Start to Download Movies in Seconds!
Downloading movies has never been so simple! Now with Movies you can easily find and download any movie you want. Our website guarantees fast download speed, no codec problems and of course - best quality. You can search our database and download the most popular hits or some rare classic movies that you always wanted to see. Movies guarantees your satisfaction as soon as you open the downloaded movie!
Buy In Time Movie. Watch online or Download
6.6
Genres are ActionThrillerSci Produced in 2011, USA
Available Quality: DivX
Rating: 6.6 out of 10 (49823 votes)
 |
718x308 | 852 MiB |
|
| Actors | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cillian Murphy | Will Harris | Justin Timberlake | Ray Santiago |
| Johnny Galecki | Amanda Seyfried | Nick Lashaway | |
| Directors | |||
| Andrew Niccol | |||
Storyline
Plot Summary:
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.
More Movies
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Action, Thriller, Drama
Action, Comedy, Romance
Action, Thriller, Sci-Fi
Action, Comedy
lixo-meras
25 May 2012
It could have been a great Sci-Fi movie!
In Time - The idea was promising! "People stop aging at 25 with only one more year to live, and having tofind a way to gain more time to live! Time works like money, who has itlives in luxury zones surrounded by everything one can imagine, whohasn't it lives in shitty holes and fighting constantly for more timeto live!" Although the idea is genial, the plot is weak and ordinary! The authordid not explore innovative and more creative alternatives ending upwith a plot full of common places and none novelties. It's a pity,though. It could have been a great Sci-Fi movie!
Alec West
24 May 2012
Exciting movie but doomed concept.
This entire review might be a spoiler to the concept. But, if you likehigh-action movies, you'll probably enjoy it like I did. Still, theconcept behind the society envisioned is on very shaky ground.If prices keep rising, taxes keep rising, interest on loans keepsrising, but wages are kept low for the working class, this wouldinevitably lead to a halt in the production of "things" needed to keepthe infrastructure in place (as workers "timed out"). Even before that,working class citizens would be less likely to "breed" children toreplace them when the costs of raising a child became prohibitive.If no one is around to produce food, generate electricity, and fix whatbreaks, the lifestyles of the super-rich would eventually take a giantnosedive. All Justin Timberlake's character does is speed up theprocess (with Amanda Seyfried's help).But, I did enjoy the fast pace of the film ... not to mention thepresence of two hot actresses (Amanda Seyfried & Olivia Wilde).
asamoahsamuel
24 May 2012
completely falls off a cliff
Interesting concept. Time is the new currency. We all live and die bytime. Human beings are genetically altered to have stop watchesembedded on their arms and each person is given a minimum of 25 yearsto live. To live past that time you'll have to earn your time byworking for it. On top of that you no longer begin to age after you'vereached the age of 25. The poor have to work extremely hard to earntheir time to live and the rich do not and they have all the time inthe world. Transactions are done using the time you have as currency.So a simple cup of coffee could cost 5 mins of time which shortens yourlife as a result. It's a society where almost everyone works to live.This is more or less the same way we all live our lives. The differenceis that we age quicker and our clock is more biological. This filmworks for about half an hour then it completely falls off a cliff.Timberlake's character Will is a blue collar worker making ends meet ina poor neighbourhood. He runs into a man named Henry, who has over 100years on his clock. But Henry decides he doesn't want to live forever.He gives Will the 100 years of life he has left and kills himself.Gangsters known as Minute Men find out Will has a hundred years andstart pursuing him so they can kill him and take the 100 years forthemselves. The authorities also known as Timekeepers are also afterWill, thinking he's killed his newly deceased friend Henry. To makematters worse, Will then loses his mother. She dies or times out asit's referred to in the film. Will feeling angered after losing hisdear mum (gorgeous Olivia Wilde), plans to avenge her death by going tothe rich side of town and stealing all the time he can get his handson. There he meets Sylvia daughter of some tycoon, she likes him helikes her, coppers find Will. Will takes Sylvia hostage and then Sylviahates Will for about two minutes until Will gives his sob story aboutwhat he's trying to do for his dead mum and the neighbourhood he livesin. Will wins Sylvia over and the two become the Bonnie and Clyde ofthe future and decide to rebel against the system by stealing all thetime from the rich to give to the poor. So you have Bonnie and Clydemeets The Getaway meets Robin Hood with a dash of Equilibrium thrownin. The concept is original, the story however isn't. It's a mess and Ihad to explain the overall premise in the hope you don't go and seethis film. Performances: Timberlake is OK, but he's been better. SocialNetwork, Alpha Dog has shown the man can act when called upon. This wasa decent performance at best. At times looking like a rabbit in theheadlights when saying dialogue that consists of more than 3 words.Syfried is better and plays a character who displays very littleemotion. Sometimes less is more. I was impressed with her. CillianMurphy as the antagonist Timekeeper does well as does VincentKartheiser (Pete Campbell from Mad Men) as Sylvia's father. The rest ofthe performances, range from bad to terrible. Alex Pettyfer for exampleis the leader of the Minute Men. He's probably one of the worsevillains ever in film. His lines were awful, the character has nothingspecial about him and on top of that his performance was probably theworst. Hated the way he played the character and hated his performance.Set pieces were filmed well, but the dialogue was awful andunimaginative. Also scenes between Timberlake and Seyfried were tediousand long. Some sort of character development going on there. This filmlooks like Niccol's futuristic take on America's current economicsituation. My head is already hurting from working out how beneficial areferendum would be for Greece. I don't need a similar storylineembedded in this film. It would've been better if Timberlake walked upto the camera holding a placard saying LIFE IS SHORT! Andrew Niccol isa good director. Truman Show and Gattaca are amongst his best work.This looked like something he cared little about. And it's rubbed offon me, because I can't I wasted almost 2 hours of my life on this. Ialmost timed out watching this. Take my advice, there are only 8/9 moreweeks till 2012. Use the rest of your TIME this year wisely, byavoiding this and watching something else instead.
danijel fedja
23 May 2012
Waste of a good idea
This is not a movie. It's an anti racial, ethnic and classdiscrimination commercial, done by a fourteen year old nerdy girl toimpress her teacher. Idea for the movie is good, and probably would bea better movie if it didn't went through layers and layers of "let'sstrip this of anything that can be remotely shocking to anyone"censorship. Cast is OK (although somewhat undefined characters) but Iexpect that it could be better if the director had more interest incharacter development. Also one of the worst extras performance I sawin a high budget movie. Most of the time it looks fake andunnecessary.. scenography is just terrible but I will stop there. Onthe other hand there are a lot of beautiful people and idea of themovie might evoke your imagination to make a better movie in your head.Personally I consider this movie to be a waste of a good idea. If youwant more about it or want to see it just look at the trailer, it'spretty much all in there.
Bethany
23 May 2012
Definitely not a waste of time
Watching this movie is another one of those things where you go awayfeeling a little different. The ideas projected by this film strike achord with many people, especially when you make the comparison betweentime in this movie and money. It really does make you think.Instead of money, people earn and pay in time, but, as with any moviethis style, there's a crime going on. The rich are living forever andthe poor are dying young. So out to change he system and savedthousands of lives is...Justin Timberlake, as Will along with Sylvia,portrayed by Amanda Seyfried.Surprisingly Seyfried and Timberlake make quite a dynamic couple andit's always refreshing seeing actors in different genres for a change.The two main characters come across surprisingly well, Will(Timberlake) making an almost instant emotional connection. Sylvia(Seyfried) is a little more clichéd character, but adds beautifully tothe film none the less. Although her heels were practically sellotapedto her feet through the whole film....you never actually see her withany normal shoes...Overall the film is quite jumpy at the start, a little bit rushed andthen a little too slow, but it really comes into its own in the middleand towards the end, even some comedy is unearthed here and there.The addition of the talented Cillian Murphy, gives the film that littleextra glamour that adds to the list of reasons of why you have to seeit. And the touching moments really do tug at your heartstrings. Themusic, composed by none other than Craig Armstrong, emphasises thegravity and power of the scenes, creating, at times, quite a tenseatmosphere.Watch this movie if you liked Contaigon, or just generally anyaction/adventurey type movie.
David Ferguson
22 May 2012
Hey Buddy, Can You Spare Some Time?
Greetings again from the darkness. Now this is a terrific premise for asci-fi story. You have surely heard the phrase: Time is Money. Well inthis world, Time is not just money, it is Life itself. Time iseverything ... and it's displayed for all to see via a neon greencounter on everyone's forearm.The film has an odd look. Vehicles look like modernized versions of1970's classics, but fashion and other technology seems basicallyunchanged. Society is divided more severely than today. but thecommentary is clear.All people live until 25 at which time they stop aging and the clockstarts. They are given ONE year and are free to earn, gamble or spendtheir time ... heck, some even gamble. When your clock hit Zero, youdrop dead immediately. So, the working class is isolated in time zones,running from place to place and taking extra shifts at the plant to paythe rent. The rich live in Connecticut and try to find ways toleisurely spend their days that will never end.Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, one of the poor ones. In a scenethat will have you scratching your head, Olivia Wilde plays his mom(remember, you stop aging at 25). Will has a chance meeting with HenryHamilton (Matt Bomer) who has lived more than 100 years and still hasmore than a century left. After a deep, philosophical conversation,Will ends up with Henry's time and is a suspect in his murder.Will runs off to Connecticut and is pursued by the Timekeeper Policeled by Cillian Murphy. Will ends up in the lavish home of PhilippeWeiss (Vincent Katheiser from Mad Men) and falls for his daughterSylvia (Amanda Seyfried). They end up on the lam and turn into theultimate Time Bandits ... Robin Hood who steals time from the rich anddistributes to the poor.While the premise is promising, some of the best stuff is leftuntouched. Henry Hamilton would have been a fascinating character toget a little more backstory on. Cillian Murphy's character is obviouslytalented and a bit burned out. It's a bit disconcerting to see most ofthe people in a movie to look all about the same age, but that's a verycool product of this society. As is the "big board" of time that lookseerily similar to the Stock Market boards we see that track movementevery moment of the day. Time is precious and is of course watchedover.Writer/director Andrew Niccol also brought us Gattaca and Lord of War.I would have liked this one to go a bit deeper, but it's fun to watchTimberlake and Seyfried playing Bonnie and Clyde. Thinking about thisfrom a monetary standpoint is pretty interesting, but it also remindsus that there's never enough time!
radakol
22 May 2012
every once in a while an original idea like this comes out...
This movie is one of the most original ideas I've seen in Hollywood fora while. It has a lot more depth to it than 90% of the films that arecoming out nowadays, and is exciting throughout... highly recommended!The ideas being portrayed are highly relevant to our times, and themovie leaves you thinking about it long after you've finished watching. PS. its ridiculous how this movie has a 6.7/10 rating... it deserves noless than an 8/10. Unfortunately I don't feel like writing pointless summaries/opinions onhow the movie should have been, but this site makes you write a minimumof ten lines in order to post.
FlashCallahan
21 May 2012
You can do a lot in one day....
Time has become the ultimate currency.You stop ageing at 25, but there's a catch: you'regenetically-engineered to live only one more year, unless you can buyyour way out of it.The rich "earn" decades at a time (remaining at age 25), becomingessentially immortal, while the rest beg, borrow or steal enough hoursto make it through the day.When a man from the wrong side of the tracks is falsely accused ofmurder, he is forced to go on the run with a beautiful hostage.Living minute to minute, the duo's love becomes a powerful tool intheir war against the system....With Andrew Niccol at the helm, I was expecting something along thelines of Gattaca and Logans run.Now while the film is by no means bad, it can get a little bit boringwith all the love subplot.Timberlake is surprisingly good in his first proper starring role, andhe carries the film well. But as always, there is someone who alwayssteals the limelight, Cillain Murphy is the culprit here, the oldestlooking 25 year old known to man, and as bad-ass as the clothes hewears.But all the intellect Niccol had with his previous films (even s1m0ne)has all but vanished in order to keep the chase element going.The idea of time as a currency is neat, but never fully explained howit came about, and seriously, it gets a bit weird having such abeautiful mother as Olivia Wilde.It's all very dystopian, in a 'the grass is never greener' kind of way,and i suppose it does ask the question, would your mind really be fedup of livivng so long? In this sort of film maybe, because you can only live for ever if yourgoing to have money/time/whatever, but if you were going to spendforever with Amanda Seyfried, would it be that bad?Not as good as it should have been, not as bad as expected, but just anaverage movie, which is a disappointment, given the rich narrative.And for some reason, this film feels like it should have been releasedin 1998, it has a really late nineties feel to it.
paulhowe1
20 May 2012
Wish I could get the time back!
When I first heard about this film I thought the premise was aninteresting one,though I did wonder how the concept could work. Theanswer is... it doesn't. Not only does the film not really give anybackground on how this time currency has come about, but it fails toexplain how the system works at all. Are they using mind control totransfer credits or what! The acting is pretty appalling. JustinTimberlake is not going to be the next Matt Damon, that is for sure.Cillian Murphy just does what Cillian Murphy does and stares andscowls. While Amanda Seyfried just looks ridiculous and plays her rolefrom Red Riding Hood, but with a gun.In parts the film does look quite sexy,with some great cars and slickthreads. But in all,unless your favourite film is The Island, I wouldsave your time and money for something else.
Andi Corleone
20 May 2012
Time is not enough !
From the beginning i will say : This is not a review about how much iloved the movie .No,this is about how the movie was compared to mypersonal expectations . When my friends told me about it I wasexpecting something big : Either a breaking box office movie from thefirst week or a movie with an amazing performance . Neither of them happened,Justin Timberlake made a decent actingalthough he was far better in Friend With Benefits .It was clearly thathe and Mila Kunis were made to act together , i don't understand whyAndrew Niccol chosen Amanda Seyfried for the role .Speaking of Amanda :her acting was quite good but she and Justin doesn't fit as a couple.There's no Bonnie and Clyde in their acting , more like Justin andRihanna having a good time .Cillian Murphy was the only guy who didn'tdisappointed me . He was as good as in Black Knight or Inception .Although the idea was pretty original , there was some influences fromother movies : Bonnie and Clyde , Equillibrium , a bit of Campbell'sJames Bond and not the last Logan's Run .The script was written toofast for and idea like that . An explanation why people appealed tothat currency would have been golden .Also, more attention to detailsand not such a rush could have made this a Oscar nominated movie .In conclusion , the movie was pretty good for an action movie . Itisn't mind blowing ,booring or amazingly made .They could have made itway better but they didn't . It's another movie for the action moviefans , not for the Nolan ones. Have Inception expectancies from thismovie ? Don't watch . Want to hang out watching a good movie ? Try it .
Josh Anderson
19 May 2012
Bad Acting Weak Writing Ruin a Good Idea
Imagine a future time where we cut out currency as a "middle man" &just exchange time for goods & services. Isn't this in essence what wedo anyway? Every dollar you have represents time you worked. But if thecorrelation was more direct, would life seem more important? Would webe less likely to waste time if you used it to pay for everything? Asit turns out this movie seems to have an underlying agenda of warmingyour heart to what I call "Robin Hood" politics, i.e. redistribution ofwealth. This could really get me off point into talking about whysimply being rich doesn't make you a bad person (though there areplenty greedy rich people out there) and that stealing from the rich &giving to the poor does nothing to help the poor learn to sustainthemselves, but I'll try to stick to this movie. Justin Timberlake'sbad acting aside, the plot felt forced & unbelievable. Will'smotivation was having a hard life in the ghetto, & when he his gifted acentury by a stranger, he sees his chance to go take down those he seesresponsible for his poverty: the rich (& I bet the Occupy Wall Streetpeople loved this one). A weak point in the plot is that our unlikelyhero happens to be really good at gambling & turns his hundred yearsinto thousands. Another weak point is the Time Keepers' (cops)desperation for taking Will down. Maybe I missed the depth of theWill's father's connection, but it seemed like the Time Keepers wereover zealous to catch a man they *think* killed someone. It was kind ofinteresting, though irrelevant, that all the future cars seemed to be"futurized" 1960's vehicles. However, turning a Barracuda into anelectric car short-circuits the "bad ass" quality of the Time Keeper'sfleet (pun intended). Here is a good place to note some of the lowquality in this film: in order to give a futuristic feel, the producersborrowed some Star Trek door sounds for the cars & stole Back to theFuture's DeLorean engine sounds for them. To top it off, at one pointWill & Sylvia are forced off the road & the crash scene looks like theypushed a Hot Wheel over a dirt berm. I have always felt like a storywritten from the heart, a story the writer really believes in, willalmost always turn out well even if production isn't great. I feel asthough this movie was written just to be a blockbuster & engineered tomake money. Those are my least favorite types of movies.
The Upcoming
19 May 2012
A picture that explodes with creativity, excites with its relentless energy and presents a collection of strong and rounded performances
Writer-director Andrew Niccol is a fairly absent talent: he takesprolonged breaks in-between projects in order to really flesh out andmould a picture. After a 7 year hiatus, he is back with In Time, ahigh-concept Sci-Fi Thriller which he claims to be a "companion piece"to his sensational Gattaca (1997).In the near future, people stop aging at 25 and are granted anotheryear of life moderated by a digital clock embedded in their skin. Inorder to prolong life, they must work to earn time, as well as tradeand share it. Time is the planet's currency and with that comesresponsibilities, power and sadly corruption. Will Salas (JustinTimberlake) is a poor industry worker from Dayton who soon findshimself pursued by timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) after beingaccused of murder. Salas heads to New Greenwich and takes the rich andbeautiful Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) hostage, but their relationshipsoon changes and the pair realise they share a connection which couldchange the face of the vicious monopolised system they find themselvesa part of.Despite the new world Niccol has created, what lies under In Time issomething many of us have seen before  this is a bandit tale, partRobin Hood part Bonnie and Clyde. Salas and Weis are two people fromdifferent worlds who share a redeeming feature: they both wish forequality. In Niccol's future, the poor die young and the rich can liveforever. Yet the planet is aware that there is not enough space foreveryone and with so many living longer than "they should", prices ofliving are dramatically increasing in order to bump off those who pleadpoverty. It would be right to think the current financial andecological climate had a profound effect on this picture's scriptingprocess because fundamentally, this is "Blade Runner: The RecessionCut".However, despite the movie's moral values (helping the poor andtackling the wealthy), it is clear a healthy investment aided thispicture because it looks astonishing. Sets and props outweigh CGI andpyrotechnics. Every detail is supremely crafted and the world in whichthe film is set looks fantastic. Every single use of money in the realworld is mirrored with time investments here, whether this is during agame of poker, having a quick coffee before work or advancing through atoll point at a bridge  what Niccol has done here to createauthenticity is undeniable and consequently forces audiences into thisspookily realistic space.Although the film's principal narrative has been tweaked from timelessstories and folklore, In Time feels modern, singular and unique  itdoes not play upon the screen like a carbon copy of a past features: itis built with a great deal of creativity and substance, so it is easyto forget its nostalgic undertones. "High-concept" is an overusedterminology in the cinematic world but it is a perfect signature stamphere. That, and "postmodern".In Time is littered with action sequences, dynamic car chases andon-foot frenzies which keep the adrenaline pumping and the audienceengaged in the drama which surrounds our two "heroes"  a term one usesvery lightly. In fact, although Salas and Weis' behaviour is for thebetter good, their own morals and ideals are questionable  somethingfairly unusual in big-budget Hollywood releases. Granted the film doeshave clear villains: Sylvia's filthy-rich father Philippe (played byMad Men star Vincent Kartheiser who quite frankly is playing afuturistic extension of his character in the show), and Alex Pettyfer's"Minuteman" Fortis who runs the local gang in the ghetto stealing theothers' time.In regard to this being a companion piece to Gattaca, it is quiteobvious that Niccol has convinced himself of that fact because thesetwo pictures share no similarities at all. However this is not acriticism, In Time is a breathless and extremely exciting movie thatwhirlwinds through its 109 minute running time, whilst Gattaca remainshis most acclaimed and intelligent piece.In Time boasts a heap of stars that all bring strong performances ÂTimberlake makes a great leading man here, who boasts presence andcharisma as well as handling the action and emotional sequences. Manycritics will say that he was better in The Social Network, but whatthey risk to forget is that a supporting role is very different from aleading one, and Justine is still trying hard to be competitive in bothroles. Seyfried is also excellent and able to balance her snootyhigh-maintenance background with her new rebellious streak makingSylvia an unpredictable and interesting character. Murphy is strongsupport, Pettyfer is perfectly fine in his role and other names poppingup immerse themselves in Niccol's world, including Johnny Galecki, mostnoted for his role in The Big Band Theory  which one happens todetest, but he performs capably and naturalistically here.Verdict:  The film has the odd silly dialogue slip and its primary tale ismoderately recycled but these are minor quibbles in a picture thatexplodes with creativity, excites with its relentless energy andpresents a collection of strong and rounded performances.Read more reviews on The Upcominghttp://www.theupcoming.co.uk/category/culture/cinema
jt1999
19 May 2012
Sheer Torture
Horrible in every way, this unintentional laugh-fest may have beenfinanced and released because of Justin Timberlake in the lead... butwhoever gave it the green light never bothered to ask if Timberlakecould act.. or if he had any screen presence. He can't, and he doesn't.And no chemistry with Amanda Seyfried at all. I mean zero.I would not wish this film on my worst enemy. Getting through it is agrueling and painful endurance test. Its absurdity is matched only byits obviousness. More like an expensive student film than anythingelse, its pretentious script is filled with howlers and clunky,first-year film student so-called "banter." It's amazing the cast gotthrough the takes without laughing. No wonder Ellison withdrew his lawsuit. He'd probably rather his timeclock hit zero than be associated in any way, shape or form with thisamateur-hour rubbish. Truly awful.
STHarlow
18 May 2012
Plot has MAJOR holes
Not only is the acting unemotional, the story progression boring, andthe graphics/scenery lacking, the plot has terrible holes. SPOILER ALERT:OK. My major beef: Why?... Seriously. Why time? I could have been okaywith it if in this world this is the way it had always been, but thestory is such that SOMEONE started this time-as-money system. But why? You have the same effect if everyone is immortal anyway and you justkept money as the currency. If you want some people to live in the lapof luxury and some to be poor, just keep money and have everyone liveforever. If it's for population control, why not just have everyone whowants to live forever give up the right to reproduce? What was thepoint in creating this very unsecure (no PIN numbers or anything?) wayto judge wealth and value that actually allows someone to kill me inthe night by putting their wrist up against mine? If you have thetechnology to engineer bodies that never age and never die, you can doit without the time limit currency. They keep mentioning that "in orderfor a few to be immortal, many must die", but I don't buy it. The factthat this was never explained and had no place in any society wherethis wasn't a natural fact of evolution or whatever, prevented me fromgetting immersed in the movie. Not that would have been easy even ifthey had backstoried it in somewhere.Which leads me to a summary of the other problems:* Said many times on IMDb so far, but seriously; why is it so easy torob a bank and escape "time keepers" and why are JT and AS the onlypeople who've ever thought of it.* Except in Post-Apocalyptic movies, A society set in the future shouldhave technology that is greater or equal to the technology of thepresent. Why were cell phones, cb radios, stun guns (the cop seemshesitant to shoot cause it might kill someone, and there is a pointwhere it's mentioned "shoot on sight is against policy"), and manyother technologies uninvented. * Has the art of providing security/policing a city died in the future?Why is the 20 strong group of "Agent Smith's from the Matrix" securityguys infiltrated by JT just because he put on some shades?*Also, the film doesn't really go into the behind the scenes workingsof the conspiracy they allude to. Maybe they were trying to set it upfor sequels, but if you're going to put a shitty movie out there thatmakes it impossible to do a sequel, at least give us the meat of thestory.*There are obviously those mistakes that any movie inevitably makesthat are actually kinda fun to spot, such as the fact the driver wentthrough zone 8 to get to zone 4 from the ghetto, which based on the mapof the zones from the time keepers headquater is a long detour, orinstances where someone should have run out of time because theyweren't filled up.So, overall....it's hard to disappoint me on these futuristic movies.I'm very forgiving, but this one just missed in two many areas. I'drather you be great in one aspect and fall short in all the others, aslong as you stuck that one point. Here it's all kind of thrown togetherand corners are cut everywhere.ps - when JT's car flies off the road it looks like a 70s movie.
lourensini
18 May 2012
A Brilliant idea! Not that brilliant executed.
Taking off horrible car actions scenes and the unstoppable message of"time is money", In Time is a brilliant movie, with an original idea(at least I haven't seen a movie treating the "life span" like this onebefore).Timberlake does a good job on his character, and its impossible to seeJohnny Galecki and do not remember him on The Big Bang Theory. Becausehis laugh is exactly the same, haha. Apart from these two, there issome bad actors doing poor acting. Something to take care of, ifsomeone intent to make a sequel (or prequel, because how scienceevolved to the point on put a clock on people's arm and make them sharelife time like a USB cable from arm to arm is still a mystery).Right in first 10 minutes we can see we're about to get bored about howmany times they will spend talking about time and enjoying life, andbla bla bla. Really, this was supposed to be subjected, and notrepeated throughout the whole plot.Another issue is the car action extremely slowly moving scenes. Is thisthe best stunt man can do? They're clearly the worse part of the movie.They're so bad produced that we can see when the car is "running" 5miles per hour. Really, they suck.What salves In Time is photography and the fact producers used oldmuscle cars instead of prototypes in a futuristic scyfy movie. That wasreally a well though idea! Amazing! it gives a kind of retro atmosphereto it. Thumbs up! Apart for some mistakes, In Time is really a greatmovie. To bad it doesn't make you think like one.
Troye Dchgl
17 May 2012
In Time
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.
megan lopez
16 May 2012
Best movie I have ever seen!!
This movie was awesome if you liked Rise the planet of the apes youwill love this movie it is so good i thought it was amazing. I wouldwatch this movie any day again because it was so good. I also reallyenjoyed Contagion. These are just also other movies i would recommendbecause they were really good i am about to go watch the sitter a iwill right a review on that movie to. I hope i enjoy the sitter becauseit seems really good and hopefully it is. If you like all the movies ijust mentioned and have seen the sitter please write a review with outspoiling the movie that would be really helpful. Thank you for readingmy review and hope you enjoy the movie in time.
Greg Smith
16 May 2012
It had a lot of unrealized potential.
WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW - IN TIMEMINI-REVIEW : It had a lot of unrealized potential.RATING : Don't waste your "Time" (Rating System : "See it in theaters","Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")Spoilers INSIDEWill Salas (Justin Timberlake "Bad Teacher") lives in thenot-to-distant future where people are genetically engineered to stopaging at 25 years. At that time a green-glowing clock on their armsstarts counting down Time - and when the Time gets to zero, you die. Toget more Time you have to work in the factories. There is a wide gapbetween those who live day-to-day, earning just enough Time to get by,and those who live with thousands, even millions of years.Will saves a man from getting killed because he is in the wrong part oftown (Time zone) with too much "Time on his hands" (the movie is rifewith these time-based clichés). The man, however, is really 150 yearsold and is ready to die. He gives his 105 remaining Tiime to will, andthen publicly dies as his Time runs out. But not before revealing toWill that there is, in fact, plenty of Time to go around, if only thosein high places would allow it.The next day, Will's mother (Olivia Wilde "House") dies because hertime runs out. This fills Will with a great resolve and he heads to theupper echelons of his world to find out how to set things right. Hemeets Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried "Red Riding Hood") who is thedaughter of Time-millionaire Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser "MadMen"). Will kidnaps Sylvia and is then chased by Time-Keeper Leon(Cillian Murphy "Tron: Legacy"). And we're off...This movie starts out really strong and fritters away its opening,petering out into a confused ending. The concept of everyone aging onlyto 25 years is interesting. It also makes for a showcase of Hollywood'syoungest and most exciting actors. The fact that people are constantlyTiming-out makes for constant excitement as you have a multitude of"ticking clocks" running - so there should be lots of tension. And yet,the move drags awkwardly in several places. This movie seems likesomeone's great idea that simply didn't get thought through tocompletion.(In fact, it could be someone else's idea as Harlen Ellison filed suitto have the movie held from release as it is similar to hisshort-story, ""Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman" which concernsa dystopian future in which people have a set amount of time to livewhich can be revoked by a Timekeeper.)The movie quickly devolves into a sort of "Bonnie and Clyde" story asWill and Amanda rip off Time-banks and give away the Time to the"poor". It's unclear exactly what Will's goal is in this film. He seemsto want to have everyone share the wealth, and at the same time wantsto destabilize the "system". But it isn't clear what the result of thisstabilization would be and whether it is any better than the world helives in.All of this comes at a time in our history when the gap between the"haves" and the "have-nots" have never been wider. The movie paints the"haves" as oblivious and evil greedy meanies. They are so evil thatthey are non-characters. Rather, just cardboard cut-outs that are easyto take shots at. The movie seems to want to say that if the fat catswould just share, then everyone would be better off.But the movie doesn't offer this reward. Instead, the result of allthis Robin-Hood-like behavior is a rise in the cost of living. So thepoor- cum-rich are now the poor again. There are even allusions to areverse- Atlas-Shrugged as the workers stop working in the factories.Again, the results of this are not shared. If "In Time" was trying tomake any sort of social commentary, it failed utterly.The movie is nice to look at. Lots of pretty faces and taut bodies.Everyone seems to run everywhere in this universe. Will takes his shirtoff and puts it on a lot. Amanda has nice bras to show off. The carsare cool yet understated. The green-glowing numbers are a cool effect.And yet, without a strong plot and a coherent set of goals for ourheroes, I can only recommend you "Don't waste your Time".
chrismsawin
16 May 2012
Dull, lifeless, underwhelming
It seems like Justin Timberlake has gotten a lot of media attention forhis acting since The Social Network, doesn't it? His name is prettymuch a regular thing in media anyway, but I think The Social Networkwas around the time people began to take him seriously as an actor andnot just that guy who used to be in N*SYNC. In Time looked to have alot of potential. A futuristic thriller where currency is measured intime with Justin Timberlake getting a stab at the lead. Like most, Iwas skeptical but the trailers reeled me in. Regrettably, In Timeproves that an interesting concept can't always go as far as you'd likeit to.It was really difficult to get a read on this movie while you'resitting there watching it. You can usually get to the point whereyou're familiar with the projects certain actors choose and whetheryou're a fan of their work or not. In Time was all over the place.Olivia Wilde was the first sign that this probably wasn't going to gowell. As I've mentioned before, Wilde is amazing on "House MD" and isincredibly talented but her range seems so limited in the movies shechooses to be a part of. Alex Pettyfer was another name I wasn'tpleased to see. His outing in I Am Number Four wasn't really anythingto be proud of. Now that I think about it, I Am Number Four and In Timeare pretty similar; glow in the dark arms/hands, an interesting conceptleading to a disappointing result, and both films being in the sci-figenre among other things. On the other hand though, Justin Timberlakeis a pretty decent actor. As a big fan of The Social Network, I waseager to see Timberlake stretch his acting legs a bit more. He's easilythe most charismatic character of In Time by showing the widest rangeof emotion. Amanda Seyfried eventually breaks out of her shell, but shespends half the movie being too rich to really have any need foremotion or do anything remotely noteworthy. I was excited to seeCillian Murphy as he's usually very memorable, creepy, and/or absorbingin some way with his performance but he was just as dull and flat asnearly everyone else around him.Nearly every character of In Time fails to have any sort ofpersonality. There's no character development and calling themone-dimensional is a bit of a stretch since they barely qualify asthat. While it does make sense for the rich to be devoid of emotion,you'd think others would be able to show a little more personality. Theodd thing is I hear many people calling this movie "futuristic," butnothing is really futuristic about it other than time being thecurrency and the timekeepers cars being stolen from "Knight Rider".Having a glow in the dark clock on your arm that counts down to yourdeath doesn't count either. Frank from Donnie Darko is insulted. Thereare a number of plot holes and inconsistencies, as well. The model carbeing used in the car crash scene along with never really finding outwhat happened to Will Salas (Timberlake) father despite Raymond Leon(Murphy) referring to him constantly and hinting at revealing somethinghuge about Will's father early on. The main issue is that nothingreally sticks out.The standout scene from the film takes place in a hotel room in thesecond half of the movie. Will and Sylvia (Seyfried) are hiding outwhen Fortis (Pettyfer) and his minute men bust in trying to get a pieceof the couple's 10 year reward. Fortis and Will "play to zero" and theend result is easily the most entertaining portion of the movie.Youtube that scene in a few months and you'll be golden. It'sinteresting since In Time reminded me quite a bit of Repo Men. Not somuch in tone or in subject matter, but in the way that each film took aconcept that was fairly unique and completely blew it.In Time feels like it was never fully developed. A fascinating idea anda good message lies somewhere buried underneath all of the clichégarbage that seems to plague the movie from beginning to end. There area handful of plot holes, most on-screen characters are too similar toeach other to really have a distinguishable personality, and toys beingused in an elaborate sequence early on basically squander whateverinterest in the movie you may have once had. The whole experience isleft feeling bland and doesn't ever really feel like the excitingportion of it ever really kicks in. In Time is not only adisappointment, but walks the line of embarrassment.
napierslogs
15 May 2012
Time is money and the science fiction romance genre is money for Hollywood
In the world of "In Time", time is money. Literally. Set in a futurewhere 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 eternallyand the poor don't always have a chance to live. Time zones are classesof wealth and you can't cross over without upsetting the order of theworld. It's quite possible that they have taken this time is moneyequation too far.But I enjoyed this twist on the same old action movie. It even startswith some thoughts on philosophy. A rich boy finds himself in a poorman's bar where everybody wants a piece of him, so much so that hisconsiderable wealth and time line are in danger. While the poor are inconstant need of money, it turns out that the rich don't have the samedrives for life. This rich guy is impressed by Will's (JustinTimberlake) honesty and earnest desire to find out how the other sidelives. Will is then faced with the possibility of an infinite life timeof money.From there, we get a Robin Hood action movie. Will pairs up with adaddy's girl vixen, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) and they are on the runfrom the time keepers (Cillian Murphy). I have enjoyed Timberlake'srecent foray into the world of movie stars, but I like him more as acomedic straight man than as an action hero. Seyfried, on the otherhand, proves that she can play pretty much anything. A mysteriouslyinnocent, 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 usualaction movie set-up. Hollywood has ventured again into the sciencefiction romance genre, and has again come out with an intelligent,action-packed film with something for everyone.
Copyright SoulFilms © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.
- Support
- | Privacy Policy
- | Terms of Use
- | FAQ
- | Help
- | PDA version