Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

In Time

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> In Time Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
In Time - 1/11/2011 4:47:06 PM   
Empire Admin


Posts: 31667
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
- 1/11/2011 5:03:59 PM   


Posts: 238
Joined: 5/12/2009
I agree with the empire review it is entertaining enough but feels a bit of a waste of my time with the rushed Bonnie and Clyde and Robbin Time Hood angle. I was expecting bigger things but they never happened in this story but this film was fun.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
Sense? - 1/11/2011 8:32:52 PM   


Posts: 19
Joined: 26/9/2011
What does the reviewer mean by howling anger and 1 per cent drive in the first half?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 3
- 1/11/2011 10:53:39 PM   

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/5/2008
This review is dreadful and nonsensical and tells me nothing about the film other than it's good but not that good

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 4
- 2/11/2011 10:12:21 AM   


Posts: 138
Joined: 20/1/2007
From: Edinburgh
Have to completely disagree with this. Had the oppertunity to be a really good film but with Timberlake it is completely ruined. OK in small doses but really can't act and is an awful lead. Hopefully he will go back to Nsync after this.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 5
Reply to Truebloody - 2/11/2011 12:07:33 PM   


Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2005
@Truebloody - Helen means that the first half of the movie is propelled by the animosity this movie encourages you to feel for the 1% of the 'time-rich' population in the film, which is presumably a metaphor for the bankers and financiers who are being protested against in this world. I think that's what she means mind, could be completely wrong. It is a little confusing at first blush.

I haven't seen the movie by the way so can't comment if it's good or bad but I had to pick a rating when posting this so gave it 3 stars as a neutral option.

< Message edited by jamiemulls -- 2/11/2011 12:09:14 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 6
1 star - 3/11/2011 1:22:49 AM   


Posts: 17
Joined: 24/3/2011
One of the worst reviews this site has ever done. 3 stars?? This is one of the worst films of the year. Poor pacing, storyline, pointless mundane action and nothing and nobody to root for. I like Justin normally but this is his worst performance on what is an otherwise solid resume. Avoid.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 7
RE: 1 star - 3/11/2011 4:49:32 PM   


Posts: 32
Joined: 22/7/2011
Actually I enjoyed it in spite of having many flaws. I felt sorry about the absence of strong and smart antagonist, like for example Smith Agent in Matrix.


"Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one"

(in reply to Bennett30)
Post #: 8
RE: 1 star - 5/11/2011 7:14:02 PM   

Posts: 2854
Joined: 22/11/2006
I feel inclined to like it because of Murphy and Timberlake, but it's basically just a sci-fi Bond movie with a mediocre script.

(in reply to szoni)
Post #: 9
Common Empire!!! - 8/11/2011 12:01:39 PM   


Posts: 24
Joined: 15/12/2008
The worst film ever made: a film about idiots, made by idiots, for idiots. I wasted two hours of my life because of your review. Thanks

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 10
fanastic view of a furure reality - 9/11/2011 8:04:15 AM   


Posts: 5
Joined: 3/10/2008
a great film that uses a very clever sci-fi concept set in the distant future to examine our own current class societies where 1% have all the wealth and power, loses 1 star because of a very dodgy special effect involving one of the car chases, see if you can spot it

< Message edited by abductee -- 9/11/2011 8:05:01 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 11
RE: fanastic view of a furure reality - 10/11/2011 1:14:08 PM   

Posts: 4325
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
Meh. Nice idea, flawed execution. Never really takes off in the way you'd hope it to.

2 stars.



My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to abductee)
Post #: 12
RE: fanastic view of a furure reality - 10/11/2011 8:25:26 PM   
Dr Lenera


Posts: 4084
Joined: 19/10/2005
I rather liked it!

 The year is 2161. Genetic alteration has allowed humanity to develop a system where people stop aging 25 years after birth.  ’Living Time’ has replaced money as the standard currency and people must acquire more time after turning 25 years of age, or die within a year.  The poor live in the ghettos and work each day to earn a few more hours of life, which they must also use to pay for everyday necessities.  When 28 year old Will Salas helps Henry Hamilton, who has lived to 105 and flaunts it,  escape from gangsters who steal people’s time by force,  Hamilton tells him that there is enough time for everyone, but it is being stockpiled by the rich in New Greenwich, who can live for centuries and beyond.  After transferring his remaining time to Will, he commits suicide.   Will then sees his mother die from running out of time, and swearing revenge,  goes to New Greenwich, determined to somehow set things right, but the Timekeepers are on his trail…………..

One of the best things about Science Fiction is that it allows for considerable social comment about important issues, while coating it in fantastical trappings so it becomes more acceptable and more easily assimilated by the general public, not to mention getting around controversy!  The genre has a proud history of this, going back to The Twilight Zone and even further back to the novels of H.G.Wells.  In Time is set in a future where the rich get richer and do everything they can to keep the poor, who get poorer, in their place, such as constantly raising the cost of living.  Replace ‘Living Time’ with something called ‘Money’, and you don’t have to be camped outside St Paul’s Cathedral to see that this is very much commenting on and indeed criticising the way our Capitalist society is going at the moment.  Fortunately, it’s also quite an entertaining thriller, so it never comes across as a political polemic.

Even by reading the synopsis of the first third, you will probably notice echoes of many recent futuristic-set movies such as Equilibrium and writer/director Andrew Niccol’s [who also wrote the brilliant The Truman Show] earlier Gattaca, as well some older ones such as Logan’s Run.  Nothing especially wrong with this, as long as the film still has its own feel, and In Time just about manages to have that, but unfortunately there are also elements of this year’s dreadful The Adjustment Bureau, in the ‘Time Keepers’ that exist to ensure time doesn’t change and chase our hero and heroine all over the place.  Still, unlike that film, the inane dialogue is kept to a minimum and there is a fair bit of tension, especially during some quite nail-biting scenes where time seems to be literally running out.  The pace is fairly leisurely in the first half but its plot moves quickly from scene to scene, and takes in different tonal changes throughout. The movie is initially quite bleak, with two sad deaths within five minutes, but when Will visits New Greenwich things become lighter, as Will enjoys himself doing some of the things we would probably if we had tons of money – staying in a lush hotel, gambleing, buying and driving around in a swich car, etc.  The film eventually reveals itself to be in part an action movie, with Will and Sylvia Wies, the rebellious rich man’s daughter he hooks up with, going on the run, but you may feel like cheering when they break into time banks and give time away to poor folk, Robin Hood-style.  Sadly the romance, replete with kidnapped falling for kidnapper, goes through motions with have all seen hundreds of times before and never convinces.

The future portrayed here is a very believable one.  Shorn of most of the trappings you might expect to see, it’s much like our time, only that some areas are more deserted.  The main colour schemes are white, indicating perhaps the sterility of life in this future, and a sickly yellow, showing maybe the sickness?  The yellow, in particular, is everywhere, from outdoors at night in the slums to the interior of the casino, perhaps saying that the rich folk may think they have a better existence than the poor but are actually wrong.   Cinematographer Roger Deakins works wonders with these two main colours, especially during some nocturnal car driving where the bright white headlights of the vehicles contrast beautifully with the yellow bathing their surroundings.  Action-wise there are two short but pretty exciting car chases, some shooting and so much running around that I wondered it Justin Timberlake is out to become the new Tom Cruise.  Niccol directs these sequences very well, with editing that is nice and fast without going the ludicrous way of the majority of action filmking these days.

Timberlake botches a scene where he has to break down and cry, but otherwise fares well and certainly has charisma.  Maybe one day he’ll be a good enough actor for me to forgive the music he inflicted upon us.  Amanda Seyfried is merely adequate, as usual.  Cillian Murphy seems in this movie to be channelling Christopher Walken in the way he movies and even speaks, and that’s just fine with me, because it ensures that, as it is with Walken, you can’t take your eyes off him when he is on screen.  In Time is full of good things but it never quite becomes the really good movie I feel it is sometimes on the verge of becoming.  There is a feeling of holding back, and while some films benefit from not having everything explained, I think this one would have been better with some more detail.  Still, it’s a worthy effort, certainly worth your time, and by the way I don’t think it merits a ‘12’ rating; a PG would be fine.  Young people should see more films like this, which will entertain them but also make them think, and, in holding up a mirror to the world around them, may even make more of them want to change it.


check out more of my reviews on

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 13
3.5 Stars for this.... - 14/11/2011 7:27:34 AM   


Posts: 83
Joined: 22/1/2008
From: Ireland
I was actually surprised at how good this film was, I went in with an open mind as I have hated that last 2 or 3 films were JT was the lead, but he is surprisingly good in this film. There are 1 or 2 strong emotional scenes. Cillian Murphy reminded me of a young Al Pacino in this film. There were a few bits towards the end that made no sense......(Spoiler) Were the homless shelter was giving out the free time towards the end, and people lined up to take what the handout, rather than rush to steal more for themselves. I would recommend this movie if you are looking for a sci-fi "twiglight free" few hrs in the cinema. "Who has the time for a girlfriend these days"......haha.....

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 14
Just plain stupid - 15/11/2011 8:40:51 AM   


Posts: 4
Joined: 28/2/2006
This is not a good movie - it's tragic.

It's tragic how they managed to f... up such a great idea. The acting is bad, the script has plotholes you could drive a truck through.

And there are just so many things in this movie that doesn't makes sense. Why do the police drive in vintage cars and look like SS officers?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 15
This Film is OUT of Time HAW! - 17/11/2011 1:25:57 AM   


Posts: 2
Joined: 13/3/2010
Three stars? If I could smack you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper I would, Helen.
It was very adamant that we should all "Ooh" and "Aah" at its ridiculously clever concept but didn't really drip feed it to keep us interested. Inception comes to mind as a great example of this. Keep us guessing for the first ten minutes then make with the exposition. A rather silly sounding JT voiceover explaining everything in the first minute of the movie really didn't suck me in.
Then we have the crap acting, insulting plotholes and a very bizzare Bonnie and Clyde situation emerging. Clunky, badly paced and just plain rubbish.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 16
Really, truly, amazingly - 17/11/2011 12:22:14 PM   


Posts: 31
Joined: 4/2/2010
awful. Boring, slow and stupid with a lazy script, flat performances and complacent direction. Looking past the God-awful fake car crash, the effects are ok but it doesn't make up for wasting what started out as a good concept. Don't waste your time on this waste of money.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 17
RE: In Time - 24/11/2011 8:39:15 PM   


Posts: 41
Joined: 25/8/2007
After reading some of these comments I'm almost ashamed to say that I rather liked it. One always has to suspend disbelief when watching science ficton, and also to accept that the film-makers haven't got elastic budgets, so sometimes effects may be a bit ropey. I found nothing to complain about here. Sure Cillian Murphy looked over 25, and sometimes as if he would rather be somewhere else, but I thought the resonance with the current divisions in our society made this film really quite relevant.. And Amanda Seyfreid wasn't as annoying as I expected her to be!
A solid 3 stars.


If you can dodge traffic, you can dodge a ball

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 18
Maybe in time... - 4/12/2011 12:49:24 AM   


Posts: 52
Joined: 9/5/2006
Maybe in time Timberlake will be a good actor. A good one. not a great one. But he is not now and he brings this whole movie down with him.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 19
- 20/1/2012 10:29:21 PM   


Posts: 105
Joined: 21/4/2008
Don't waste your time...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 20
garbage - 3/2/2012 5:17:03 PM   

Posts: 387
Joined: 7/2/2009
first 20mins slightly interesting,, the rest slow, dull and what was murphy thinking!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 21
garbage - 3/2/2012 5:17:07 PM   

Posts: 387
Joined: 7/2/2009
first 20mins slightly interesting,, the rest slow, dull and what was murphy thinking!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 22
RE: garbage - 22/3/2012 12:44:48 PM   
Vitamin F


Posts: 563
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Norn Ireland, so it is

A nice idea, but the most god-awful direction, execution, acting...pretty much everything!
Just terrible, and has squandered what could have been a great story. Everyone can (and has) done much better work.

(in reply to mclane1)
Post #: 23
Great Stuff! - 27/5/2012 10:16:29 AM   


Posts: 87
Joined: 26/4/2009
I was suprise that this movie was fresh and had a new concept. NOw we know the value of time!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 24
Out of time - 30/5/2012 3:53:02 PM   


Posts: 2
Joined: 19/7/2006
Missed this at the cinema, caught it on blu-ray. Just how frustrating can a film be? What a brilliant premise...but then everything else about it be so poor? From Gattaca to In Time is not a great move. Hopefully, one day someone will re-make it with a good script and decent actors

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 25
'Time blah blah time blah time blah blah' - 15/6/2012 10:42:34 AM   

Posts: 665
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Star Lite Star Bright Trailer Park
Horrible, horrible, really fucking awful script. Everything else was only slightly better. Mediocre, bordering on turgid.

I mean, we understand that time is a theme but does every single character have to say the word every other line?

< Message edited by gunstar -- 15/6/2012 10:46:25 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> In Time Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI