In Time

The Bonnie and Clyde of the digital age yearned for analog, resulting in a sympathetically understated film set in the future. In it, a single serious nag at the laws of Niccol's world immediately takes away from the positives but is then ultimately saved by the great Timberlake and even better Murphy. (01/14/2012)

Disguised moralizing boredom that gets 2.5 stars. The idea is good, but poorly thought out, the central couple is rather poor, and the plot is not very good. Thank God for the excellent Cillian Murphy, at least. It's far from as good Niccolo's other films, and as far as recent sci-fi spectacles go, the likes of The Adjustment Bureau is much better. (11/13/2012)

It's not it. The poster and main characters are romantic to some extent, but In Time is a disgracefully wasted opportunity. Andrew Niccol came up with a captivating and highly original story, but unfortunately, he completely fails in other aspects. It's not that I expect flying saucers or a million-person battle, but perhaps just a bit more polished visuals, more fatefulness, more dynamic action, more exuberant artistic stylization, and definitely fewer unfinished plotlines. Buying and stealing time is nice, but if you think about it, it's clear that if someone could gain time just by touching someone else, everyone would have killed each other a long time ago and certainly wouldn't wait in front of a time bank offering thirty percent loans. They could have also done without a certain type of car for the wealthy class, and the retro police cars don't fit in there either – there are simply too many of those things. But to not just criticize, the million year concept is cool, there are occasionally thrilling scenes, Justin Timberlake is good as always, and Cillian Murphy is phenomenal as always. In my opinion, Niccol would have been better as the screenwriter, not the director. (11/12/2011)

A typical Niccol sci-fi flick that captivates and entertains even without futuristic sets, digital robots or any kind of spectacular flying machines. All he needs is a simple yet great idea intelligently incorporated into an action story with humanistic values. Justin Timberlake is okay, Cillian Murphy is excellent as usual, and just undress Amanda Seyfried, cover her in chocolate and spend the last hour of your life with her. This is how respectable Mostow's Surrogates wanted to look. (11/07/2011)

Niccol significantly updated the Faustian motive and threw in a swashbuckling hero who somehow got the abilities (physical skill, playing poker at a Bondian level, outstanding marksmanship and masterful control of cars that he had probably never driven before) with which he now fights for a classless society for whatever reason. Due to the shoddy depiction of the characters and the conditions in which they live, his motivation is very unconvincing. He simply behaves as he does because the director/screenwriter/producer needs to convey a few theses through him. The stimulus for discussion isn’t bad; all we need for that is to read the synopsis or watch the trailer. If In Time disappoints as a “film with an idea”, it doesn’t work much better as an action thriller. Niccol failed to smoothly work his messages into the genre formulas, so the characters, whose time is constantly running out, engage in numbing “sit and deliver” dialogue scenes at times. Will’s goal long remains unclear, his actions lack logic, which can unfortunately be said about the whole film (the actual overdrawing of time, which a sleeping person cannot control, is perhaps too easy to assail). The other characters also make decisions that can be expected from them given the rules of the genre, but not decisions that make sense in the context of what’s happening. In the end, what entertained me more in this ambitious American genre flick than its loose narrative – which I more frequently appreciate in European films – was Roger Deakins’ cinematography, which differentiates the individual classes through different combinations of lighting and colours, and Alex McDowell’s austere production design, in which, for example, the “police” cars are nicely reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi movies from the 1970s. But overall, a waste of time. Appendix: Not that I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t understand why Amanda Seyfried wears a cocktail dress through the whole film (and running in high heels, of course). 50% (10/25/2011)