Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now

In Time 2011

In the future people stop ageing at 25 and must work to buy themselves more time, but when a young man finds himself with more time than he can imagine he must run from the corrupt police force to save his life.

Starring:
Justin Timberlake, Olivia Wilde
Runtime:
1 hour, 44 minutes

Available to watch on supported devices.

When renting, you have 30 days to start watching this video, and 48 hours to finish once started.

Rent Movie HD £3.49
Buy Movie HD £5.99

Rent

When renting, you have 30 days to start watching this video, and 48 hours to finish once started.

Rent Movie HD £3.49
Rent Movie SD £2.49

Buy

Buy Movie HD £5.99
Buy Movie SD £5.99
More Purchase Options
By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Use. Sold by Amazon Video.

Product Details

Genres Thriller, Science Fiction, Crime
Director Andrew Niccol
Starring Justin Timberlake, Olivia Wilde
Supporting actors Shyloh Oostwald, Johnny Galecki, Colin McGurk, Will Harris, Michael William Freeman, Jesse Lee Soffer, Aaron Perilo, Nick Lashaway, Will Peltz, Ray Santiago, Matt Bomer, Zuleyka Silver, Laura Ashley Samuels, Alex Pettyfer, Brendan Miller, La Monde Byrd, Paul David Story, Yaya DaCosta
Studio New Regency Productions
BBFC rating Suitable for 12 years and over
Purchase rights Stream instantly Details
Format Amazon Video (streaming online video)

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

Format: DVD
I understand a few one-star reviews for this film as I expected far more than the film delivered, but you could still probably do a lot worse.

I absolutely love Gattaca and The Truman Show, but beyond a decent enough idea that could have been developed, directed and scripted to much greater effect, this latest offering from Andrew Niccol had perhaps only one other redeeming feature for me - Amanda Seyfried. She manages to be captivating and holds a strong screen presence despite having very little to go on.

Justin Timberlake proves to be far from a terrible actor and was a pleasant surprise, but unfortunately he lacks the gravitas or charisma that would be needed to hide the poor script, underdeveloped characters and the illogical and often unexplained story line that is strung together by little more than its plot-holes and basic concept.

The audience is force-fed a relentless and seemingly endless buffet of puns pertaining to the concept of time and its phrases in a way that suggests the viewer might somehow forget the title of the film and its concept. You won't. It's really very simple; for unexplained reasons,the future inhabitants of earth have been genetically modified to stop aging at the age of 25. When they reach this age they are given one year which is used as currency instead of money and, depending on their life choices and luck in life, this can be increased endlessly, enabling them to become immortal, or decreased to zero, which will see them suddenly drop dead. Justin Timberlake isn't happy about this and decides to go all Robin Hood with the help of Amanda Seyfried, the daughter of a rich and powerful businessman, in a Bonnie & Clyde type bank-robbing spree - stealing years of currency from the rich and giving it to the poor.
Read more ›
Comment 18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
By Bex TOP 500 REVIEWER on 18 Feb. 2012
Format: DVD
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.
Read more ›
Comment 61 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: DVD
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.
7 Comments 31 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse