto' was way too tame: in a world where time can be exchanged simply by grabbing someones arm, think how chaotic, dismal and brutal the ghetto would really be with people killing eachother just to survuve a few more minutes. The movie becomes its own worst enemy by completely santizing what it's attempting to condemn in the first place. I understand they didn't want to cross over into R- rated territory, but the ghetto should have been much more chaotic and gritty- even at PG-13.
All in all, this movie is so incredibly disappointing because it started with so much promise and then took all that promise and wasted it. Some the actors were solid- I've always been impressed with Cillian Murphy and I must admit that Timberlake easily holds his own as well (except for the god-awful scene when his "mother" is killed, which was cringe-worthy bad).
With a tighter script and direction, more concentration on story and suspense as opposed to a vapid love story between the stereotypically over-indulged rich girl and the poor boy from the opposite side of the tracks- this could have been so much better than it actually was.
First, the Good: Some of the acting (Cillian Murphy, Justin Timberlake and a few others) are respectably solid. Also, the overall concept is very intriguing... the world currency is time, and when a person turns 25 their "life clock" actually begins. From the time you are 25, life's objective is to keep your life clock from expiring. If it expires, you die. Not a problem for the rich, who have more time than they know what to do with: a "wealthy" person may have centuries to live, while the "poor" continuously struggle for more time. It's a very interesting premise that becomes more interesting when a poor worker (Justin Timberlake) saves a "wealthy" man from a time stealing mob boss while flaunting his wealth in the ghetto. in return, he gives Justine Timberlake all of his time (over 100 years). In a short but very philosophical discussion the wealthy man, who has mentally lived too long, says "We are meant to die."
So begins a science fiction tale that promises to serve up plenty of symbolism, philosophical overtones about economy and the meaning of existence. Could it possibly be the rare sci fi / action film panned by critics but destined to become a cult classic somewhere down the road?
Hell no.
Unfortunately, that's about as good as the film gets.
Actually, the movie starts to go down hill and remains spiraling out of control with the entrance of Amanda Seyfried. Sadly, the story abandons all of its earlier adult-oriented promise to become a vapid "love story" seemingly aimed at a much younger audience. I was not impressed with Seyfried in "Red Riding Hood" and even less impressed with her here. Not only can't she act, but her acting is so horrible that my wife and I kept laughing at scenes that were meant to be serious. She serves well as eye candy, but her acting in this movie was cardboard flat awful. However, in her defense, the characters aren't scripted very well and she really wasn't given much to work with. Whether she simply slept-walked through the production or fell victim to horrible scripting and directing- or all of the above- the movie took a turn for the worst upon the entry of her character.
For example: she plays a wealthy girl who is kidnapped by Justin Timberlake and taken to the ghetto. They are both rendered unconscious and robbed of nearly all their time. Now they have to stay on the move and struggle to stay alive without running out of time. Excellent premise! However, never once does she seem very concerned that she is mere minutes from certain death. She acts incredibly hum-drum for a rich girl who always had an over-abundance of time and now literally has almost none. The sense of non-urgency really detracted from what could have - and SHOULD have been an incredibly suspenseful segment of the film. Just another example of weak script, weak acting and weak directing all coming together.
The third act gets even worse when the two lovers turn into Robin Hood-esque characters, stealing from the wealthy and giving to the poor. The movie becomes so trite that anything once redeeming is no longer a part of the equation.
Also, the 'ghetto' was way too tame: in a world where time can be exchanged simply by grabbing someones arm, think how chaotic, dismal and brutal the ghetto would really be with people killing eachother just to survuve a few more minutes. The movie becomes its own worst enemy by completely santizing what it's attempting to condemn in the first place. I understand they didn't want to cross over into R- rated territory, but the ghetto should have been much more chaotic and gritty- even at PG-13.
All in all, this movie is so incredibly disappointing because it started with so much promise and then took all that promise and wasted it. Some the actors were solid- I've always been impressed with Cillian Murphy and I must admit that Timberlake easily holds his own as well (except for the god-awful scene when his "mother" is killed, which was cringe-worthy bad).
With a tighter script and direction, more concentration on story and suspense as opposed to a vapid love story between the stereotypically over-indulged rich girl and the poor boy from the opposite side of the tracks- this could have been so much better than it actually was.
89 of 116 people found the following review helpful
Format:Blu-ray
In the future "time is money." Literally. People live to 25 years old, after which time they have one year left, then they die. The good news is that you can buy time and live forever, but only the rich can do that. Everyone else is struggling to stay alive. Currency is done in time, transferred by computer chips installed in the forearm. A cup of coffee will cost you 4 minutes of your life. I kept thinking about "Logan's Run" as I watched this film.
The cliche possibilities are endless and they are not shy about using them. "All the time in world." "Got a minute." "Too much time on my hands" "Who's got the time?" "You must come from time." "Taken years off my life." "Drank his life away." "Too much time in the wrong hands..." "I had the time to buy one of these." "Thank you for your time." "The time he has taken." "It would take a million years." Ouch!
"Hey big spender, spend a little time with me." "I'd give a year of my life just to spend an hour with her." These didn't make the cut.
Timberlake plays Will Salas, a man struggling to pay the bills and stay alive along with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde). Will saves the life of a rich man who was 108. He wanted to die. From him we get the class warfare speech of the movie. Many must die so a few might live. Taxes and prices are raised to make sure the poor die. Like most science fiction features, they have a social commentary.
While Will was asleep, the rich man gives him his time so he can die. Rich people literally live in a different "time zone" so they don't get mugged by those who work for the weekend.
Timberlake is 5 stars in comedies, but as a dramatic actor, he was unconvincing in this role, which may have been the director's fault. Will is supposed to have passion to distinguish himself from the cautious rich. He lacks, he should have never been in that role (Keanu Reeves spoiled us). Timberlake would have been more convincing as a rich tycoon. Much of the acting was stiff by design, but that made for a bad movie. Other than the time devices, the technology was circa 1985 with no pay phones, 80's automobiles, and no cell phones.
No real sex or nudity. One f-bomb.
The cliche possibilities are endless and they are not shy about using them. "All the time in world." "Got a minute." "Too much time on my hands" "Who's got the time?" "You must come from time." "Taken years off my life." "Drank his life away." "Too much time in the wrong hands..." "I had the time to buy one of these." "Thank you for your time." "The time he has taken." "It would take a million years." Ouch!
"Hey big spender, spend a little time with me." "I'd give a year of my life just to spend an hour with her." These didn't make the cut.
Timberlake plays Will Salas, a man struggling to pay the bills and stay alive along with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde). Will saves the life of a rich man who was 108. He wanted to die. From him we get the class warfare speech of the movie. Many must die so a few might live. Taxes and prices are raised to make sure the poor die. Like most science fiction features, they have a social commentary.
While Will was asleep, the rich man gives him his time so he can die. Rich people literally live in a different "time zone" so they don't get mugged by those who work for the weekend.
Timberlake is 5 stars in comedies, but as a dramatic actor, he was unconvincing in this role, which may have been the director's fault. Will is supposed to have passion to distinguish himself from the cautious rich. He lacks, he should have never been in that role (Keanu Reeves spoiled us). Timberlake would have been more convincing as a rich tycoon. Much of the acting was stiff by design, but that made for a bad movie. Other than the time devices, the technology was circa 1985 with no pay phones, 80's automobiles, and no cell phones.
No real sex or nudity. One f-bomb.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Keeps you watching
I have watched tis movie many times and love it everytime, Justin Timberlake is a very good actor I recived it within a day I would recommed this movie to anyone,
Published 4 days ago by cheryl stonehocker
3.0 out of 5 stars
Wait for it to be on TV
I didn't not like it, it was average for that reason I say you can wait for it to be on tv.
Published 5 days ago by Mark B M Pascual
4.0 out of 5 stars
pleasantly suprised
I liked this movie. I really wasn't expecting to for some reason, but it was a nice suprise. Justin Timberlake gives a great perfomance along with Amanda Siegfred. Read more
Published 7 days ago by Blue32
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great story line
Just Plain Interesting,(rented it,then wanted to see it a couple more times).for the price,why not own a copy?. Makes sense to me :)
Published 8 days ago by ElijahDan
5.0 out of 5 stars
Weird but really good
This is a movie I will think about every once and a while and I believe it has the potential to become a cult classic. The concept of using time for currency is thought provoking. Read more
Published 8 days ago by tazhawkeye
5.0 out of 5 stars
this movie is awesome!
I list it in my top 50 of all time. If you haven't seen it you will be amazed. You can point out some flaws in the story line if you were picky, but overall it does human society... Read more
Published 13 days ago by Ryan Jones
2.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting concept plot is a bit too thin.
I liked the idea of this movie and the acting was okay, but the plot was a bit too thin for my liking. Read more
Published 20 days ago by Jacqueline
4.0 out of 5 stars
Nice movie
Some friend recommended me this movie... So I buyed this cause it was at a really nice price... It's a good movie, entertaining to see..
Published 26 days ago by Menazord
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great movie
What makes this movie work for me is that it is basically taking all the issues we have with money and replaces it with time instead. Same message, but different resource.
Published 26 days ago by Jeremy Stallmo
5.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting Story
I though it is a very interesting story about the value of a life, with eternal question of youth. Between a duration allow by man kind power and what god plan for humains.
Published 1 month ago by Tran
