Conclusion: Andrew Niccol has always been an underrated filmmaker, and I always considered him the Christopher Nolan before there was a Christopher Nolan, but In Time could have been a great film and comes up extremely short. I get the feeling that Niccol’s original version was much darker and colder than the final product. The video and audio specs are its only saving grace, because the lack of special features drive down the already low-ish score down even further. Rent it.
Summary: The film had a ton of potential. I was very much looking forward to seeing it. I tried to score an advanced screening and was bummed when I could not. My, how times have changed. Fox sent me a copy, and I’m suddenly trying to remember what I did instead of attend the screening. Whatever it was, it was time better spent. This film loses its way at almost every turn. It certainly has a strong message, but I have one for Andrew Niccol: “Don’t waste my time!
Excerpt: I was listening to the radio last Fall and the DJ said that the 7 billionth person in the world had been born. 7 billionth! Wow. Maybe it’s the way my mind works, but one of the first things I thought about was that in the future, we’re going to run out of resources for all the people on this planet.
Conclusion: Andrew Niccol's In Time has a number of interesting ideas about society and the distribution of wealth, but the movie and its cast have trouble expressing them in a satisfying or subtle way. That keeps what might be thoughtful sci-fi from feeling a lot more like mediocre action. It's reasonably exciting and fairly stylish, but ultimately less than the film it wants to be.
Conclusion: Pretty much ignored by audiences at the box office, Andrew Niccol's 'In Time' is a dystopian vision of the ever-widening wealth gap and class warfare. With the Occupy Movement clearly on its mind — and possibly, even its target audience — the futuristic sci-fi feature starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried will have audiences keeping track of the runtime rather than forgetting about it.
Excerpt: The Movie In the modern age of high-concept Hollywood, the premise alone is enough to sell a movie like In Time . As in Logan's Run , citizens in this not-so-utopian society are given a pre-determined number of years. They have been genetically engineered (by whom, exactly...?) to stop aging at 25, at which point a clock in their forearm starts counting down just one more year to live, unless they somehow acquire more time, by whatever means necessary.
Excerpt: In Time takes place in the future, not in some alternate reality or on a different planet, so it begs the question of who ever allowed this societal system to develop. People live -literally- on borrowed time after they turn 25, a clock implanted into their arm indicating their lifetime guarantee. They’re born like this because of engineering, but why? What purpose does this serve? Why would someone create this system without life-saving safeguards?
Conclusion: In Time could've been so much better if it were a good thirty minutes longer--the characters and sci-fi world are criminally underdeveloped--and way less obvious when it comes to the script's overarching metaphor, a simplified Marxist fable built more out of cliches than real ideas. It's not awful, and it's certainly watchable, but I just didn't find anything particularly special about it.
Excerpt: In Time , the new action thriller from Gattaca and Lord of War director Andrew Niccol, dives into its tricky sci-fi premise and sticks with it admirably. In a world in which immortality is possible, humans are genetically engineered to live only until 25 unless they can literally "buy" time--there's room for only so many immortals, so the wealthy live forever while the poor live literally day by day.