Skip to content

In Time

December 5, 2011

Will: Four minutes for a cup of coffee?
Will’s Friend: Yesterday it was three!
Coffee Worker: You want coffee or you want to reminisce?

A sufficient sci-fi yarn that manages to challenge your mind and present staggering visuals, but is heavily squandered by its incredibly lazy and laughable script. Regardless, In Time takes a good concept and uses it to an acceptable extent. Director Andrew Niccol seems to have a sense of style with this, and does a firm job; with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in their impeccably solid roles, including a small, yet vital role from Johnny Galecki of The Big Bang Theory. It’s nothing monumental, nor does it cover new ground pacing-wise, but it is good for a one time watch.

In a world where time is literally money, and citizens age up to 25 (physically, at least); and people work for more time.. to live. Some people have 25 minutes, while some people have a century. Enter pretty-boy Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who is falsely accused of murder, he devises a juncture to enable the system of time-money that would award the poor / homeless with a great amount of time that was taken from Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), who believes the rich should live forever, and the un-wealthy should… well… lose all their time. Will meets another dying woman Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), and they find themselves running from the Timekeepers, while trying to steal enough time to keep them alive for the remainder of the day!

I thought In Time was a rad film. Not since Eagle Eye have I enjoyed such an “average” film so much, yet includes some of the most stylish effects of the year, primarily the time on people’s arms, the fantastic urban-underground-wasteland landscape, is all beautiful to look at. My main flaw is centered around the garbage-filled script, scribed by Director Andrew Niccol. Listen, you are a firm director, but writing does not suit you. Perhaps if this was written by somebody with a tad more experience, this could have been a four and a half or five star film; unfortunately, it lands in the three in a half area. It’s not too good, it’s not too bad, but I can assure that you will have a good time.

In Time = 3.5 out of 5

2 Comments leave one →
  1. December 6, 2011 7:21 pm

    I didn’t really enjoy it as much as you as the opportunities you mention were much too great of a fault for me. It was fun in the beginning though.

    You liked Eagle Eye?

  2. December 20, 2011 4:46 pm

    cool story bro

Leave a Reply to this Post

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s