Watch Trailer
Add to List
Request Correction
Write Plot
Write Review Movie Information
Quick Reviews
Movie Lists
Movie Talk
Full Movie Reviews
Rating of
2/4
Speculative thriller that runs out of steam
Indyfreak - wrote on 06/20/2023
Andrew Niccol is no stranger to science fiction. He directed the fabulous sci-fi noir GATTACA back in 1997.
While that film drew from the debate on genetic engineering for its premise, this 2011 thriller posits a world where time replaced money as currency and the richer you are, the longer you live. Now that's a cool idea.
The set-up is a bit more convoluted though. But there are some effective moments as when certain characters quite literally run out of time. But it wants to be an action movie instead of settling as a drama. And I think that's where the movie falters at.
The cast is fine despite the script not being quite that good. Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy do their job well. You just sense the feeling that the screenplay is not as thought-provoking …
Rating of
N/A
Konform
cinegeek.de - wrote on 04/12/2016
Andrew Niccol hat eine neue Idee: In der zukünftigen Welt sind die Menschen einer allumfassenden Technik unterworfen. Die Lebenszeit ist dabei zur Ware geworden, man kann sie kaufen oder zocken. Jeder trägt eine Uhr am Handgelenk, welche die restliche Lebenszeit anzeigt. Der Markt der Zeit ist überall. Hier haben wir die Population der Zeit, nur dass sie immer geringer wird! Indem man die Handgelenke aneinander hält, kann man Zeit auch an den Partner weitergeben oder abzapfen. Justin Timberlake spielt Will Sagas, einen der Bewohner dieser unbestimmten Zukunft (die Kostüme und Settings wirken relativ zeitgenössisch). Bei jedem Bewohner wird die körperliche Uhr im Alter von 25 abgeschaltet. Danach kann er hart arbeiten, um sich zusätzliche Zeit zu verdienen (oder Verbrechen …
Rating of
1.5/4
Reductive to the Point of Being Stupid
Looneymanthegreat - wrote on 06/30/2014
In Time is basically Elysium before Elysium came out; but a whole lot worse. Hollywood seems to like these social-injustice-metaphor movies a lot, but they never turn out right. Avatar was boring, Elysium was worse and District 9 was annoying. Politically charged movies like this end up getting so tied up in their message that they forget to tell a good story. In Time is no exception, and may be the worst of this trend.
It’s difficult to talk about a movie that’s as politically charged as In Time without dipping into politics, but I will hold myself back suffice to say that In Time tackles a huge modern social issue and reduces it to a black and white essence, turning the entire thing into a straw man. This is a problem a lot of movies that try to hard to have a message …
Rating of
2.5/4
Entertaining but too flawed...
Zeljka - wrote on 07/08/2012
SPOILERS AHEAD -- THIS IS NOT REALLY A REVIEW, MORE A RANT...
The movie is entertaining, fast-paced, interesting...if you can accept the premise - time as money - which I couldn't.
What would be the point of the value system depending on the time and the life living like that, when your hand is practically a wallet easily robbed. People on the poor side didn't have enough time to live at all, they were basically lowered to the level of simple day-to-day survival, which doesn't make sense - what would be the point of living like that, like simple machines to put tokens in? Opposite to them, rich people had to be careful not to make any stupid or risky movement (what a fun of living like that either) because such a mistake could cost them literally a life. If dead their money wouldn't be …
Rating of
2.5/4
in time lacks focus
sreekirch - wrote on 02/19/2012
The best part comes when people are shown a digital time in their skin of their left hand ticking the time left to survive. The skin glows in green even in water and shows that the future is depending on the science and technology. When a person explains all about the factors regarding time and its importance it is the best way movie can begin. The worst part comes when things does not move according to the way it began. It turns as a movie with a couple becoming thieves and stealing time and also donating to the one that deserves. In time is directed and written by Andrew Niccol. It is distributed by 20th century fox and Regency. It is casted by Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy and others. According to me movie does give the selfishness of human beings to live. But 104 …
Rating of
3/4
Time is Money!
MovieAddict - wrote on 02/18/2012
"In order for a few to be immortal many must die."
Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star in this sci-fi thriller which takes place in the future where time is used as currency and people stop aging at 25. Upon reaching that age a clock on your arm starts counting down. Each person is granted a year. When your clock hits zero you die. Imagine having to live your life by constantly looking at how much time you still have. To stay alive you have to earn time and because time is money it means people work, deal, fight, gamble and steal to get it and add to their dwindling lifespan engraved on their arms. The lucky ones, the rich, can live forever while the poor go from day to day hoping that they can keep enough time to be able to make it to the next day.
We are introduced to …
Rating of
3/4
In Time review
Daniel Corleone - wrote on 11/17/2011
Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a factory worker who was given more time to spend by a stranger he helped in a bar. Each day people, like his mother, die because of the limited time given and once the clock on their arms reach 0000:00:0:00:00:00. Will meets a troublesome rich Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) through a millionaire named Phillipe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) that he met in a Casino. Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) tries his best to restore order. My type of flick with so many memorable quotes: Raymond Leon - "His crime wasn't taking time. He was giving it away." Will - "If I had all that time, I sure as hell wouldn't waste it." "No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die." Phillipe - ""...hasn't evolution always been unfair? It's always been …
