Avis des utilisateurs

If there's something instantly captivating about a movie - it's when the idea's new. In "In Time", the plot revolves around the interesting idea that time is the new currency and rules the world like the Dollar once used to. The poor must fight to live for a few days, the rich are practically immortal.

This could have become a new scifi milestone, if it wasn't for the poorly executed script, stiff acting and highly predictable plot. The scenes are thrown together and feel like reenacted from typical "Bonnie and Clyde", "Romeo and Juliet", two against the world and enemy of the state type movies. None of the scenes seem original or well executed. Actions and reactions by the actors seem unnatural or rushed, unrealistic even. Some character development just feels plain wrong. Not because of the plot, but because the characters don't seem to be portrayed very well. Although a scifi movie, realism is still necessary. "In time" shows a world that is not believable and many scenes seem straight stupid.

It's not a great movie. If not for the cool plot idea and the likable main character, it wouldn't be worth watching at all. But if you want to see a world, albeit fake, where people fight over time to survive, give it a go.

Everyone is on a clock. What keeps the general population from devolving into id-driven mobs is the fact that no one knows how much time they have left on theirs. If you had a constant reminder on your forearm, however, you might simply go about your life in a desperate attempt to prolong it. Or not.

Will Salas (played by Justin Timberlake) is a 28-year-old factory worker whose one year clock started and aging stopped, like everyone else in the film, when he turned 25. He and his 50 year-old mother Rachel (played by Olivia Wilde) live in the ghettos of Dayton hoping to earn and save enough to at least see the next day. All while wages in the ghetto are constantly going down and the cost of living is constantly going up. Then, while out drinking with his friend Borel (played by Johnny Galecki), he learns of a man with more than a century left on his clock who has unadvisedly advertised his good fortune while in the same bar as Will and Borel. A local time-thief enters the picture and, rather than retreat like his friend did and advised him to do, Will comes to the aid of the fortunate stranger. While saving his life was all for naught, the stranger gives Will all the time left on his clock before allowing the time on his own clock to run out while he's sitting on a bridge overlooking a dry river basin.

"Time is money" was a phrase first coined by Benjamin Franklin. While the idea of reversing that concept to "money is time" is interesting, I don't believe the cast was up to the challenge of exploring it. Whatever success Justin Timberlake might've had in supporting roles, he doesn't have what it takes to be the leading man. Amanda Seyfried, whose role has her playing off Timberlake for a lot of the film, is another professional whose appeal tends to overshadow her abilities for some reason. Perhaps an independent production could provide actors with genuine talent, who are young enough to look the part, but this is closer some sort of CW melodrama.

I don't know about you but looking down at the reviews there seem to be an overwhelming amount of negative responses. I was completely disheartened by this.

In my opinion, In Time was an original well written and well acted and truly thought provoking production and I loved it. The fact that it subtly questioned our morality and made us question real world issues such as poverty and political stance was just one of the things that made me love this movie.

To the people who dislike the feature and to those negative reviews which I have read I have a few responses. Firstly, I saw a point about not enough back story into the body clock. The first thought that struck me was really? The movie is not centred around the body clock, and furthermore throughout the film we are told of its uses and get to a fairly good understanding to how it works. Do you not agree that any more back story would waste time and most likely just bore the typical viewer? Finally to those who disliked the acting and script I strongly disagree. I though both Justin and Amanda played there parts very well and there chemistry was as good as any action film I have scene.

I would highly recommend this film to anyone, and suggest if you haven't already seen it you should definitely make some time if you think you will enjoy this movie.

'In Time' was a film that I saw advertised when it was released and thought it looked good but then I didn't hear any more about it until I came across it on DVD. I'm glad I did manage to see this at last because it was very enjoyable.

The plot for this film is very unique, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this. There was a lot of familiar actors in this (Cillian Murphy, Johnny Galecki, Vincent Kartheiser to name a few). The acting was very good overall I thought, even from Justin Timberlake in the lead role.

There was some good drama as well as good action scenes (car chases, shooting etc). It is the sort of film that will keep you guessing as to what will happen next and it was just a very interesting concept overall.

It would have been nice if there was a bit more back story though, it was never really explained why the world was like it was. Apart from that, just take it for what it is and enjoy it.

Would recommend it to anyone who fancies watching something a bit different.

8/10.

What a fun thriller! Not only does it have a very intriguing premise, but there's a ton of eye candy and countless exciting action scenes. Why does it have so much eye candy? Because everyone in the movie is young. It takes place in an alternate universe where time has replaced money as a currency and everyone's time "runs out" at twenty-five. Once you hit twenty-five, the timer on your wrist starts ticking down. At work, you earn time instead of money, so you are literally working for your life. If your timer ever reaches zero, you drop dead.

And while yes, there are ugly twenty-five-year-olds, this movie doesn't feature any of them. Everyone is young and good looking. Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Matt Bomer, Olivia Wilde (who plays Justin's mom!), and other beautiful people grace the screen. There's a definite class distinction, with the "wealthy" betting thousands of hours at the casinos and the "poor" borrowing time from their neighbors just to make it to the next day. When Justin decides to spread the wealth (with the help from his new main squeeze), he's at risk from the wealthy people who want to stop him, the poor who are desperate for time, and the cops.

I love this movie and own a well-worn DVD copy. I saw it in the theaters, I watch it at home for fun, and it's still very entertaining. If you missed it because you thought it would be a cheap thriller, think again. It's one of the better ones.

In Time (2011) presents an intriguing dystopian concept where people stop aging at 25 and must buy more time to live. The film features impressive special effects that make the futuristic world feel real. Justin Timberlake fits well as the main protagonist, and Cillian Murphy excels as the antagonist.

The cinematography is visually stunning, with proficient use of lighting in both daylight and night scenes, although the lighting in some club scenes feels a bit off. The film makes effective use of medium and long shots, complemented by great editing, particularly in the car chase scenes, which are thrilling and well-executed.

However, the editing feels clumsy and choppy at times, detracting from the overall experience. The pacing is intentionally rushed, aligning with the protagonist's characteristics. Despite enjoying the film, it feels like there are missed opportunities, especially in exploring its rich concept.

The writing captures the dystopian feel well, with time as the currency in a world where the poor and the rich are starkly divided. The film raises philosophical questions about life, death, time, justice, generosity, capitalism, poverty, morality, and trust. The dialogue is engaging, but the concept sometimes feels underdeveloped, lacking depth and straightforwardness.

The chase and fight scenes are entertaining, and the production design, with its contemporary buildings and futuristic cars and clothing, enhances the film's atmosphere. The soundtrack is unique, with a calm, mellow, and slightly electronic touch, featuring gritty bass lines and a dystopian feel. It's not generic but purposeful in its composition.

This film feels like a school project with a high budget. It could have benefited from extended scenes and more action sequences to fully explore its potential.

Overall, In Time is an interesting watch with visually stunning cinematography and a unique concept. Strong 6/10, decent 7/10.

In the world of "In Time", time is money. Literally. Set in a future where everybody ages until 25, then they have one year left to live, except that one year is currency. The rich can live at age 25 eternally and the poor don't always have a chance to live. Time zones are classes of wealth and you can't cross over without upsetting the order of the world. It's quite possible that they have taken this time is money equation too far.

But I enjoyed this twist on the same old action movie. It even starts with some thoughts on philosophy. A rich boy finds himself in a poor man's bar where everybody wants a piece of him, so much so that his considerable wealth and time line are in danger. While the poor are in constant need of money, it turns out that the rich don't have the same drives for life. This rich guy is impressed by Will's (Justin Timberlake) honesty and earnest desire to find out how the other side lives. Will is then faced with the possibility of an infinite life time of money.

From there, we get a Robin Hood action movie. Will pairs up with a daddy's girl vixen, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) and they are on the run from the time keepers (Cillian Murphy). I have enjoyed Timberlake's recent foray into the world of movie stars, but I like him more as a comedic straight man than as an action hero. Seyfried, on the other hand, proves that she can play pretty much anything. A mysteriously innocent, sharp-shooting, sexy action girl suits her well.

The logic that this new world presents is pretty easy to figure out, but as you are doing that at least you are distracted from the usual action movie set-up. Hollywood has ventured again into the science fiction romance genre, and has again come out with an intelligent, action-packed film with something for everyone.

IN TIME bears some similarities to LOGAN'S RUN in its depiction of a youthful society who never outwardly age and who are consigned to oblivion at the age of 25. However, the narrative then takes on an extra twist and runs with it (literally, as it happens) in its depiction of time being treated as a currency; you can buy, sell, and steal it, and when it runs out (which you know thanks to a handy tracker on your wrist) you die. It's as simple as that.

I actually like the premise, which has the potential for lots and lots of suspense; it's like having a ticking bomb strapped to your wrist. What could go wrong, right? Well, the answer is most things. IN TIME is an insipid, soulless Hollywood blockbuster, happy to copy the look and style of recent films like JUMPER without ever bringing anything new to the table. Kiwi director Andrew Niccol once made the excellent GATTACA so it comes as a surprise he made a film so unoriginal and uninteresting.

One of the worst things about this film lies in the central casting of Justin Timberlake as the hero. He's wooden, never less than wooden, and merely cast due to his popularity with audiences. I hated his protagonist throughout, so that made the film as a whole hard to sit through. Amanda Seyfried is better, and Cillian Murphy is always a pleasure to watch on screen, but when you have such a vacuum of acting talent in the central role then your film's going to be flawed. It doesn't help that the family-friendly rating means that there's nothing contentious or powerful here, or that for a film with a chase-focused storyline there aren't really any good action or suspense scenes to enjoy.

A very unusual film screen-play, well written and shot, don't expect any CGI effects here, this is a very down to Earth sci-fi that bears more than a passing resemblance to our current problem with world banks. Surprisingly Justin Timberlake puts in a very professional performance, and not a song in sight, Timberlake carries the part with a very grounded performance being so laid back that he is almost horizontal. Amanda Seyfried submits a polished performance although her make-up makes her look like one of those Japanese animations of what a European looks like, complete with over-sized eyes. The film holds the attention from the first to the last frame and provokes some emotion from the viewer on several levels. Certainly worth a watch, not quite a Rolex, but much better than a Timex.

Looking at this film and its concept I was intrigued. With this said the film does fail to live up to the potential of its concept. One of the few major issues i have with this film is the lack of back-story with regards to the implementation of the 'body clock', along with the lack of true quality acting and a well written script. As a result of this what the viewer will get from this film experience are moments (and i mean moments) where you are enjoying the film, but by the end of it all you can reflect on what you have seen and notice that you could have done a lot more with your money if you had not gone to watch In Time.

...What a pity

This movie is fine if you don't think too much. First of all, there is the fundamental premise that one can use time as currency. Who decided that at 25 years of age the denizens of the future, would die unless the begged, borrowed, or stole time. We are never given that explanation but all people have a sort of countdown clock on their forearms. Those who have accumulated time become hunted by those who wish to steal it. There is also a set of sectors where people have as much time as they want. Everyone stops aging at 25 and either dies or maintains that age (hence mothers may be 100 years old and look just like their 25 year old children). Also, a grasp of the wrist of another person can transfer time. Justin Timberlake is given a huge cache of time by a suicidal man and sets out to avenge the death of his mother, who has succumbed before she can get "reloaded." He takes a spoiled young woman with him and they go around blowing up the system. They are pursued by a sort of latter day Javert, who has dedicated his miserable life to being a timekeeper, arresting those poor souls who are just trying to live. Anyway, it's all pretty absurd, unless you look at it as a parody of our own grasping society and our social classes. Pretty far fetched, even if disbelief is suspended.

I went into this one with the lowest expectations, and boy was I wrong. For one thing, before I saw his name in the opening credits, I had no idea this was an Andrew Niccol film, and since he is the stylish, stylized genius who gave us GATTACA, suddenly things were looking up. Then, wow, this cast! Sure, I knew about Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, but check out the rest of them: Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy, THE BIG BANG THEORY's Johnny Galecki, WHITE COLLAR's Matt Bomer and genre-It Kid, Alex Pettyfer. I mean, come on! How can a movie be directed by Andrew Niccol AND contain so much of the pretty AND also be science fiction and NOT be completely, exactly, entirely the kind of movie that I would love, love, love?

Want to know why my expectations were low? I'd seen a snippet of the trailer -- which just looked to me like a bunch of TRANSFORMERS-style running around the place -- and had read the basic film synopsis sent to me by Fox Studios' publicity department. So what I knew was this:

"Welcome to a world where time has become the ultimate currency. You stop aging at 25, but there's a catch: you're genetically-engineered to live only one more year, unless you can buy your way out of it. The rich "earn" decades at a time (remaining at age 25), becoming essentially immortal, while the rest beg, borrow or steal enough hours to make it through the day. When a man from the wrong side of the tracks is falsely accused of murder, he is forced to go on the run with a beautiful hostage. Living minute to minute, the duo's love becomes a powerful tool in their war against the system."

Why was I hesitant about this premise? Because, come on! How many sci-fi tropes do you want to hit? Predetermined age-limit to combat overpopulation: LOGAN'S RUN, among many others. Being able to effectively purchase immortality: Elizabeth Moon's Familias Regnant series, among many others. Falsely accused and on the run in a future, dystopian society: hello MINORITY REPORT, THE ISLAND and who knows what all else! But you know what? Much like he did in GATTACA, where he took the already well-worn path of the genetically-superior being not necessarily being superior and made it his own, writer/director Niccol brings a freshness, almost a whole new sensibility to these and the other trappings of classic sci-fi he offers up to us here. We also get action, suspense, romance, humor, social commentary, gorgeous visuals and, as I mentioned, bucket loads of the pretty -- I would pay good money to see Matt Bomer and Olivia Wilde in anything; impossibly beautiful doesn't even begin to cover that blessed pair -- and wow, what a thoroughly, unexpectedly fun, truly thought-provoking and utterly engaging time this movie was. I am still flabbergasted at just how much I dug this. I actually broke into spontaneous applause as the credits rolled. And I can't wait to see it again.

But the big question: how was JT? He was, I will have you know, excellent. I have long felt that there was something effortlessly engaging about his whole persona, whether in interviews or on SNL or in roles as diverse as beleaguered rookie cop in EDISON, Napster hipster Sean Parker in THE SOCIAL NETWORK or squirrelly substitute Scott in BAD TEACHER. He doesn't really seem to act: he just IS. Here, he is an unlikely action hero, but somehow, he pulls it off in grand style, looking simultaneously earnest, dangerous and adorable, and easily holding his own even alongside someone the likes of Murphy, whose hypnotic eyes can convey more in one blink of an eyelash than many a lesser actor can get across in an entire soliloquy.

All of the other performances are top notch, particularly from Wilde and Galecki -- who brings most of the funny in the film -- and hey, you know who else is in here! Vincent Kartheiser, AKA Connor from ANGEL! And he's not bad at all, either. In fact, he and Pettyfer are our main bad guys, and both pull of criminal cool pretty damn well.

The long and the short of it? See this film. It's entertaining, it has a message, it is a feast for the eyes, and we definitely need to be encouraging more of this kind of genre filmmaking. True, it's not a truly original piece of work. In fact, in addition to all of the other things it reminds me of, it also brings to mind EQUILIBRIUM -- not so much in its content but in the way that it is essentially a mashup of a whole bunch of established ideas out of speculative fiction, but gives them new life (Equilibrium went with BRAVE NEW WORLD, FAHRENHEIT 451, 1984 -- and also LOGAN'S RUN as its inspirations). But that's okay; I really like EQUILIBRIUM, too.

In doing a little research for this review, I discovered that the ever-litigious SF luminary Harlan Ellison is suing Niccol and various studio-types for plagiarism, given this movie's similarity to his 1965 short story "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman." Having not read the piece in question, I can't comment, but considering Ellison's unrelenting pursuit of copyright infringers, one would think that if Niccol WAS to knowingly steal from anyone, he'd have picked a safer target. After all, most of the ideas in this movie can be found all over Sci-Fi, not to mention in Action, and Drama and Crime, as well.

But sometimes it's not about the provenance of the ideas, it's what you do with them. And here, Niccol has done wonders. (As long as you suspend your disbelief and go with the fact that Timberlake, Seyfried and the rest are, biologically, only 25. Luckily, Hollywood's been conditioning us to do just that for years.)

-- Rachel Hyland, Geek Speak Magazine

Well this film was surprisingly better than I was expecting it to be.. Justin Timberlake isn't a very strong actor in my opinion, but he took the spotlight in this one. Amanda Seyfried looked beautiful as ever with her little bob, and the acting really wasn't too bad.

There's sad and happy moments all with that little bit of constant tension as you'll find if you watch it.

It was a really good concept and an enjoyable film, I gave it an 8/10 as I think they could've thought of a better lead actor but it was enjoyable none the less. I would recommend it to anyone, it doesn't really ever become boring and the tension keeps you focused at all times.

You should know that this movie will never delve into deep psychological nor sociological studies. It will never satisfy anyone who wanted something deep and thoughtful. What is is, is an entertaining movie with a very good idea to back it up. While some may argue that Timberlake might not have been the best choice as lead actor, I think he does a good job with the role he has on hand here.

You also get Alex Pettyfer in a role that hints at him being more than a pretty face. Still not a real challenge of course, this may lead to more serious roles for the guy. While the film got quite a lot of momentum during the "Occupy" movement (you can see why, after you watched the movie), it will never be able to get close to movies like Blade Runner and others. But try not to judge it like that and you will have a good time watching this tension filled Sci-Fi Thriller.

Simple answer: If you like futuristic, scifi, thrillers go ahead and watch. Its a great movie, re-watchable, holds interest. ( I keep it simple because go watch it.)

The problems (non spoiler)

For a timeline of humans that got rid of money, stop human aging at 25, and allow immortality it was not futuristic enough. I'm guessing lower budget.

Character inconsistency

Extending the time could have helped (assuming they would use it wisely)

Problems (spoiler)

Henry needed some more backstory.

Will gave his friend a decade because he knew him for a decade and he didn't know the friend was an alcoholic? When he was introduced he was tipsy at a bar. The timekeepers didn't use that against him "see what happens when you give the wrong people time" or something.

The main antagonist later on was spared AND saved by the protagonist and didn't have a change of mind? Its not unrealistic... but missed opportunity.

Main antagonist's death was a little obvious. I'm not the fastest but after the second time watching him cut it close to refilling I knew that was going to be his end(some would've guessed as soon as he forgot the first time lol).

Thats all I could think of a bit after watching thanks for reading!

Important note: I'm not overly critical. I will admit when something is bad. At the end of the day this is my opinion and you're free to interpret the movie as you wish.

I wonder how many times the word 'time' is mentioned in In Time. It's a lot of times, I'm sure, but I didn't take the time to count. Maybe next time.

Starring Just-In Time-berlake and Amanda Seyfried (whose name doesn't really lend itself to any clever time-related puns), this film has a very intriguing premise - that time is a commodity that can be bought or sold, allowing the rich to live indefinitely while time runs out for the poor.

Sadly, writer/director Andrew Nichol fails to do the idea justice, his film spending most of its running time being little more than one long chase, as his photogenic leads try to bring down a big-time time magnate, while Timekeeper (i.e. cop) Raymond Leon works around the clock to call time on their antics.

It'll only be a question of time before you'll be picking holes in the plot, Nichol having clearly not spent enough time ironing out In Time's wrinkles.

4/10, just for keeping me amused for most of the time with its incessant use of the word 'time'.

Best line of dialogue: 'Time'.

This is a really cool idea for a film. A day in the future when the commodity of value is not cash or gold, it is time. Everyone gets to live to age 25. After that you have one year to live, or less. It all depends upon whether you use all your time credits or you earn more. Regardless, if you live to age 100, or longer, your body physically remains looking twenty five.

On the plus side is Justin Timberlake coming back and showing that his misstep in Bad Teacher (2011) was just one of those embarrassing Hollywood screw ups. Timberlake has real drama and acting talent and is definitely here for the long haul. (Too bad Elvis was never given such chances.) Timberlake gave us a glimpse of his depth last year in The Social Newtwork (2010) , but his talents were not fully developed for Friends with Benefits (2011).

The script starts with the eerie, sobering reminder, and all too familiar words, "We don't have time...we don't have time..." Think if today you had to buy everything with time, instead of bank credit or cash. Coffee costs four minutes. A bus ride costs an hour. A car costs two years. People can give or take time from each other. Just don't run out of time or you will die on the spot. If this were real, would you treasure and spend time more wisely? The real interesting question may be that time really is the currency we live by now, we just fail to see it that way. The simple fact is that you can earn countless piles of cash and gold in this world, but you really cannot buy time. Despite the wealthy in today's world sometimes being able to cheat a few years with better health care, we all are going to die in the same average years.

While the script is the superficial tale of Will Salas (Timberlake) and his Mom (Wilde) trying to pass time in a futuristic world, the messages of the film go far deeper. It is really a tale of class warfare. People who have time, like the mega "eonaire" Phillipe Weis (Katheiser) and his rich daughter Sylvia (Seyfried) and those who constantly struggle to keep time (or run out of it) like the Salas family. Will gets the chance to move up into a better time zone thanks to a man who has just decided that after a hundred years or so, he prefers to "time out." He leaves Will the prophetic warning "Don't waste my time." How Will chooses to spend his time, for himself or for the benefit of all, is now the story.

I really did not mind that the future depicted in this film was not futuristic looking and all the cars were vintage 1970's models with updated lighting and electric sounding motors. It saved a huge budget rather than try to make the world look like it probably will in 2013 or so. And I think the point was that the future is really now.

As an entertaining film, my 7.5 rating is spot on. As a thought provoking experience, I might have given it a 10.0. After seeing this film, you should go out and visit with friends. Your own clock is ticking down. Are you really using it wisely? Unlike the time down clock on the arm of the people in this film, you never know when your time is about up.

This film...it's worth your time.