Customer Reviews

In Time

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

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.

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 pre-teens. Amanda Seyfried is a very pretty girl, but her acting abilities are horrific. I was not impressed with her in "Red Riding Hood" and even less impressed 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 the girl really needs to invest in some acting lessons. She's laughably terrible.

Just an example of her horrible acting: 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. 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 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. While this is slightly implied, it is never shown. The movie becomes its own worst enemy by completely santizing what it's attempting to condemn in the first place.

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. With a tighter script and direction, this could have been so much better than it actually was.

There are already a bunch of people that have reviewed the movie and I assume even more will review it later, so I'll be brief and just say that I absolutely love the movie (5/5 stars) and already have it on pre-order.

However, for those of you trying to decide between blu-ray and the regular DVD, here are a few things that might help:

First off, the Blu-Ray really only has two true extras, "The Minutes" and extended/deleted scenes. Overall, the Minutes special was good. It was probably about 15-20 minutes long. (I didn't time it so I'm just guessing by what it felt like.) However, it is NOT a making-of feature like I originally thought.

It's actually a bunch of fake interviews that took place before the movie was made that involve most of the main characters, as well as some new ones, such as one of the original creators of immortality. They were interesting and added extra information to the world, but if you're looking for an actual documentary on the creation of the movie, you'll have to look elsewhere.

As for the deleted/extra scenes, they were hit and miss. Some of the scenes added some very interesting information that I wish they'd kept in the movie while others merely added a line or two to an existing scene and it didn't make any difference at all. Overall, I think there were about ten of them (again, I'm guessing since I didn't count) but the first three or four are the "added a line or two" variety and pretty boring.

So, that's all I gotta say. I just wanted to let people know.

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.

I'm going to just avoid all the political details and say, this move was created with political preaching in mind. If you like having another person's ideals shoved down your throat for over an hour you'll probably like this, if not, you'll probably be in pain 90% of the time. Cliche, cliche, cliche. Bad boy meets hot good girl, they fall in love and she wears high heels EVERYWHERE. Little explanation given on anything, but who needs explanation when your main point is to make a point? This movie falls into the same trap that a lot of religious entertainment does, the creator is so focused on making a point they forget to entertain, or make sense at that.

I thought this was a fun film. Good acting all the way around, not extremely deep character development but it's enough to let you relate. I think the main plot of the movie is fantastic, it's kind of a representation of current society and how 1% are killing off the other 99. It does seem to drag on at about 2/3 in till the climax. No big surprises really, but the ending was fine. I enjoyed Matt Bomer but wish they would have expanded more on his storyline, but enjoyed his role regardless. I give it 3.5 out of 5. Definitely a fun watch but don't expect anything super groundbreaking or anything.

Im not a film critique so i miss a lot things those in the know may complain about, but i liked it.
Simply it's Sci-Fi with Robin Hood as Bonnie & Clyde meet Logan's Run.
Logan's RunLogan's Run: Complete Series

Whoever came up with the underlying idea for this film--time is currency--is a genius! I vaguely remember reading somewhere that this idea was once put forward in a short story some time ago--can't remember where or by whom--I may be wrong. But I just love the idea that was developed in this film that time is currency and one pays for everything with time. Another form of capitalism, another form of poverty, another form of wealth, another Robin Hood character and his girl stealing time to give to the poor!! The plot was brilliant. I love good films--but in this, graphics didn't matter nor filming technicalities nor was I looking for brilliant acting--it all seemed okay because what made this a stimulating, excellent film for me was its masterful, creative plot. Imagine breaking into a bank to steal time, or literally, physically robbing people of time! And a timekeeper is truly a timekeeper! Mind-boggling, so very symbolic; man in any world will always be man--rotten to the core, with a few good guys who will always sacrifice themselves for humanity. Brilliant!

Somehow this film reminded me just a little of a clandestine tip of the hat to Les Miserables, with Cillian Murphy's cop character seeming for all the world like some sci-fi version of Javert. I've mentioned this to a few friends who seem unable to reconcile my comparisons between the two projects with their own takes on In Time, but to me there is a slight similarity. Anyway, I was unexpectedly impressed with this 2011 feature and its strong acting all across the board and its central plot about human beings with expiration dates dwelling in an unequal society wherein time literally is money. It's worth seeing and even beyond that, worth thinking about in the context of the moments that construct our ever-dwindling lives.

The movie kept my attention, and has a neat look on future currency. However, its plot takes a weird turn towards the end. Maybe save it for discount bin.