In Time

2011

Action  Sci-Fi  Thriller  

340
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - rotten 36%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - spilled 51%
IMDb Rating 6.7

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
January 19, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Director

Cast

Olivia Wilde as Rachel Salas
Matt Bomer as Henry Hamilton
Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia Weis
Cillian Murphy as Raymond Leon
720p 1080p
701.09 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 13 / 92
1.49 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 21 / 169

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by n/a 9 / 10

A Really Good Drinking Game

I'll start straight off the cuff. Niccol is one of my favourite writer/directors. In fact, one of my favourite films is Gattaca, which has been so under-rated over the years since its release. To me he's been a great Sci-Fi writer, so going into this I was hopeful of something of quality.Alas, "In Time" is not for the true Sci-Fi thinker. It paints a world in which time is money. That isn't that new an idea, but Niccols does succeed in pushing the metaphor as a commodity. Those with time are rich, those without time are poor. It's a simplistic analogy. As with Niccol's other films, the cinematography is beautiful. The best actors in the film aren't the main characters, rather Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser and (surprisingly) Alex Pettyfer present more interesting characters. They all shine, especially Murphy. The film seems like one long car chase, when what you actually want to delve into are the complexities - the debates between the characters themselves over the issues of the world they live in. Not a single clever conversation happens between anyone. Murphy is a great actor and I would have been interested to see the debate about right and wrong become greyed through some thinking. Life is not black and white. The film ending is unrealistic and I wonder if this was the ending envisioned by Niccol or the ending the producers wanted to boost sales. Sadly this film could have been a great deal more. It had a good topic. It had some great actors, yet it failed because the story lost the nuances and complexities to meet the lowest common denominator, rather than raising questions or making the viewer think critically. See it, but be prepared to be disappointed. It isn't subtle.

Reviewed by n/a 9 / 10

Make Time for this Movie.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Reviewed by n/a 9 / 10

In Time is definitely IN!

The only way In Time could be fully enjoyed is make a drinking game whenever someone says "time" in the movie. You will be drunk halfway through the movie and most likely dead at the end of it. There were two things that made me want to see this movie: 1) The premise sounded interesting. The fact that it's about people living off time, with the rich living forever and the poor living off borrowed time is a rather thought-provoking one. And 2) I like Justin Timberlake. What saddens me is that he just wasn't very good in this movie, as he and the dowey-eyed Amanda Siegfried both just seem so bored throughout the entire movie. They have zero chemistry and I'm even going to say that they are just as bad as Anakin and Padme in Star Wars. That's the lowest bar you can go in the chemistry lab. Not only did Justin Timberlake seem bored, but he also has a hard time conveying certain emotions. Take the scene where his mother dies in his arms, for instance. Wasn't convinced, Justin. His crying felt forced and it was. After that he vows revenge against all the time people, and risks being chased by the Timekeeper (the always awesome Cillian Murphy), and after he is given a decade worth of time from someone who is tired of living, he meets up with some rich people and kidnaps a rather high Amanda Siegfried and then starts taking time, and giving it to people, you know, like Robin Hood.... except with time. They work together, bored the whole way through, and they try to convey emotions like love.... because if you have a guy and a girl on screen together, you have to make them full in love. That's Hollywood 101 right there!This is really disappointing to me because I expected better out of In Time. What I got is pretty much a boring movie, with a premise that sounded interesting but then it turns the movie into a one-note-wonder. If I could turn back time, I would have seen Puss In Boots instead.

Reviewed by n/a 9 / 10

Time is wasting and you may want your time back at the end of the film

As others have said, the idea of this movie was excellent. You could call it a skeptical analogy of what is happening in some parts of the world ? the richest people of the planet abusing poor.What I liked about the movie, especially in the early stages, was how much the movie made me think. It was also bizarre to think of what things would be like if nobody looked older than 25. The movie played upon the possibility of multiple generations would look the same age ? at least for those rich enough to afford to purchase the additional years. The story was also well thought out in relation to how people would act within the differing classes of society: the rich would take their time and take few risks. The poor would treasure their time, moving quickly, and, with less to lose, would be less risk adverse.Great premise, great start to the movie, decent follow-through. Although I wish the strong start was able to be carried throughout the movie, I found this movie quite enjoyable to watch.

Read more IMDb reviews

578 Comments

rrm39866 profile
0
rrm39866 March 23, 2018 at 10:01 pm

thanks :)z

bio_bear profile
0
bio_bear May 27, 2016 at 12:38 am

Forgot to watch in for 5 years :D Now its time!