In Time (DVD + Digital Copy)

I decided to watch this based on the advertising campaigns I'd seen on TV which made it sound as though it had the potential to be a great film - and it was, for a little while.

The concept of "In time" is essentially that we've obliterated the use of money as the ultimate currency and switched it for time. Now, at the age of 25 our clocks start ticking whilst we stop aging, which sounds great right? We never get old! But there's a catch, once those clocks start to tick we're genetically engineered to only have one years worth of time remaining. This means we have to start earning (or stealing) time.

The aging concept is brilliantly demonstrated a number of times. Our main man, played by Justin Timberlake, lives with his mother who is 50 - except she only looks 25. Things like this can actually seem a bit weird at first but you quickly get used to it. So how do we get time? Well you can use your time to buy things, like coffee or to pay your rent but you can also get some back from other people donating or by working.

What's interesting is that there is still a divide between "rich" and "poor". The richer people have infinite time it would seem, although how they get it isn't always explained. I liked this aspect of the film, who says that one family deserves to live longer than another? Why should one man "time out" to allow another to live? This corrupt balance is explored quite a lot - it is suggested that this is a way of monitoring the population size.

Aside from this, there is actually a plot underneath this unique world - Timberlake's character is accused of murder. I won't say anymore on that because it will inevitably ruin the story but from here we're lead on a race against time and restoration of justice. The only negative I have is, I felt the ending was weak - almost like the writers couldn't think of a plausible way to end it so they came up with the easiest thing.

So would I watch this again? Definitely. Should you watch it? I recommend it. Hope this helps someone.

I've wanted this movie for a while, firstly because it was written and directed by Andrew Niccol (who has recently finished directing The Host - check that out!), secondly because it stars Justin Timberlake in his first (preety major) feature film debut (although he has had prominent roles in other films - Alpha Dog, Friends With Benefits etc) and thirdly just because of the really interesting, and different, plot.

I didn't really know what to expect, which meant that I came into this film with an open mind and a willingness to enjoy rather than judge. And boy, did I enjoy this film.

The premise of the film is to show a future where people stop aging at 25, but live only one more year - unless they can buy more time. The main character Will Salas (Timberlake) finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage, Silvia (played by Amanda Seyfried) - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.

What I found interesting about the connection formed by Will and Silvia was the Bonnie and Clyde/meets Robin Hood feel it gave to the film, and this is what made the film quite unique and interesting to me.

Overall, (unlike most reviewers, it would seem), I would absolutely recommend this film, and I would encourage you to form your own opinion, because this seems to be a film which completely divides the audience.

7.5/10

It must be hard to be a director knowing you're only ever as good as your last film. I guess foremost in their mind must be that a film must be popular enough (ie lowest common denominator) to gain revenue while trying to achieve the original vision.

I think this is where In Time falls down to some extent; it had the potential to be a cerebral scathing attack on how the rich exploit the poor, which it did to some extent but it ended-up as action-flick by numbers. Films like They Live and Society achieved such allegories without pandering to any specific audience.

Some of the film worked really well; as others have said the substitution of time as currency was a very clever idea but one which wasn't explored fully. Any currency is zero-sum; for one to be a millionaire, a hundred others have to go wanting. Ergo to paraphrase one of the film's decent lines 'for me to live for eternity, people have to die'. I guess the danger of going down this route may have effected a rather dry economics-heavy film but, still.

Another aspect of the film I liked was the dichotomy between rich and poors' attitude to time; the latter having to make the most of every second given their lack of longevity. Hence the poor marking themselves out by their perpetual rushing about.

Other than that though, the cast were all reasonably two-dimensional. Timberlake was by far the best of a bad bunch and Cillian Murphy's bad-guy was beyond parody. In the absence of a truly thought-provoking examination of capitalist society it seems that charicatures was the path of least-resistance.

Don't get me wrong In Time is a watchable Friday-night flick but just disappointed about what could have been.