In Time
Year:
2011
Country:
USA
Genre:
Thriller, Action, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
6.7
Director:
Andrew Niccol
Cillian Murphy as Timekeeper Raymond Leon
Will Harris as Ulysse
Rachel Roberts as Carrera
Aaron Perilo as Bell
Elena Satine as Jasmine
Alex Pettyfer as Fortis
William Peltz as Pierre
Ethan Peck as Constantin
Colin McGurk as Citizen
Justin Timberlake as Will Salas
Toby Hemingway as Timekeeper Kors
Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia Weis
Matthew Bomer as Henry Hamilton (as Matthew Bomer)
Olivia Wilde as Rachel Salas
Vincent Kartheiser as Philippe Weis
Bella Heathcote as Michele Weis
Ray Santiago as Victa
Yaya DaCosta as Greta
Storyline: 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.
Type 1080p
Resolution 1920x816 px
File Size 11016 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 14093 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type 720p
Resolution 1440x612 px
File Size 4481 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 5732 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x304 px
File Size 1643 Mb
Codec
Bitrate 2193 Kbps
Format avi
Download
Type iPhone
Resolution 480x320 px
File Size 885 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1132 Kbps
Format mp4
Download
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x816 px 11016 Mb h264 14093 Kbps mkv Download
720p 1440x612 px 4481 Mb h264 5732 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1643 Mb 2193 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 480x320 px 885 Mb mpeg4 1132 Kbps mp4 Download


Reviews
Nice idea. Not great execution
In Time is actually a neat little idea for a movie. The idea that everyone on earth stops aging at the age of 25, and then from then on, money literally becomes the life force that keeps you going. You go to work to earn time. You pay your rent with time, you pay for coffee with time. People steal your time instead of your wallet. And yes, when your time runs out, then you die.

Will (Timberlake) is from the ghetto, where every day, he survives just enough to see the next one. However, one night, a stranger hands him over 100 years of time, enough to buy a nice car, move into the nice neighbourhood, and finally live like a free man. But, in a poorly explained intervention, the authorities don't like the poor getting time that easily, and Will soon is on the run with the daughter of a powerful banker, eager to make a change to this bleak world before his time runs out.

I have a problem watching these sort of movies, in that I could never envision a world where we would ever let ourselves come to this sort of situation. A bit like The Hunger Games, where I could never see us, as a civilisation, enjoying an event where teenagers kill each other. But that's one of the things with sci-fi. You need to accept what isn't currently possible. As Will kind of half-ass gets away with covering at the start, he can't explain why we got to this situation, but that's just the way it is.

The acting isn't great. Timberlake really is more suited to support roles. He was good in Alpha Dog, but clearly, leading roles maybe aren't his forte. It may not be entirely his fault, and his character is pretty-stock standard, but you can kind of tell he doesn't really have a great range of emotional acting to draw from. Amanda Seyfried, as Will's hostage-come-helper is equally flat. The usually excellent Cillian Murphy, as the dogged cop trying to track down the wrongly accused Will, is wasted in his 1-dimensional character. The script won't excite any scholars, and the action is decent but nothing special.

It's an OK movie. As I said, the idea is quite neat. But if this was going to be a great film, it needed something more, and better acting and a better script would've helped. The film is shot quite well, but it felt rushed, and that's probably why the characters seem weak and under- developed. Give it a go for the novelty of the idea, but don't expect too much.
2012-08-17
time keeping
'In time' introduce us to a new world, the world were the time is something that can be bought. Very good idea, futuristic and interesting, is developing very well and smoothly, if someone can use that word about an action movie. Enough drama and thriller to catch the breath of the audience, followed by strong performances. In the end, it leaves you with lots to think about, even though the ending is not in the same volume as the rest of the movie. The director did a great job in keeping the love story in normal paces and emphasizing in the main idea, the resistance to the unfair time system. Dramatic characters, with passions and strong believes, are combined nicely into the story, which has also heartbreaking moments, such as the scene when Will's mother dies in his hands. All in all, a strong movie that rewards the ones who spent the time to see it.
2013-02-20
Standard chase thriller that isn't that well done and doesn't seem interested in its own message
In Time starts strong. The idea here is that time literally is money as it has become the currency of the world – those that make time (the rich) can in theory life forever as they have loads of time on their hands (literally as the clocks are embedded on their wrists); by contrast the poor life day to day, working to keep time on their clocks for as long as possible. As an allegory for money and the contrast between rich and poor in our world, it is a clever one and it offered the potential for quite a smart piece of sci-fi – I was hoping that it could keep the "ideas" coming while delivering an enjoyable thriller as well.

Unfortunately it doesn't really do either of these things and while i hoped it would get cleverer and more engaging as it played out, the reality was that it did the opposite – getting sillier, less thrilling and less interested in the ideas it had originally. Early on we have plenty of good things – the death of a character is impacting and little things like rich people doing nothing at speed etc are clever observations within this world. However, once Will goes on the run with Slyvia the film takes a dramatic downward turn. Funnily enough this section of the film also marks a low point for special effects too as it features a car crash which is done with hilariously bad model-work. At this point the film becomes some sort of Bonnie & Clyde thriller and it suddenly loses interest in many of the things it had been doing well up till that point.

In terms of the thriller content, this means that the air of desperation and the air of vulnerability that was in the film early on just evaporates and suddenly Will is an action hero who cannot be stopped. It is a shame because without this atmosphere a lot of the action is exposed for what it is – rather silly and basic. Harder for me to take though is that the film loses interest in the message it is delivering – what we have here is basically a film rallying against the world of capitalism and stating that it is only fair that those with the time share it fairly among those without rather than hoarding more than they need. A fairly brave message but by the time we get to that at the end, the film doesn't seem to be convincing even itself and it seems more interested in getting cool shots of our characters with guns and creating false dramatic moments of running and clock-beating. It is a real shame that the intelligence went out of it – and the lack of strong thrills and ideas means that you end up thinking about other things in this world and picking holes in them.

The cast list is young but decent. Timberlake gave me pause but he is actually pretty good and it is a shame that the second half of the film gives him nothing to do. Seyfield is oddly pretty but her character makes less than no sense and she cannot sell it to herself far less us. Murphy is always watchable and his presence deserves more than he got – in particular his final scene in the film is poorly done. The supporting cast is an odd mix of TV faces that you'll recognise from things like House, Mad Men and White Collar – none of them bad, but like the main players, the material isn't there for them in most cases.

A good one-line idea of a film then. I was hoping it could be thrilling and smart but in the end it wasn't really either as it descends into a Bonnie & Clyde scenario that doesn't make much sense and doesn't play out convincingly. While it does this it also stops caring about the message it is rolling out – by the end it seems like the ideas in the script are just an inconvenience getting in the way of the simple thriller the film is trying to focus on. Distracting but disappointing.
2012-04-15
A movie this bad should not remind its viewers that time is limited.
OK, so I had high hopes for this movie. I saw the trailer and as a closet socialist loved the clear underlying theme of the rich having to keep many people down in order to maintain their power. So as I sat down in the theatre I was hoping that even if the movie wasn't up to scratch at least the underlying message would make it all worth while.

But from the very beginning there are so many flaws with this movie that I could not bring myself to enjoy it. The concept itself is so flawed that I could not bring myself to see past it.

The idea is that in the society of the future (which looks strangely like today but with slightly modified cars) there has been a breakthrough in medical science that stops people aging at 25. This is somehow achieved with the price tag that everybody must have a time display on their arm that counts ever down to zero. When you get there, you die. An interesting idea which brings up many good questions such as "is time rationed or is it being hoarded by the authorities?". Sadly these questions are lightly glossed over rather than any in depth exploration.

JT is a character in the ghetto and lives his life permanently "broke". This means he rarely has more than a day or two of life left. And here we come to the first major flaw of the concept. Everybody around JT is the same. They all have almost no life, "in the bank", all the time. And yet these people walk around casually drinking coffee (costs 4 minutes) and drinking in bars (also costs time) when they are just hours from death. Thinking about this for even a second it becomes clear that people this close to kicking it would be doing anything in their power to try and get more minutes. There would be no semblance of society as any body who was prepared to steal time off others would, and very quickly they would be the only people left alive. JT casually gives time to a girl on the street, a very nice gesture to be sure, however completely unrealistic given that at the time he had less than a day to live. Its all very well to give away money when you are broke but to give away time when you are about to die, that is a very different story. People this close to the edge all the time would act very differently from you and me, something this film does nothing to explore.

There are many many more flaws in this film but I won't go on about them. But the thing that finally tipped it for me was when they started trying to expand on the commentary of the capitalist system in the US by having outlets that lent time to the poor people in the ghetto for extortionate interest. These are the same people that seem to constantly have less than a day of life to their name. Once again this does not stand up to any real scrutiny. There is no way that a person who has allowed themselves to get down to less than a day of life is going to have any assets. If I was going to be dead in a day I am definitely selling my TV to try and get more time. I am certainly not likely to have anything that a loan shark considers capital enough to back a loan.

But enough of my whinging. In the end because this movie could have been so good I couldn't enjoy the aspects that where well done. I have focused on the story flaws because they are what annoyed me the most. I am prepared to look past JT's bad acting, I am prepared to look past the fact that the future looks just like the present but with cars that have slightly strange lights, I am prepared to look past all the poorly thought out and completely unnecessary action scenes and I am prepared to look past whatever was going on in that hand of poker. But in the end this movie is flawed from the very beginning when the society they create could never exist due to basic human nature. Very few people would ever allow themselves to be just days from death when so many opportunities exist around them to gain by taking advantage of others. This movie had so many interesting areas it could have explored but in the end it is just disappointing.

In the end if you are prepared to look past these things and you just want to see JT without his shirt drive round in a damn sexy old school E type jag and just generally be cool then you will probably enjoy this one. However if you are like me and have trouble ignoring the big holes in the basic concept and can't watch such an interesting idea be butchered then best to save the time this movie will take for something else.
2011-11-01
Justin Timberlake CHOSE this Movie
No one seems to understand the economic and symbolic significance of this movie. Anyone who has traveled the world understands exactly what the director and Timberlake are saying. Travel the world and you will notice that everything is priced according to what each local population can afford to pay for it. Nothing is priced according to how much it costs to manufacture, but why? Because manufacturing costs have plummeted in the past few decades but pay rates have stayed the same, while retail prices have gone up? There is no such thing as the Free Market anymore, prices are set according to the country or District you live in. You sell your time for a paper currency that only has manipulated value according to what they deem products cost in your country. In Time is a symbolism of real life, of what has happened to our world.
2017-03-14
Great idea. Poorly executed.
Live forever or die trying. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star in the new sci-fi action film "In Time". Will Salas (Timberlake) and Silvia Weis (Seyfried) live in a futuristic world where time is the currency. In this world, people stop aging at 25. Once they turn 25, they only have one year to live, unless they find a way to get more time.

Will lives in the ghetto where people constantly are timing out (running out of time and dying), while Silvia lives in New Greenwich where people have centuries. It's extremely dangerous to have too much time; those with centuries are usually accused of stealing and are immediately killed.

When Will is accused of murder, he takes Silvia hostage and they run from the timekeeper (Cillian Murphy). Several times, they find themselves cutting it close with only seconds left on their clocks.

The concept is extremely unique and innovative, which made me think it was going to be an "Inception"-type film. However, it was disappointing to see "In Time" fall short of my expectations. It pains me to say this, but Justin Timberlake should not have been chosen for the role of Will Salas. He just can't pull off the character of a tough guy from the ghetto. Amanda Seyfried is decent as Silvia, but she and Timberlake don't have much chemistry.

I also don't think the script was very well written, which causes Timberlake and Seyfried to be even less believable as their characters. In addition, the characters are not developed enough; it's difficult to get a sense of whom these people, from opposite worlds, really are.

I found myself checking my watch multiple times throughout the movie. I was distracted and the movie felt much longer than it actually is. For all of these reasons, I give "In Time" a 6 out of 10. Great idea. Poorly executed.
2011-11-01
See it if you have time to kill
I saw a trailer of the movie some time ago, and I waited it since. I found the whole "time" idea interesting and philosophical, simple and yet so innovative. So I went to see this movie with very high expectations. But all that changed after watching the first ten minutes of the movie. My fist disillusion was the acting, which was poor to say the least. No one gave me the impression that they really care about the time they have, the actors were rather like the characters of a computer game. There was no attraction between the two main characters and the director tried to save the most dramatic scenes by choosing large angles rather than focusing on people. But maybe all that was because of the poor script. I don't understand how can you fail starting with such a good idea, but Andrew Niccol did. He tried very hard to make the life of his characters miserable and they concentrated so much on how to survive one more day that the denouement seemed random. Maybe it should have remained just a trailer. After all, Justin needs just four minutes to save the world...
2011-11-04
Robin Hood is back on stage!
Andrew Niccol obviously plays with Marxist ideas. What a nice example of how the profit-hungry Hollywood machinery ones more proves its dynamic flexibility by fulfilling the current demand for critical thoughts on our capitalist system.

Bearing in mind that In Time is a sci-fi, one should not be overcritical with small discrepancies, such as Amanda Seyfried always running with high heels. Comparing time with money, however, is not only a creative approach, in combination with surprisingly good (or at least acceptable good) actors and nice pictures this movie is definitely worth watching it.
2012-01-13
A disappointment
Given the pedigree of the director of this film (notably GATTACA which I'd rate as one of the best science fiction films ever made and criminally overlooked), I really expected more.

The production is very much in the same mould - the 'future' world is understated, in many ways a retro-styled present day bereft of any CGI or flashy special effects. That's in keeping with the high concept underpinnings of the film, which much like GATTACA is based on extrapolating the ramifications on human living of a development of medical science.

So far, so good and it certainly seems to hold promise initially. Unfortunately the subtlety of the earlier film is quickly lost as the plot leads not toward a considered analysis of social implications, but instead a heavy handed adventure thriller which succumbs to a misguided appeal to popularism (or perhaps its stars' vanity), by becoming a melodramatic action-flick.

I can't lay too much blame at the feet of Tiberlake, Murphy and the rest of the cast as the material really doesn't lend itself to credible performance from its cast.

I find myself left to ponder if this is one of those pieces of cinema which started out as something which would have been thoughtfully considered and delivered a genuine emotional resonance, that was then ruined by the desires of producers, actors or other influence to present something which might attract a greater box-office. In the end the effect was just to butcher something of potential into a dog's breakfast of an offering that satisfies as neither a piece of escapist entertainment, nor a work making serious points about serious issues.
2014-09-22
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 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.
2011-11-13
×