7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
GOT A MINUTE?, November 6, 2011
In the future "time is money." Literally. People live to 25 years old, after which time they have one year left, then they die. The good news is that you can buy time and live forever, but only the rich can do that. Everyone else is struggling to stay alive. Currency is done in time, transferred by computer chips installed in the forearm. A cup of coffee will cost you 4 minutes of your life. I kept thinking about "Logan's Run" as I watched this film.
The cliche possibilities are endless and they are not shy about using them. "All the time in world." "Got a minute." "Too much time on my hands" "Who's got the time?" "You must come from time." "Taken years off my life." "Drank his life away." "Too much time in the wrong hands..." "I had the time to buy one of these." "Thank you for your time." "The time he has taken." "It would take a million years." Ouch!
"Hey big spender, spend a little time with me." "I'd give a year of my life just to spend an hour with her." These didn't make the cut.
Timberlake plays Will Salas, a man struggling to pay the bills and stay alive along with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde). Will saves the life of a rich man who was 108. He wanted to die. From him we get the class warfare speech of the movie. Many must die so a few might live. Taxes and prices are raised to make sure the poor die. Like most science fiction features, they have a social commentary.
While Will was asleep, the rich man gives him his time so he can die. Rich people literally live in a different "time zone" so they don't get mugged by those who work for the weekend. When Will's mother "runs out of time" he goes to the rich man's zone to "make them pay" becoming a Robin Hood. Meanwhile, the police believe they have a murder on their hands, so in order to solve the crime they "follow the time." Will is on the lam.
Will falls for the daughter (Amanda Seyfried) of a rich man. She says, "The poor can die and the rich can't live." People can live "forever" as long as they don't do anything foolish...Oh the burden of money!
Timberlake is 5 stars in comedies, but as a dramatic actor, he was unconvincing in this role, which may have been the director's fault. Will is supposed to have passion to distinguish himself from the cautious rich. He lacks, he should have never been in that role (Keanu Reeves spoiled us). Timberlake would have been more convincing as a rich tycoon. Much of the acting was stiff by design, but that made for a bad movie. Other than the time devices, the technology was circa 1985 with no pay phones, 80's automobiles, and no cell phones.
No real sex or nudity. One f-bomb.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Idea of time being currency was pure genius, December 18, 2011
Whoever came up with the underlying idea for this film--time is currency--is a genius! I vaguely remember reading somewhere that this idea was once put forward in a short story some time ago--can't remember where or by whom--I may be wrong. But I just love the idea that was developed in this film that time is currency and one pays for everything with time. Another form of capitalism, another form of poverty, another form of wealth, another Robin Hood character and his girl stealing time to give to the poor!! The plot was brilliant. I love good films--but in this, graphics didn't matter nor filming technicalities nor was I looking for brilliant acting--it all seemed okay because what made this a stimulating, excellent film for me was its masterful, creative plot. Imagine breaking into a bank to steal time, or literally, physically robbing people of time! And a timekeeper is truly a timekeeper! Mind-boggling, so very symbolic; man in any world will always be man--rotten to the core, with a few good guys who will always sacrifice themselves for humanity. Brilliant!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Entertaining but Flawed, November 13, 2011
In Time is only the 4th film by New Zealander and
The Truman Show writer Andrew Niccol and comes six years after
Lord of War (2005) with Nicolas Cage and Jared Leto. While I reserve a special place for Niccol having seen all of his films and being satisfied by every one of them, Niccol has failed to make a film that would put him over the top. His debut
Gattaca emerged as a cult classic that failed to find a major audience at the box office.
Simone with Al Pacino went largely unnoticed and is never mentioned today. Lord of War, despite its complex setup and departure from Niccol's usual science fiction themes, also was not a major motion picture. In Time may come off as Niccol's most commercial work designed for commercial success.
The film boasts a cast of young actors, a plus for bringing out the younger base. One of its main stars is Justin Timberlake, an international pop superstar who of recent years has made a foray in serious acting roles (as well as sparse comedic roles). Undoubtedly, Timberlake has an audience. And the film gathers together fine visuals, an impressionistic use of the color green with an appealing concept of time running out. It seems that Niccol is going out of his way to ensure a meaningful success on his hands. However, his attempts have been frustrated by claims of unoriginality considering the lawsuit by Harlan Ellison claiming that the film is a rip of 1965 short-story, "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Others see a connection to
Logan's Run.
The plot of the film follows Will Salas (played by Timberlake) who lives in a world where time is currency. People don't age past the age of 25 and for most of the poor, time is running out as clearly shown on their forearms. Time is used to pay bills, food and even to travel from place to place. However, Salas is given a gift by a man with almost unlimited time. Set up for his murder, a group of timekeeping individuals hunt him down. Salas further complicates matters by falling for the daughter of a wealthy man after he kidnaps her. Meanwhile, Salas is the subject of a manhunt by Fortis, an elderly man (in age) hell-bent on stealing time.
The plot emerges quite interestingly and provides several literary detours to embark on. The story is complicated by more characters and their motivations. Action and chases are less emphasized in favor of story progression. The problem is that before the middle of the film arrives, it becomes somewhat clichéd and its links to other pre-existing material causes many balk at the film's premise. The slick nature of the material and the lack of risks taken also impede on the film's potential. Justin Timberlake, while not a terrible actor in this film (particularly comparison to his subpar performance in
Bad Teacher), is hard to justify as a serious actor. Several more capable actors should have been considered.
The standout actor of the film is the young Alex Pettyfer. Pettyfer, an English actor, has taken less-than-prospective roles in
I Am Number Four and
Beastly. However, he demonstrates his potential in this film, playing Fortis, a petty bad guy devoted to stealing time. Cillian Murphy seems somewhat out of place as an authority figure. He's more adept at playing quirky loonies than straight-faced, by-the-book, ethical do-gooders. Amanda Seyfried does a fine job as always. Johnny Galecki like Murphy seems out of place seeing that the plot claims that no one ages past 25 and Galecki is 36. But maybe I'm being a stickler.
All in all, I enjoyed the film for what it was worth: entertainment. I didn't ponder the concepts introduced in the film since the product was so slick and glossy. It felt more like a blockbuster rather than the message-movie it was trying to be. The conflict let up too easily and climax were stunted by a quick confrontation in which it always seemed that the good guy was going win, eliminating the sense of conflict and surprise. And while the concept is interesting, it has also been done before, which provides a further disservice. Niccol as usual tries his best to present an original narrative as he did with The Truman Show but in many respects, he often provides long-lasting visual motifs than he does literary excellence. In Time provides plenty of visual dazzle but fails to exhibit exceptional filmmaking but at the very least it's quite entertaining.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
