Director(s): Andrew Niccol
Available Quality: Hi Def
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 6.6 out of 10 (49823 votes)
In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a police force known as time keepers.
Dan1863Sickles (21 May 2013)
The first twenty minutes of this movie are amazing -- it looks like thebeginning of a kick-ass, blue-collar remake of LOGAN'S RUN. JustinTimberlake IS Will Solace, a bad-ass rebel trying to take on a wholeworld full of "beautiful people." Ghetto hustler Will is used to livingminute-to-minute on the street. And he is drawn to the rich at first.But their opulence hides a terrible secret! So far, so good, and I haveto say that, contrary to most reviews you see here, Justin has NOtrouble playing a street hustler who's seen it all and has the naturalreflexes of a killer. He's brilliant at keeping his cool in the fightscenes and chase scenes, even going "unbelievable" in a totally boredtone when a time cop shoots right at him! No, what really sinks themovie (after a killer half hour) is when Will meets up with the littlerobot-chick who's supposed to be "the rich man's daughter." Suddenly the kick-ass sci-fi film noir becomes a lame, MTV-flavoredremake of BONNIE & CLYDE. Two crazy kids on the run -- can they take onThe System? Hell no!!!! Justin and Amanda what's her name have no chemistry, no funk, no soulas a couple. Watch Michael York and Jennifer Agutter in the originalLOGAN's RUN, or watch Natalie Portman and Hugo what's his face in V FORVENDETTA, and you can see how real chemistry between the leads canovercome even the silliest sci-fi premise.Here it's the opposite. The lifeless love scenes totally derail thechases and ruin the film's climax. Worse than that, as a tough guyJustin has much more "chemistry" with the Time Cops, the Minute Men,and all the other baddies, including Vincent Kartheiser as the BarbieDoll's father! (Is Vincent phoning this part in or what?) So anyway,this movie is worth watching once -- but after the first half hour it'sall down hill.
primona (20 May 2013)
I found this movie original and enjoyable. It's about a futuristicworld where people stop aging at 25. They all have a digital clock ontheir forearm bearing a year's worth of time. The clock begins itscountdown once you turn 25. There is no money in this bleak futureworld. Instead the currency is time. Everything you do from gettingcoffee to riding the bus is paid in time so literally time is money.Within this backdrop is a love story and revenge tale. JustinTimberlake is suitable as factory worker Will Silas and Amanda Seyfriedplays the beautiful, pampered Sylvia. They are likable and thechemistry between the two is believable. The main downside to the movieis the subplot involving Timekeeper/Cop Raymond Leon and his cronies. Ifound his character annoying and his zeal for the job unbelievable.However, the plot is strong enough to make-up for this distraction. Assomeone not expecting a lot, I was glad I took the time to watch thismovie.
Tss5078 (20 May 2013)
Time is money and money is time in Andrew Niccol's epic, In Time. Inthis film, human beings are genetically engineered. At the age oftwenty five, your clock starts ticking and your goal is to work inorder to survive. The wealthy are immortal, while the poor die at ayoung age. The story is refreshingly unique and the film is done verywell. Justin Timberlake stars, and shows that he's come a long way in ashort time. When I heard he was starring in this film, I thought itwould be another great idea destroyed by a cast of good looking peoplewho can't act, but I was wrong. Timberlake shows he's got definitepotential to be a big action star and that his n'suck days are waybehind him. Cillian Murphy is also terrific as the timekeeper. What Ilove about Murphy is even when he's a good guy, he's still the guyyou're rooting against. His personality makes him the perfect adversaryin just about everything he does. In Time, is original, unique, fastmoving, and intense. In a Hollywood full of re-makes, sequels, anduninspiring ideas that mimic one another, In Time is a breath of freshair and was one of the most enjoyable and original films I've seen allyear.
Peter 26 (19 May 2013)
It's really best movie of the year. Great acting and exiting plot. Youunderstand slags of script but the whole movie is fully completed withall its weakness. It's not a political movie. This is just one of thefictional dystopian worlds, where good people want to make it betterand you trust them and empathize them.I will not mention the deep philosophical subtext of the film, this isa topic for discussion. But time is money, well-known expression (B.Franklin). And also money is time. And don't waste your time like yourmoney in both ways.:)Additional words about Timberlake performance. With every new film heis increasingly revealed as a good dramatic actor. Honestly never heardespecially how he sings, but as the actor, he probably even better.
jorgeshtefan (19 May 2013)
Too many people are missing point in splitting hair looking for plotholes. And movie IS full of that, but thats not why this movie is worthto watch.Point is world is *beep* place with 100 billionaires and 7 billion poorpeople who live just like protagonist in this movie, from day to daystruggling every day for food, clothes, mortgage... Life.Movie is about injustice and poverty imposed by parallel "Time (life)owners" which in real world would be : Bilderberg group, FED, EU, USA,G8, IMF, Banksters, WTO, WB, London Club and other global institutionwhose purpose is to indirectly kill as many as they need just to makefew people immortal. Just like in movie.This film is pure reality, obviously written and produced in a hurry tosupport "Occupy movement".Never the less I gave it 10.I didn't watched just to find some plot holes, or to say Justin is badactor, which i think he is. I watched cos it was interesting and true.
Richard (18 May 2013)
I had quite high expectations for In Time. The story-line seemed solid,the setting was cool and the actors entertaining. The thing with thismovies was the details. First of all I found the transfer of time fromeach other thoroughly ridiculous. Also with this being ascience-fiction movie, I was expecting a little more science. Exceptfor the time that was running across people's arms there was nothingsci-fi-like there. Actually it was even retro. The only thing I reallyliked about this movie was Cillian Murphy, as an actor and as thecharacter he was playing. I have to say I was on his side for theentire movie. So, yeah, to sum it up, In Time was quite a big let downfor me, especially script-wise. The overall idea was quite compelling,but the implementation poor.
cafesmitty (17 May 2013)
Cool concept of a movie and Timberlake is pretty good in it, but thedialog is clunky at best and there isn't any chemistry between the co-star. Justin lives in the ghetto, Amanda lives in upper society. Theonly currency is time itself. Having time, keeps you alive. They neverexplain how people are engineer that their lives are measure by atimer, it just is. With everything you do, you have to pay for it ingiving up time on your life. You can get time back by borrowing it,stealing it, or being super rich. Rich guys comes into the ghetto,tired of living, he gives all his time (a century) to Timberlake.Justin, having all the time in the world, goes to see where the richlives. He meets Amanda and bada bing, they are being chase. The wholepremise of the movie is based on people running out of time andcontrolling time Like I said, good concept, but not so good execution.It just flat in a lot of places, A LOT. Amanda isn't ask to do a wholelot and she doesn't to include deliver her lines with any convictions.The movie should be called "Justin Timberlake gets chased" Because ison him 90% of the time. Everyone else is just cardboard backgroundpeople, to include the guy playing Amanda's dad and the cop that chasesJustin. And the end of the movie is so anti-climatic and boring and itmakes no real sense. Still, if you must see it, Rent it from Redbox fora dollar or wait for it on Netflix or HBO.
Alex Marsolais (17 May 2013)
In Time follows Will Salas (Timberlake), a boy from the ghetto thathappens to inherit enough time to bring him up into la bourgeoisie; aRobin Hood story.An intriguing Sci-Fi with a great theme right off the bat: Time ismoney. In a world where time literally is money, the division of classis even more lethal. Timberlake, coupled with a beautiful, recklessgirl (Seyfried) with a background of wealth, fights to beat a systemnot so different from our own: the poor die and the rich get richer. Ihad very high hopes for this film and it failed to deliver.Right off the bat, Timberlake is not suited here. He has a very hardtime conveying emotions. Timberlake forces sadness, and dismissesstress. Through most of the film, he's on the run from the"Timekeepers", but you wouldn't think so. Seems like they're playing areally long game of tag. His sidekick, Seyfried, adds to the boredom.The only time they aren't bored is when they're making out.But what really threw me off is the writing. Poorly done. Hollywoodinfluenced. Just bad. Character development is not there. I had a hardtime excusing some of the decisions Timberlake made and started verymuch disliking our hero. He tries to make up for it. Up to you to turna blind eye.It's worth mentioning that the only thing keeping me going through thefilm is Cillian Murphy. As our main antagonist, he does a splendid ajob. Other than that, In Time isn't worth your time.
soger (16 May 2013)
I read some reviews and it seems to me that the people who like thismovie are the ones that actually understand that this movie is not asci-fi but a real life description dressed as a sci-fi.In many ways the movie is similar to Eagle Eye although it addresses adifferent issue. Eagle Eye talks about the problems with thepoliticians and the government while this movie is all about theproblems with banks, inflation, money in general. Eagle Eye is alsomore subtle while this movie is a direct reflection of our currentsociety in a futuristic sci-fi mirror. To say only one example: peopledie on the street because they "time out". Well, of course we don'thave clocks built into our arms but people do die on the street becausethey have nothing to eat or they freeze to death etc. If you did notsee this parallelism it's probably because you wanted some mindlessentertainment with plasma rifles or something.So people, read between the lines.
copella_c (16 May 2013)
Nothing spells ghetto and poverty like a very clean, manicured,barbered Justin Timberlake. If the guy can barely afford "time" (nowthe new money - hardly a spoiler considering this is the point of thefilm) for a cup of coffee then he's not going to be able to get thathaircut every three days.Anyway, back to the film. JT can not pull off this role. He has nochemistry with the lead, AS and that's a shame as without it the moviefalls flat.If you close your eyes and listen to some of their lines then you alsosee how dire the script it.Interesting premise but very badly put together with some ropeyperformances from most of the wooden main cast.A shame.2/10
EarlKeim (12 May 2013)
This movie deals with something we all want in our daily lives: moretime. People bet minutes, hours, and even years of their lives in thesame manner in which we wager various amounts of money. The premise isvery unique, but the execution is terrible.Young Hollywood has a lot of talent, but they are all miscast in thisfilm. Timberlake is quite good in his portrayal: street/poor kidsuddenly faced with wealth/time. The rest of the cast though looks likechildren playing dress-up. The actors in the film have nosophistication or polish. The film looks thrown together as if it werefinished as quickly as possible. There is simply no star power to befound. From scene change to scene change, I could not have cared less what washappening. A good film could be made with a young cast, but this is notone of them. Think of a modern classic with Anthony Hopkins and EmmaThompson, and then recast it with the likes of Zac Efron and HilaryDuff. There is simply no compelling reason to continue watching orcaring. One of the pivotal plot points of this movie is the pursuit ofyouth, but the reasoning behind it feels weak. If you want to bored,then you should watch this film. Ask yourself afterward how it couldhave been fixed, if only the production company had more........time.
funkymonkey-t (12 May 2013)
What should of been a great movie, with an amazing concept (Even if itisn't a new one/ original one) some great actors, and a good director-Becomes basically A bunch of unreasonable random makeout scenes. Imean, come on- You're running for your life, this guy just kidnappedyou, and you barely know each other, now seems hardly the time. Thereshould of been a different writer, who can take this concept to a wholeother level, but sadly it was more of a teen-ish movie, then a goodsci-fi movie. Great concept, great visuals, good directing- But horrible screenwriting. Very predictable, and although somewhat entertaining- Notworth a penny.
sschimel (08 May 2013)
I find it hard to believe that this movie was directed by the same manwho made Gattaca. I can see what Mr. Niccol was aiming for in In Time.Gattaca ha a chilly tone throughout, establishing a 1984-ish premiseand atmosphere. Uma Thurman's character is chilly. The sets are chilly.And it works perfectly. Unlike Uma Thurman, who's best movies utilizeher rather aloof persona, Amanda Seyfried has always projected a warmand sunny persona and here, playing against type, she is just out ofher depth. Justin Timberlake, a likable actor, comes off as too nice topull off the transition from protagonist to antagonist. The script ismediocre. All in all, not a great movie.
secondtake (08 May 2013)
In Time (2011)The idea here is clever on paper, but it's squandered and maderidiculous. Here's a near future where everything is bought and sold in terms ofthe hours or minutes remaining in your life. Everyone is physicallyfrozen at age 25, I guess at some kind of physical ideal. But mostpeople are right at the end of their lives, literally, with just a fewhours or days or sometimes seconds on their clocks, which are visibleon their arms like glowing phosphorescent tattoos. Simple things likecatching buses or getting paid for a day's work is sometimes down to asecond or two. If your clock runs out, you're dead. You might thinkthis is dramatic, cliffhangers after cliffhangers, but it's tocontrived to work.The writing is bland to the point of awkwardness. The big moments aretimed (naturally) down to the second in a brinksmanship that is moresilly than dramatic. There are shades of lots of dystopian movies, from"Minority Report" to "Twelve Monkeys," and with maybe some "Back to theFuture" with the retro-cool "Men in Black" edge. There are slicked out60s cars and warmed over noir dialog. It's not supposed to be realist,of course, but it lacks some other kind of credibility to make youthink any of it is reasonable even in its fictional world.What's almost painful is the vision of this future where there are richand poor and cops in black coats and bad guys in suits, that's fine.But the men are all hunks and the women traipse around in mini skirtsand heels. All of them, all the time. Did I say dystopia? It's truethat everyone is frozen at twenty-five years old, but youth is onething and this thin, small minded clichÃ© of a man's future world isthin at first and tiresome after the third scene.You can see the influences here--call them references, homages--withsome classic borrowed themes. Most of all, the two unlikely heroes, manand woman, end up being a futuristic Bonnie and Clyde on the run. Itmight seem entertaining. No, it IS entertaining, only if you don't giveit too much credence. The light is terrific in a lot of scenes, and thephotography is very fluid. The sets and scenery themselves are fun,lots of empty concrete bridges and night stuff and neon, and thosebeautiful big drainage canals in L.A..It could have been terrific, but it's anything but timeless.
jburtroald95 (06 May 2013)
Fourteen years after the well-received Gattaca (1997) Oscar-nominateddirector Andrew Niccol has made a triumphant return to futuristicscience fiction to show the countless other filmmakers who have triedtheir hand at this notorious genre how it should be done. Once again,he manages to create both a highly fascinating world as well as someengaging characters to populate it and a stimulating plot on which itsfine conception is not wasted. In this vision of the future, it appears that scientists may havefinally discovered the age-old secret of eternal life, and have beenputting it into practice on globally. People now theoretically have thepower to control the duration of one's bodily existence down to thevery last second, being able to continue topping up lifespans for aslong as they please. What's more, the aging process has beengenetically engineered to stop in everyone at the the age of 25.However, happy dreams of being forever young are but a fairytale: "fora few to be immortal, many must die" or overpopulation would ensue. Thegovernment's solution has been to make time the new currency, withpeople walking around with a luminescent countdown on their forearmshowing them exactly how much of it they have left, and minutes, hours,days, months or even years being talked about as casually as if theywere soulless pieces of metal and paper. It also ensures that longevitywill be exclusive to the rich in this cutthroat economy where it'squite literally "survival of the fittest". "Darwinian capitalism" iswhat they call it, "the next stage in human evolution". It certainly isn't fair, and it doesn't work either. Some members ofthe upper-class have been living for over a century, with still manymore centuries under their belt, and one in particular, named haslearnt the hard way that the mind may continue to rot and deteriorateeven if the body remains fit and healthy. Therefore, being completelypsychologically spent, he transfers all of his years to a spirited butstruggling youth from the slums, after being assured that he would putit to good use. Initially he plans to use it to fulfill thewell-deserved desires of his dear mother, but after she tragically diesas a result of the corrupt economy raising the price of daily livingonce again, he instead decides to pose as a wealthy citizen andinfiltrate the mansion of a spinelessly immoral billionaire and whiskhis daughter away on a righteous crusade to raid the time banks andhand out to the poor all the time that has been kept from them bymerciless government agents known as "time keepers".As is the case with many celebrated futuristic films and novels, manyparallels can be drawn to societies at the other end of the time scale.This gives the story a dual sense of the retrospective and the ultra-modern both being present at once, like the "future noir" cinematicstyle introduced by Blade Runner (1982) and may even extend tohighlighting historical patterns or cycles such as the book within thebook in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Watching the dynamic duofearlessly break into government institutions and return with somethingto provide the less fortunate with hope and stability, bringing balanceto the uneven and unjustly feudalistic distribution of wealth andpower, one is reminded of timeless idolised rebellious figures such asthe fabled Robin Hood, the suave John Dillinger and the enigmatic NedKelly who engaged in similar activities and whose stories have givenvaluable inspiration to filmmakers. If not on the outset, thendefinitely at the slick and stylish ending, the political message ismade loud and clear, with the film still managing to be engaging andinviting throughout whilst diminishing none of its thematic power. Somefilms depicting a dystopian future are so static and depressing thatthey fail to capture the audience's attention, with the perfectly validunderlying meaning being lost to miscommunication and poor execution,but the frivolous and refreshing tone of this film generously allowsthe audience to have some fun as they absorb the message, making itmore likely for it to be understood and retained. After all "a spoonfulof sugar helps the medicine go down". A world populated only bytwenty-five-year-olds is bursting with liveliness and adventure despitethe misery, and our very likable heroes have a winsome aura ofinvincibility about them that comforts the audience and fills them withoptimism, just as they do for all those citizens who have been unfairlytreated.The design of the characters works splendidly well. The role of ourspunky lead hero, Will Sallas, is handled very competently by JustinTimberlake, who it seems is on his way to becoming a full-time actor. Abarely recognisable Amanday Seyfried just as capably takes on her roleas Sylvia Weis, the plucky rich girl who has been living a verysheltered life, but is very quick to realise the reality of the world'ssituation and embrace the hard life that she and Will must lead.Inevitably, the two characters share an impulsive romance, but Niccolwisely doesn't let this get in the way of the main plot and keeps thefocus on their connection as rogues rather than lovers.In addition to these major aspects, the film is also peppered withcountless delightful quips and memorable quirky moments that enjoy thepotential humour of this world. Perhaps the most notable of these is anearly scene in which Sylvia's father (a perfectly cast VincentKartheiser) introduces Will to his mother-in-law, his wife and hisdaughter, who all look exactly the same age.Also featuring fine supporting performances from Olivia Wilde, MattBomer, Cillian Murphy, Alex Pettyfer, Yaya DaCosta, and Johnny Galecki,In Time makes for stupendously entertaining and very rewarding viewing.
narinthy (06 May 2013)
This is my first ever review on IMDb, apologies for the language used.During the first 15 minutes, I said WOW. The film idea is so innovativeand interesting. The concept of time as the primary human constrain isgreat. The initial impression of everyone being young and good-lookingis amazing.This film reminds me the mixture of Surrogate, Equilibrium, Gattaca,and even the Matrix. However, as time goes by, it simply lacks power. The time is so wasted.The idea should have been executed better in term of story-line,casting, and action sequences. It was often that I said to myself "whatthe heck?"So sad and disappointed. I really hope that this similar idea will bereused again by more competent screenwriters and directors.
Troye Dchgl (05 May 2013)
Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star in this sci-fi thrillerwhich takes place in the future where everyone on the planet only livesup to 25 for free and have to earn their time afterward. I would haveto say the trailer of this movie excited me more than the movie itselfdid. Still, it is an overall decent movie.The concept of this movie is great, and that was why I decided to watchit. The plot, however, is not as great. Basically it is just anordinary cops-chase-thieves piece throughout, only this time there maynot a a clear line between the good and the bad. The sci-fi elements donot really stand out at all. People are divided into different zonesaccording to the time they own and we get to see ghetto areas in whichthe poor live and big cities in which the rich live. Nothing reallygives you that science fiction feeling, so this is just like an usualmodern day crime film.The good thing about this movie is that it keeps itself exciting fromvery start to finish, and Cillian Murphy plays quite a bad-ass cop. Allin all, "In Time" may be not well loved by hardcore sci-fi fans becausethey will not get a very strong sci-fi sense, but it is still aexciting thriller with action and a well-written plot.
imagineda (05 May 2013)
Gattaca is one of my all time favourite films, so I was naturallyexcited to see another scifi from Andrew Niccol. He's also a greatwriter. I think it's interesting to compare the two films, becausethematically they are similar : a guy from the poor end of town getshis own back, by pretending to be someone he's not, essentially beatingthe system. In Gattaca we had an aspiring astronaut who was geneticallyinferior; here it's a guy from the (extremely tidy and unconvincing)ghetto, who plays Robin Hood to fix an unjust system. In Time is moreof an action flick, aimed at a younger audience.In both films, the protagonist is shadowed by a detective, which givesthings a certain noirish feel; and Niccol's signature visual style, akind of futuristic art deco, draws on past and future, which isdisorienting, because it's partly familiar. Gattaca balanced this withwarm, relatable characters, and a story that took its time; in thebrothers who competed since birth, in the friendship between Vincentand Jerome, and a believable love interest. In Time suffers from a lack of engaging characters, a subpar script,odd casting, and some rather confusing plot arcs. I was stillstruggling to understand why no one gets old (it's never explained)when the daughter of a wealthy aristocrat suddenly turns on her ownsociety, and teams up with a guy from the cheap side of town, all inthe space of a few frames. It could work, but too much detail isbrushed aside, and Seyfried comes across as so blase about everything,I just wanted her daddy to ground her for a week.In Gattaca, the emotion was visible, the risks palpable. Here,Timberlake throws himself into the action, but he is all good looks andno depth. It all feels too unreal - there's no emotion bubbling underthe surface - nothing is really at stake.The look and feel of the film is brilliant (car stunts aside) - Niccolcame before the Matrix and its swathe of imitators, and he has a uniquetake on the future. But it all feels sterile. The central plot deviceis a little too gimmicky, and it gets monotonous seeing people checkingthe time over and over. It really needed a more convincing pair ofleads. Cillian Murphy is great as the timekeeping detective, however.
phoenix 2 (04 May 2013)
'In time' introduce us to a new world, the world were the time issomething that can be bought. Very good idea, futuristic andinteresting, is developing very well and smoothly, if someone can usethat word about an action movie. Enough drama and thriller to catch thebreath of the audience, followed by strong performances. In the end, itleaves you with lots to think about, even though the ending is not inthe same volume as the rest of the movie. The director did a great jobin keeping the love story in normal paces and emphasizing in the mainidea, the resistance to the unfair time system. Dramatic characters,with passions and strong believes, are combined nicely into the story,which has also heartbreaking moments, such as the scene when Will'smother dies in his hands. All in all, a strong movie that rewards theones who spent the time to see it.
judiland-253-287528 (03 May 2013)
Well acted, great sci-fi plot, good entertainment value. This moviekept my husband and I engaged. We thought it was well enough writtenand left no huge gaps in the story that we really paid attention to.The only scene that keeps jumping out in my mind as totally annoyingwas the guy selling coffee who upped the cost over-night. I just didnot like the way that scene was handled. The movie ended well, verysatisfying to see the empty vault, so, could there be a cleverfollow-up plot, because this society has some interesting developmentpotential. Great for a Sociology class assignment for thought andconversation stimulus. We'd like to see more of the matured Mr.Timberlake please. I'm liking the trend in multi- dimensional storylines with Inception and the Adjustment Bureau prior to this. More fromTimberlake would be good.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20