Featured Audience Ratings

• Tony G

  
  "In Time" is a wonderful premise done in by an aimless and weighed down script. The story goes into out-of-the-blue directions that do the premise a major disservice. Perhaps if they had fully focused the story around the "Robin Hood" angle more completely,… More
  "In Time" is a wonderful premise done in by an aimless and weighed down script. The story goes into out-of-the-blue directions that do the premise a major disservice. Perhaps if they had fully focused the story around the "Robin Hood" angle more completely, "In Time" could have worked, but it wastes too much time with subplots involving uninteresting criminals, predictable villains and connect them together with ponderous dialogue. A wooden Timberlake and a pallid Seyfried are serviceable as leads but just like the rest of the cast the actors can't find their character's consistent core purpose so they just play them as generically as possible. Vincent Kartheiser and Cillian Murphy play versions of other characters they've played before. Shoulda coulda "In Time" rarely delivers on its promise.

• Cynthia S

  
  Interesting enough. Action filled enough. Halfway decent enough storyline. I think, however, that Justin Timberlake isn't actor enough...Not bad, but not memorable, either.

• paul s

  
  Take an interesting idea that has a message that fits the Takeover movement like a glove and you should have a film that resonates as well as entertains. In Time does that... to a point, although it comes on a bit heavy handed and the back half resorts to the typical car chase stock… More
  Take an interesting idea that has a message that fits the Takeover movement like a glove and you should have a film that resonates as well as entertains. In Time does that... to a point, although it comes on a bit heavy handed and the back half resorts to the typical car chase stock in trade of a film that can't really figure out something better to do with its screen time. There is a certain nice, retro feel on display here, especially with all the customized Lincoln's and Dodge Challengers circa late 60's and early 70's. That and a nice usage of the L.A. canals and seedier backstreets (some of which I swear I've seen in about a million other films), give the film a good feel, as does some of the lighting elements - but then again it's so uneven. There are washed out scenes that perhaps were intentional, but jarring nonetheless when coming from the tight, claustrophobic dimness of the "ghetto". The story here, just in case you were asleep in class, deals in a future where people stop ageing at 25 (think Logan's Run), and yet someone came up with the bright idea (to stem overpopulation, no doubt) to give everyone a time counter that activates at age 25. From that point on, in order to survive one has to buy time. If you go bankrupt and your time goes down to zero... well, let's just say that at that point Elvis leaves the building. This is ok as far as it goes - a nice little bit of sci-fi - but the film does a nice turn by going deeper, suggesting that the 1% can control population growth and keep the downtrodden down by manipulating the cost of everything. So one day a bus ride will cost an hour, the next day it'll cost two - all to keep the lower class from gathering too much time (money). It is this aspect of the film that gives it relevance and really, if director/writer Andrew Nichol would have spent more time developing this aspect he would have had a better film. In fact, the first half, where this is explored, kept my attention. It was only later when Nichol went all Hollywood that the film loses its way - and boy does it ever; resorting to inane car chases and a Bonnie and Clyde buddy type film with bits of humor and bon mots that totally change the tenor of the film. There is the big confrontation scene at the end where any five year old can tell way in advance what will happen, sucking any potential tension out of the situation. Making it worse is that the film then reuses a dramatic device from earlier in the film - the first time was poignant, the second just seemed silly and lazy. This is then followed with a tag that attempts further humor and is simply superfluous - making this feel like a low budget B film; which got me thinking of all the other B cult films from an earlier age - this film would fit right in to the category where a film like "A Boy And His Dog" reside - not great filmmaking, but not without a certain quirky charm - though A Boy & has a more cohesive narrative. I'm really torn over whether or not this should be considered fresh or rotten - It does have some watchability, and in spite of the change or direction, isn't a total disaster - it rides right on the cusp - a 5.5 if you will. I won't discourage anyone from seeing this, but won't recommend it either.

• Al S

  
  A real surprise. A thrilling, stylish, sexy and daringly original action-thriller. One hell of a wickedly entertaining and exciting movie. One of the most original sci-fi films to hit the screen since The Matrix. Director, Andrew Niccol brings slick direction and vision to this film… More
  A real surprise. A thrilling, stylish, sexy and daringly original action-thriller. One hell of a wickedly entertaining and exciting movie. One of the most original sci-fi films to hit the screen since The Matrix. Director, Andrew Niccol brings slick direction and vision to this film and has plenty of energy to go around. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried are sensational. Cillian Murphy is excellent.

• Dan S

  
  A flat-out disappointing misfire concerning a dystopian system where time is literally money, and how a man from the ghetto (Justin Timberlake) who has nothing to live for strives to live in a world where the poor are given just as much time to live as the rich, who collect time. With… More
  A flat-out disappointing misfire concerning a dystopian system where time is literally money, and how a man from the ghetto (Justin Timberlake) who has nothing to live for strives to live in a world where the poor are given just as much time to live as the rich, who collect time. With good actors, a better set-up character wise, and a story that offered any sort of surprise to it, this may have been a riveting film in the same vein as director Andrew Niccol's classic 90's gem "Gattaca". Sadly, with exception to Cillian Murphy, the film's acting is largely terrible, with Justin Timberlake proving to be the least convincing in the lead role. As previously said, the film offers nothing in the way of surprises, and the characters are one-dimensional and hollow just like the story itself. An intriguing premise is somehow squanded despite a capable director at the helms and a promising young core of actors at his disposal. Ugh.

• Luke B

  
  Great idea with incredibly dumb execution. In the future, time is currency and everyone stops ageing at 25 for some reason. Timberlake finds himself receiving thousands of years from some guy tired of immortality. He ends up being chased by the cops in charge of time, and by some very… More
  Great idea with incredibly dumb execution. In the future, time is currency and everyone stops ageing at 25 for some reason. Timberlake finds himself receiving thousands of years from some guy tired of immortality. He ends up being chased by the cops in charge of time, and by some very non-threatening gangsters. The idea is wonderful, and the perfect vehicle for social satire. The poor spend their lives on food and essentials, literally living day to day, meanwhile the rich just spend, spend, spend. It also has the great chance to view the pain of immortality and how it's not how long you live but how you live. Which is why I'm so angry at the stupidity and nonsense in this film. I understand that nobody ages, but why does everyone look like a model? Characters just vanish, and it just becomes one huge assault on the 1%. Like a teenager with a good idea, but doesn't understand what they are talking about. There are huge lapses in logic. A major character dies because of time running out, even though simple maths would show that she would have survived. People run at each other in slow motion, with dramatic countdowns, but it doesn't play in real time. Timberlake's character knows how to fight, which I put down to his mention of his father being able to fight, and then we find out that fighting just involves holding hands. This makes for the most boring confrontation between Timberlake and the antagonist. Let's hope for an intelligent remake in the future, because this just ruins the premise.

• Mark W

  
  Writer/director Andrew Niccol is no stranger to scientific ideas. In 1997 he delivered the Orwellian genetic engineering "Gattaca". In 2002 he tackled computer generated imagery in "S1mOne". He also penned the predictory script to reality TV in 1998 with "The… More
  Writer/director Andrew Niccol is no stranger to scientific ideas. In 1997 he delivered the Orwellian genetic engineering "Gattaca". In 2002 he tackled computer generated imagery in "S1mOne". He also penned the predictory script to reality TV in 1998 with "The Truman Show". Fantasy and Science Fiction seem to be genres that he's comfortable with but this is not one of his better efforts. In the not too distant future, people stop ageing when they reach 25. If they are wealthy though, they can buy time. The rest, have to work for it. Lifespan has replaced money in this dystopian world. One of the workers is gifted time from a suicidal friend, which allows him to escape his poor background and experience the life of the rich. But there are state police, known as "Time keepers" who are out to thwart his new life. The premise to this is quite an intriguing one and the dystopian futuristic setting is wonderfully captured by the Coen brothers' regular cinematographer Roger Deakins. It's just a shame that with such a strong base to work from, it becomes nothing more than a chase thriller and abandons any attempt to delve into some possible existential theories. Even as a chase thriller, it lacks any form of excitement. It has it's moments but ultimately the film takes too long in getting to it's destination. Time is of the essence for it's characters and ironically, it also gets taken from us, having to slog through this. I'm not Justin Trousersnake's biggest fan, but he delivers a decent performance. However, the progression of his character as a future 'Clyde' to Seyfried's 'Bonnie' is uneasy and a little hard to take. Cillian Murphy's 'Time keeper' police officer is quite an intriguing one but he has little, to no, backstory. When we are given a glimpse into his character it's too little too late. It's this overwhelming feeling of emptiness that, as a whole, the film suffers from. I didn't go into this film expecting a masterpiece or anything but I still expected more than I got. Despite looking good on the surface, it's ultimately hollow. Fans of the likes of "The Adjustment Bureau" may find more to savour though.

• Lewis C

  
  "The truth is, for a few to be immortal, many must die." In Time is a decent action movie, but nothing more. It's enjoyable for an afternoon, but never rises above disposable entertainment. The cast is likable. Timberlake and Seyfried have good chemistry, even though… More
  "The truth is, for a few to be immortal, many must die." In Time is a decent action movie, but nothing more. It's enjoyable for an afternoon, but never rises above disposable entertainment. The cast is likable. Timberlake and Seyfried have good chemistry, even though Timberlake occasionally seems like a less than convincing fit. I like the guy as an actor, but he doesn't entirely match the character he's asked to play. To be fair, though, the character (Will) is like an amalgam of every positive protagonist trait in movie history. He's completely selfless, generous, smooth, charming, crafty, and seems to be able to transform into an invincible action hero any time the need arises. That would be tough for any actor to sell. Amanda Seyfried is here only to look hot running around in heels and be won over by the hero. She does a good job, but since those criteria are accomplished by her genetics, wardrobe and the script (in that order), that's only to be expected. Cillian Murphy isn't given anything more than a generic "tough and relentless, but fair" detective/antagonist role to work with. Vincent Kartheiser, on the other hand, is the one actor in the movie that's absolutely perfectly cast. No one can play a rich d-bag like Vincent. The main problem with In Time is that the script needed a lot more polish. The concept is cool (people are essentially immortal, but every moment after they turn 25 must be "bought"), but the "time is literally money" angle could have worked a lot better if it was wielded with a bit more subtlety. Yes, we get that the rich and privileged few are "living" off of many. The story hums along at first, but then seems to waver in tone and purpose. What's simple and straightforward at first eventually unravels to the point where even the characters themselves seem to not know what they're doing or why. Timberlake and Seyfried never seem to be in any real danger, and the climaxes are thoroughly anti- climatic (the fight scene between Timberlake and a bad guy in the third act is absolutely, though unintentionally, hilarious). Still, I didn't dislike In Time. It has a lot of flaws and certainly didn't live up to its potential, but if you take it as a faintly ridiculous Bonnie & Clyde-lite action movie with a thick and cheap coat of social issues slapped on, then you can have a good time with it. The movie definitely wants to have substance and a message, though, and it fails at that.

• Dean !

  
  It was ok, far from great or that original to be honest. Felt it could have been a lot better. In the end just ends up very similar to other future set films with a big social class divide. Does have some cool Dodge Charger cars though.

• JY S

  
  Andrew Niccol's <i>In Time</i> has 100+ minutes to work with, but fails to deliver anything extraordinary.<p>It's difficult to argue that the concept surrounding this picture is prime for a high-grade science fiction movie; however, as intriguing as this… More
  Andrew Niccol's <i>In Time</i> has 100+ minutes to work with, but fails to deliver anything extraordinary.<p>It's difficult to argue that the concept surrounding this picture is prime for a high-grade science fiction movie; however, as intriguing as this film sounds, it falls short of surpassing mediocrity. The plot is weak and the story leaves a feeling that is far from fulfilling.</p><p>The suspense and intensity of this so-called thriller is minimal at best. Many of the plot details are explained just enough without the much needed details or back story, which would make things much more interesting. In the end, some pieces just seem silly and a bit unbelievable.</p><p>Justin Timberlake isn't much of a lead. He is lucky to have Amanda Seyfried to help him along the way, but she suffers from a thinly written character. Despite a good performance out of Cillian Murphy, he too is held back by an under-developed character.</p><p><i>In Time</i> is watchable, but not one to make time for. Pardon the pun.</p>

• Raymond W

  
  Even with a very interesting and intriguing storyline, In Time is so predictable, the cast can't do anything with the horrible script, and the characters are so thinly written. I laughed at parts that weren't supposed to be funny, cringed at some dialogue, and knew what was… More
  Even with a very interesting and intriguing storyline, In Time is so predictable, the cast can't do anything with the horrible script, and the characters are so thinly written. I laughed at parts that weren't supposed to be funny, cringed at some dialogue, and knew what was going to happen from early on. The premise could have made a great film, but In Time is for pure entertainment, and it's not very good entertainment at that.

• Chris W

  
  In the near future, time is money...literally. It's the new currency. Not only that, but everyone has been genetically engineered to stop aging when they turn 25. However, when they reach that age, they are only given a year's worth of time. If you want to live longer,… More
  In the near future, time is money...literally. It's the new currency. Not only that, but everyone has been genetically engineered to stop aging when they turn 25. However, when they reach that age, they are only given a year's worth of time. If you want to live longer, you've got to earn more time, either legally or illegally. The world has also been segregated into Time Zones, separating everyone according to their wealth and social class. This is a brilliant set up, and it's really engaging and thought provoking. And for a while, the film really cooks. However, plot gets in the way, and the film devolves into an action movie pushed forward by both the Wrong Man Syndrome, and the Bonnie and Clyde/Robin Hood Principles. Will Salas is a poor man, living in the ghetto. One day he is given over a century's worth of time by a wealthy man tired of living. The wealthy guy gives all but a few moments of his time to Will, allowing him to commit suicide by "timing out". Will becomes wrongfully accused of murder, and is then on the run. DUring his flight from the law, he takes a young girl hostage: the daughter of one of the most wealthy and powerful men around, a man who, for all intents and purposes, is so rich he's basically immortal. From there, the girl, Sylvia, starts to side with Will, and together they set out to distribute as much time to as many people as possible, as a way of letting all people know what it's like to not have to literally live day to day. As I said, the initial concept and set up is terrific. Then the film does turn into a typical aci-fo action thriller type of film. Oh sure, some of the action is well done and entertaining, but there's just a few too many chases and overall, the action is the least interesting aspct of things. There's a good cast here. Timberlake is decent as everyman Will Salas, though I do think he struggles to completely pull off the more challenging emotional parts of the material. Olivia Wilde is okay, but underused as Will's mom, and Johnny Galecki is nice in a change of pace as Will's grungy best friend. Where the film really gets interesting characterwise is with Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia, the priviliged girl Will takes hostage who becomes his partner. She's the most itneresting character, and it reallyt hsould have been about her. Cillian Murphy is fine, but unremarkable as the determined cop out to stop Will and Sylvia. There's nothign fresh here, and he seems to just be going through the motions. All in all, this is a good film, but pretty flawed. I should knock this down by at least a half star, but I won't. There's a lot to like here on several fronts, especially with the concept, cinematograhy, and art direction. It's also never boring, even if it ends up being not what I expected, and not quite as mentally engaging as it could and should have been. B-

• MisterYoda ?

  
  two stars

• Crash E

  
  why all of this negative reviews? it wasn't that bad, and I think It was a good sci-fi movie and the story line was really fine, and the only defect in it is "Justin Timberlake", I guess the movie would be a much better with a real star.

• Sophie B

  
  It's such a shame that a brilliant idea, with good characters and a great cast can end up like this. It seemed too floaty and flitted between scenes sometimes with no real reason. I felt like it wasn't as developed as it could have been and there were quite a few… More
  It's such a shame that a brilliant idea, with good characters and a great cast can end up like this. It seemed too floaty and flitted between scenes sometimes with no real reason. I felt like it wasn't as developed as it could have been and there were quite a few inconsistencies like how it took them a long time to pass though to Greenwich but then it took what seemed 5 minutes and one toll booth to get back. Very flat and not pace-y enough which ended up with a film that wasn't ready to be made.

• Jeff "

  
  Andrew Niccol's In Time is a unique Sci Fi action film. Set in a Dystopian society where time is literally money, the rich can live for centuries, the poor have to work for time. The concept of this film is terrific, and I thought it was a refreshing take on the whole Dystopian… More
  Andrew Niccol's In Time is a unique Sci Fi action film. Set in a Dystopian society where time is literally money, the rich can live for centuries, the poor have to work for time. The concept of this film is terrific, and I thought it was a refreshing take on the whole Dystopian genre. The film is underrated, and though is far from perfect, the film is very entertaining. The film doesn't deserve the flack it has received. The biggest problem that people seem to have with this film is the fact that Justin Timberlake stars in it. I'm not the biggest fan of him, but I have to admit he was pretty good here. In Time has its flaws, and the film is uneven, but for the most part it succeeds at being an interesting Sci Fi action film. I thought that the idea behind the film was superb, and it was enough for me to keep me interested till the very last shot. There's some good performances here such as the one delivered by Cillian Murphy, who always steals the show. I personally think his performance saved the film from being horrible, not that this is a bad film. I thought In Time didn't deserve the negativity it received and considering the concept of its plot, you'd think there would be more praise around this film. My only complaint about the film was Amanda Seyfield's performance, I felt she was very bland and didn't do anything great on-screen. Other than that, In Time was a terrific action packed film that really showed Timberlake's skill as a growing actor. The film definitely could have been improved on here and there, as at times there a few scenes that simply don't fit. For the most part, In Time is a good film that has a refreshing concept for a Dystopian society film. I simply wished that a bit more attention could have been given to the script as the film goes from being great to good to decent. For me this is a slightly above average film that there was plenty of room to improve its formula.

• Dead A

  
  The idea was good and also creepy (!) but the movie got lame after sometime. I wouldn't spend my time buying this to be honest.

• Drake T

  
  This movie had no idea what it was trying to do with itself, for half of the film there is no real message, theme, or plot; just the blundering character driven shenanigans of Salas's whining existence in a systematic/economically run future . Then, when it finally hits the… More
  This movie had no idea what it was trying to do with itself, for half of the film there is no real message, theme, or plot; just the blundering character driven shenanigans of Salas's whining existence in a systematic/economically run future . Then, when it finally hits the ground running the film still isn't quite certain where it wants to run to. A mosaic of loosely and largely irrelevant characters trying to tell us something vague and ultimately obvious, the system is broken; life is unfair and you shouldn't waste any of your 'time' watching this film. Half a star for trying to tackle a bold concept/premise, but no more for it's appalling execution. Also, I'm going to have to shoot myself if another "witty" time-pun is made.

• Mike S

  
  Conceptually, this could have been a really cool sci-fi flick. Tragically, however, the weak execution and writing makes it fail on almost every level. The cast is not much to speak of either, at least not in any positive sense. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfriend are bland at best… More
  Conceptually, this could have been a really cool sci-fi flick. Tragically, however, the weak execution and writing makes it fail on almost every level. The cast is not much to speak of either, at least not in any positive sense. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfriend are bland at best and bring nothing to their performances to make us care for their characters. And for a movie that talks of time as something valuable and precious, it sure doesn't make good use of it. Some decent action bits, but I think I'm gonna have to go with the critics on this one. That is to say: a good idea, but underwhelming final product.

• Pedro H

  
  <i>Time Is Money</i> <b>Intresting Film</b> This movie has by far one of the most unique story that I have ever seen. The concept of this movie is <b>brilliant</b> and I couldn't stop thinking about how cool it was. There are a couple of ways… More
  <i>Time Is Money</i> <b>Intresting Film</b> This movie has by far one of the most unique story that I have ever seen. The concept of this movie is <b>brilliant</b> and I couldn't stop thinking about how cool it was. There are a couple of ways this movie could have been better, but overall it was great. In the future, time is the new currency, and people have to work everyday so that they don't time out. They have time in their hands. One day Will Salas (Timberlake) wakes up after rescuing a strange man with a century of time. He decides that he wants to destroy this system, after witnessing his mothers death, and now its up to him to restore time. This robin hood story and the concept of it make this an amazing movie. I truly thought I wasn't going to like it but I couldn't resist to the concept of this movie. The acting believe it or not is not very bad. After the story, the second best thing about this movie is the wardrobe and set: the movie is done in a very 80's punk like atmosphere, sort of like Run Lola Run. Although this movie could have been better, I personally can't find a way to improve it, hence who am I to judge. I really liked it, it was a fun blockbuster action film with a very interesting idea that highlights 'consumism', economic Darwinism, and the egoism of our society. A very revolutionary film, believe it or not. <u>Henry Hamilton:</u> <i>" Don't waste my time. " </i>

Read all 20 featured audience ratings