Time Out

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.

I had the privilege of watching this movie earlier than most people in the world because its released early in Malaysia, to profit from Deepavali public holiday crowd on 26 Oct.

The story is simple. Time is the commodity in the future. But the best part is how the filmmaker show the audience how to use this commodity in normal everyday life. How much time you pay for certain things, where to get extra time, etc. Simply brilliant.

I never cared too much about Timberlake before, but his performance in Social Network caught my attention, and In Time further proves that he can act. The pace can be quite a drag here and there, but its full of suspense all the way, many chase scenes and all.

For those of you who are tired of prequels, sequels, three-quels, superheros, robots, aliens, etc, give In Time a shot, its definitely worth your time. The most original movie this year. 109 minutes is a commodity well-spent.

'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.

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.

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.