shamsuzzohan

(2012-04-28 20:41:17)

Poor storyline

The dumbest science fiction ever. The story line tried to replace moneywith the time. Everyone has an allocated amount of time for theirliving. They can earn, lend or borrow times from and to others. That isthe whole idea of the film. The second half of the film tried todevelop a concept of digital robin hood. However, the idea that totallyfailed in this film is that the time transaction cannot be comparedwith that of the money. Because, in real life, money is being safelyprotected everywhere but in this film, anyone could have stolen moneyfrom others without any effort. Bank robbery was so easy that just onetruck could have broken a whole bank vault and stolen all the moneykept. The core sci-fi base of this film along with the concept ofestablishing a robin hood are total failures. Except Amanda Seyfried,everyone was pathetic in their acting. Nevertheless, I have writtenhere about my opinion, hope mass viewers will like the film as a whole.

Jordan Davis

(2012-04-28 03:34:23)

http://tgtbtw.blogspot.com/

From the Director of sci-fi classic, Gattaca(1997), and The TrumanShow(1998), Andrew Niccol creates a unique story about a world whereeveryone is genetically engineered to live only a year after their 25thbirthday. Although the government controls the population, there is away to live past 25. The way to do this is to do whatever you can toget enough currency to continue to live past that final year. What thisdoes, is it creates a survival of the fittest, and only the strongestand smartest who can obtain enough currency to survive, leaving theweaker to stop living. Time has become the new currency, and if youbecome wealthy enough, you can theoretically become immortal. Niccolwrote a wonderful story, with an underlying tone of today's government,and how banks in our society today have way to much control and power,and ultimately credit is what has driven us to such lows. We live in aworld where money controls everything, and if you have enough money,you can only get richer. I can definitely see this film becoming thetopic of many essays in film classes, economic classes, and probablyeven some government courses. The film has a many messages throughout,for us to learn from.Although some might say that the casting choices were not the best inthe film, I believe that Justin Timberlake did a perfect job playingthe main role in this film. He showed that he is worthy of playingserious roles, when he played Frankie in Alhpa Dog(2006), and he did agood job in Southland Tales(2006) as well. After seeing both of thosemovies, I figured he would be great in this film, and to my surprise heactually is improving; he has come a long way from the lead singer inNsync. Another great actor is Cillian Murphy, who is what the filmcalls "timekeepers". He is in charge of making sure that all time isaccounted for, and that no illegal time trading is going on. Althoughfor me, Murphy always plays great villains, he does a good job ofbringing his eeriness he has, and blends it well with this role.My biggest problem with the film was the use of the word immortal.There were a couple points in the film where a few characters had thechance to kill someone over how much time they had on their arm. Therich people with centuries on their arm, claim to be immortal and eventend to flaunt the fact that they are immortal. This makes no sensebecause the time on their arm, is simply how much time they have untiltheir heart stops. That time has nothing do with the fact that you canstill die from a stab wound, gunshot, etc. Everyone in the film istrying to get more time on their arm so they can feel immortal, butthey can never be immortal, they are still human. Maybe I'm missingsomething here, but the scene where Will is holding the gun to Mr. Weishead, and he saying how he is immortal, Will should have just shot himright there, proving he is not immortal. I guess that was just the waythe film shows that the rich people who had all the time in the world,were really blinded by the time on their arm. I guess they did this tocompare to our society, where we are blinded by money constantly, whenin reality we should just enjoy our daily lives, and not have to worryabout money so much. Also the ending to me felt a little rushed, andseemed like nothing really got resolved. I don't want to spoil theending here, but I feel like they could have come up with something alittle more clever.All in all, In Time is a fun sci-fi film that does not involve muchthinking to watch. Still a great film to watch at least once, and I'llprobably watch it again sometime down the road. If your on the fenceabout watching In Time, just give it a shot, its not to long either,just over 90 minutes, but I will say that this is not up to par withNiccol's other movies like The Truman Show(1998), or Gattaca(1997), inmy opinion. Rating: 5/10

smexymelly

(2012-04-26 13:12:00)

Best Movie of 2011

I've been watching a lot of movies lately and this one is by far myfavorite of 2011. I enjoyed how the currency was time and how it allmakes a great story. I've never seen a movie so exciting this year thatI was kept on the edge of my seat the whole time. The sad part is whenWill Salas's mum died, I knew it was coming but there was still thatlittle bit of chance of life since Will was on standby with 116 yearson him. It was laid out properly, unlike most movies I watch that justare to predictable. I absolutely love how the richest girl there hookedup with Will and how her kidnap became her adventure. I love Will'sreactions to all the new things that he never got from when he was poortoo. It was an amazing movie and I'm happy that I went to see it, can'twait to purchase it on DVD! THANK YOU for the wonderful experience! :)

classicalsteve

(2012-04-26 04:22:32)

If You Can Buy the Premise an Enjoyble Dystopian Story, 2 Hours Possibly Worth the Time

What if our bodies never aged passed 25, and we could conceivably liveforever? Obviously, this is a situation most people would probablydesire. Except, what if there was one hitch: that at the age of 25 weare given only one additional year to live, and the only means ofextending our lifetimes beyond that one year, passed the age of 26, isto trade time like money which is in turn used to trade for other goodsand services. A cup of coffee costs 4 minutes. A room in a sleazy hotelcosts two weeks, while one night in a luxury hotel costs 5 months. Aluxury car costs 50 years. A day's wage at a factory might give you afew days while working at a higher-end job can give you more. Richpeople can make hundreds if not thousands of years, while poor peopleare often scrabbling to add a few days, hours, sometimes a few minutes,trying to extend their lifetimes long enough to allow them to get "moretime". This is the premise of "In Time", in which commodities are nottraded with money but with lifetime.In this world, people can give their lifetime freely or may be forcedto give up their time by the government or thieves known as minute menwho mug people for their time. Time is usually not wasted but stored ondevices which can be transferred to others. The amount of time eachindividual has is shown on their left forearm through 13 digits. Somepeople have literally hundreds of years while others are continuallyscrambling to add days. Once the clock on the arm reaches 13 0's, theperson expires immediately. People can give time to each other byengaging in a kind of hand shake, although this can be done by force aswell.On the outset, it seems like a level playing field. But in thisdystopia, it isn't. The world is divided into Time Zones. The lowernumbered time zones are where people with thousands of years reside,while those in the higher time zones are in the equivalent of a ghettowhere people are constantly fighting for time. To keep the lowerclasses in their place, it costs a hefty toll to pass between timezones. Will Salas lives in Time Zone 12. His mother, who doesn't look aday passed 25, is celebrating her 50th birthday. Over the course of 25years, she's been able to add time, but like most people living on theedge, she has to take menial jobs to add time. On her 50th birthday,she doesn't have much time left according to her arm.Will goes to work, and upon check-out receives his pay, an increase intime reflected on his arm, although he complains his pay was lower thatday. After work, he goes to a bar and meets someone from one of thelower-numbered time zones. The new-comber shows his arm which indicateshe has over a century left. Will warns him he will be the target ofmuggers called minute men who will try to steal his time. He helps himescape, and later learns the man is 105 years old in real time,although this man says he's ready for his life to be over. They fallasleep, and the stranger gives Will a century of new life, leaves thepremises and dies shortly thereafter.Will now has over a century of life, but doesn't realize that there aregovernmental forces in place to keep "time" out of the hands of thelower classes. Using his gift, he enters into another time zone wherethe wealthy reside. He begins to mingle with the elite, some of whomhave hundreds if not thousands of years to spend on luxury cars, luxurymansions, and casino gambling. As one character put it "Many must diefor a few to be immortal". He meets an older gentleman Philippe Weis(Vincent Kartheiser of "Mad Men" fame) who is 75 years old, again wholooks very young. Weis owns time banks which loans out time at inflatedprices in the other time zones allowing him to be a kind of DonaldTrump of time. Weis invites Will into his circle and introduces him tohis daughter Sylvia Weis; unbeknownst to them Will is from the lowerclasses and wanted by the time police.The only aspect I felt was missing from "In Time" is a furtherexplanation of the nature of time itself and how it came to be tradedto buy commodities. We learn how the world works but are never told howthe technology came into being and if there was a time before whenlifetime wasn't traded. I expected a scene where maybe the two leadswould find out the inner workings of how this came to be. I alsowondered if there was a means of "turing off the clock" but the storynever questions its own premise.Still a very interesting idea and works if you buy into the premise.The analogy is maybe a little obvious, in the sense that we are allconstantly trying to buy time to some degree. The constant referencesof the prices of goods in terms of "time" are quite amusing, and donenaturally and tastefully. One of the best scenes is when Will engagesin a poker game in which the "time" stakes become very high.

queeniete-299-402348

(2012-04-24 10:10:47)

Excellent movie!

A very excellent movie, In Time is just as good as other popular sci-fimovies like Inception, Star Trek, Star Wars and a lot more. Not onlydid this movie make the watchers tingle on their seats but also teachthem some life lessons. I personally recommend this movie to those wholove the world of technology. I really liked this movie and it hasblown me off from the very beginning of the story.I could prove that this is an excellent movie for three reasons. First,it has very captivating effects. Every sci-fi movie needs to have goodeffects, or else they wouldn't be called sci-fi. This movie hassucceeded in capturing the eyes of many watchers. Second, the conceptof the movie is unique. Whoever thought of the plot has a very creativemind. True, it may seem unrealistic but still, the plot was veryappealing and definitely worth watching. Lastly, the morals watcherscould get from this movie. It shows us that discrimination between therich and poor still exists, even in the future. Watchers can relate tothis since that discrimination is still evident in the present. It alsoimplies that not all the wealthy succeed in the end.I hope that the movie industry would make movies like this one. It willsurely bring success to the entertainment industry and perhaps, changethe world of technology.

EarlKeim

(2012-04-23 22:38:47)

Great idea, poor execution

This movie deals with something we all want in our daily lives: moretime. People bet minutes, hours, and even years of their lives in thesame manner in which we wager various amounts of money. The premise isvery unique, but the execution is terrible.Young Hollywood has a lot of talent, but they are all miscast in thisfilm. Timberlake is quite good in his portrayal: street/poor kidsuddenly faced with wealth/time. The rest of the cast though looks likechildren playing dress-up. The actors in the film have nosophistication or polish. The film looks thrown together as if it werefinished as quickly as possible. There is simply no star power to befound. From scene change to scene change, I could not have cared less what washappening. A good film could be made with a young cast, but this is notone of them. Think of a modern classic with Anthony Hopkins and EmmaThompson, and then recast it with the likes of Zac Efron and HilaryDuff. There is simply no compelling reason to continue watching orcaring. One of the pivotal plot points of this movie is the pursuit ofyouth, but the reasoning behind it feels weak. If you want to bored,then you should watch this film. Ask yourself afterward how it couldhave been fixed, if only the production company had more........time.

Paspro

(2012-04-11 10:51:09)

Typical Hollywood Treatment

This movie is based on a great science fiction concept of a futuristicsociety which uses "life time" as money. This idea could have resultedin a superb movie, an intelligent critique of the Darwinian nature ofthe capitalist system which is very relevant to today's artificialfinancial crisis. This is something that only science fiction canaccomplish so effectively and in a manner that shocks the viewer, inthis case exposing the absurdity of the monetary system by linking itwith the fundamental concept of life itself. One can see how successfulthis approach can be with other science fiction books/movies like"1984" and "Fahrenheit 451". A thinking director and script writerwould have taken advantage of such a brilliant basic idea and theywould have created a great science fiction movie. Instead we get thetypical Hollywood treatment of a Bonnie & Clyde action flick, withgangsters, car chases, shooting and running, all under an uninspiringdirection and no substance. What a waste of precious time this movieis!

jamsijamsi

(2012-04-10 20:15:37)

The Deteriorating Effects - In Time - Of Inexperience

Allowing an idea to govern - inside one on beforehand astute andinnovative script - weakens the end result considerably.I realise one cannot expect Oscar winning achievements of a castconsisting of teens barely entered puberty. But it all feels sohigh-school-drama-class as you TRY to believe statements from one youthafter another claiming to be, and trying to act, as humans withimmanent experience of 75-year olds...Perphaps the casting crew should have focused more on skilled andtalented young actors, rather than pulchritude alike, the latter - inmodern media - often infesting and eventually diluting any kind ofproduction line hoping for sustaining exceptional and widespreadpopularity and achieve enormous sales; a blockbuster.This is sad, since this production has the very basics of a potentialsci-fi classic: A fresh and clean idea of future aesthetics, fittingthe physical and psychological environment.I'm sure this entrance in the movie history books wan't be a total boxoffice bomb (the target group being easily persuaded teens willguarantee expense coverage, at least), but I'm equally certain theproducers will have hoped for more than that. In time.

artie412

(2012-04-03 08:07:16)

Surprisingly (shockingly) good . . .

I should have learned that when it comes to thoughtful, original,creative "speculative fiction" films, that many of the brain deadreviewers would dismiss IN TIME.BIG mistake. Epic fail.IN TIME is one of the best concepts of any movie I've ever seen, and Ihave a chunk of decades behind me. If it were not for the relativelybland handling of the love story elements, I would give this film a 10.The dystopian "feel" of IN TIME is similar to that of GATTACA, also anAndrew Niccol film.That IN TIME is an effective metaphor on the current world state ofcapitalism and class structure, and other deeper issues should notpreclude going for the sheer action/drama thrills of popcorn moviedom.Open your mind, get a large popcorn and enjoy IN TIME. Your brain andheart will appreciate it.

g_muppet

(2012-04-02 19:18:31)

Not too bad

Seyfried is very good, her character is credible; Timberlake's not somuch, he is too detached. I would give her 9/10 and him 6/10. Murphy'scop is pretty good, too. I cannot decide on the banker, I keep seeinghim as his character in Mad Men. The local bad guy and his gang need anupgrade to be more believable. The movie plot is good but some of thetechnological advances are far-fetched when compared to other aspectsof the world these people live in. There are other minor "glitches",such as the girl who shoots so well from a distance the first time butthen apparently needs to learn how to fire a gun. Anyway, I think thismovie is a message to politicians -- not that I expect any of them towatch it.

changmoh

(2012-03-24 19:32:58)

"In Time" Quickly Becomes a 'Waste of Time'

When film distributors slap an embargo on the reviews of critics, itusually means that the movie in question stinks so much that they don'twant bad reviews to mar the movie's opening. This one was embargoeduntil the day it opened (Oct 26) - and you guessed it, it stinks. Thepremise, about time as currency, is flimsy at best - and it provokesmore questions than answers.The premise: It's the future and it's a world where time is literallybeing used as money. Aging somehow stops at 25, and the only way tostay alive is to earn, steal, or inherit more time. Will Salas (JustinTimberlake) lives from hand to mouth in a slum-like sector of the city,until a windfall of time gives him access to the world of the wealthyand powerful.There, he meets beautiful young heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried)and they team up to become a futuristic Bonnie & Clyde, despite beingrelentlessly pursued by a 'Timekeeper' cop (Cillian Murphy).The sci-fi world where people stop aging at 25 - is novel andattractive, until you start thinking about the mechanics of it. One ofthe most disturbing is the LED timer embedded in the left hand ofeveryone. Is this timer embedded at birth? If so, it is curious how itstays on when the child grows up. What if the timer is discarded beforethe age of 25? Will the person die at once? People transfer time byclasping each other's hands and even in arm-wrestling. How does theexchange really work, especially in cases of robbery? These questionsmar our acceptance of the movie's premise - and makes the whole ideatrashy. And even if we can overlook this set-up, the main plot of Willand Sylvia robbing banks of their time and giving it away sounds soimplausible that we feel cheated. Will has spent his whole lifefighting for time and he has even lost his mother (played by OliviaWilde as Rachel) because of just a few seconds. To see him squanderingit in that Robin Hood manner is just bad writing and poor motivation.Timberlake and Seyfried are acceptable in their Bonnie & Clyde roles,complete with a titillating underwater scene. Basically, they just needto look macho and sexy respectively, and they succeed in this. Murphy,as expected, shines in his portrayal of a 'time sheriff' where he ispart villain and part hero! Thanks to him, there is at least anemotional side to the whole movie. Otherwise, it is a sheer waste oftime. (Full review at limchangmoh.blogspot.com)

Bernard Brlek

(2012-03-24 05:49:57)

Sci-fi modern Robin hood

The facts in this movie are not logical is just annoying me! Steaminghot ocean, when they crashed with the convertible car they didn't fallout, the guard did not notice an extra guard.I could not even watchthis movie to the end. This is a movie for people with IQ < 85. My wifefall asleep watching this movie, so I guess she also did not like it.But I like the idea of this movie it's really fresh, and the acting ofthe main characters was not so bad either, but the rest of the actorsneed to work harder on the acting. Ambient of the movie is good. Ifthere only had get the facts more logical this movie would get a greatgrade from me.PS Sorry for my poor English.

andell

(2012-03-18 16:34:03)

The Social Commentary is obvious...but the film still stands out well!

It's interesting that this film is coming out now, as the "Occupy"movement is raging in several cities around the world. It couldn't bemore opportune for a film like this, which makes an obvious statementabout the concentration of resources in the hands of a few, and thepain and complexity the creates in the lives of the many.Justin Timberlake is impressive as Will Salas, a 28 year old man who ischronically living day to day, literally, due to the fact that he wasborn in a slum, in a world where your life span is the only currencyout there. Of course we are left with no doubt that although he feelsthe pressure acutely, he is still very generous to the people in hiscommunity.One night at a local bar, Will happens to meet Henry Hamilton (MattBomer), a man who has lots of time, but is weary after having livingfor more than a century already. Will saves Henry from a gang of timehustlers known as "Minute Men" by hiding out in a factory. It is there,after Will sleeps, that Henry empties his clock of all but 5 minutes,topping up Will's life span before leaving to secure a poetic end forhimself.Will all this time on his clock, Will gives some to his drunkardfriend, and intends to use much of the rest to treat his 50 year oldMother Rachel (Olivia Wilde), only to get to her too late to preventher from "timing out" for good. Devastated by her loss, Will decides towork to help others and shake up the system.Along the way, Will is pursued Timekeeper Leon (played effectively byCillian Murphy) and by Fortis (supurbly played by the gorgeous AlexPettyfer) and his Minute Men gang. While trying to evade both men andtheir factions, Will takes rich girl Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried)hostage...which turns into a romance There are some scenes that are funto watch...among the funnest for me was the showdown between Will andFortis. Fortis and his men capture Will and Sylvia, and as he washolding a personal grudge, Fortis decides to fight Will, man to man, asthey do it in that futuristic day. Of course little does Fortis knowthat Will learned how to fight from his Father...and before he knowsit, his men are shot dead, and Fortis himself is "timed out" (or inother words, killed) by Will. It is an excellent scene in a very goodfilm! The film itself however works because the commentary is so relevant:Will sees the system for it's cruelty, but as he works to change it,he's unable to do it without the help of Sylvia. Timekeeper Leon wasonce in the ghetto like Will, and he seems to be a fair man, but hebelieves that the system is the best one available to THIS society atTHIS time...so it's best to uphold it and accept it. Fortis is thescumbag criminal (albeit gorgeous) who plays dirty and cannibalizes hisown community to get ahead...so he likes the system because it lets himdo what he wants to do. Sylvia is the curious and insulated branch ofaffluence who knows the system is unfair, but is unsure of how tochange it.Check out this film...it's certainly worth it!

lilmartha1-1

(2012-03-18 06:06:03)

Breathlessly

This film is a delight. It restores my faith in the ability ofcontemporary film makers to pick up where Godard and Arthur Penn leftoff with Bonnie and Clyde and Breathless. Because the City in the Movieis not identified as LA. and because the zones are either New Greenwichor Dayton, the author who stated there is a goof, didn't understandthis is a fictional place not a real one. Therefore, no goof! Thisstory is a time machine! Lastly, Harlan Ellison wrote a terrific story(repent Harlequin cried the tick-tock man) about time as a commodity andthe obsession with time, therefore , the auteur of this film must haveread that story and improved upon it in a very fetching and fun way.

toot_sweet99

(2012-03-15 20:40:17)

Timberlake ruined it!

In my view, the concept of In Time was brilliant! This idea that wephysically live around time (which we do in real life), the way therich and poor (Ghetto) was structered and how time is organised aroundthe rich and poor, altogether was fantastic, a real eyecatcher.However, Timberlakes presence and false acting really ruined it for me,I dislike him as a singer and think he is a rubbish actor. The scenewhen he explains when his time 'started', the dramatic pound he felt,was over exaggerated. Even though Olivia Wilde wasn't in it for long, Ifelt she upstaged him completely. I wasn't a fan on the little woman(Amanda Seyfried) either, but that's the Hollywood narrative for you.Saying this, the casting of the time keeper Cillian Murphy was fab!Overall the Film had such an interesting concept, but the star castingover who would fit the role let it down. It's just a shame Hollywoodgot a hold of the script before an independent company.

kgmarra

(2012-03-15 15:07:03)

Great idea. Poorly executed.

Live forever or die trying. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried starin the new sci-fi action film "In Time". Will Salas (Timberlake) andSilvia Weis (Seyfried) live in a futuristic world where time is thecurrency. In this world, people stop aging at 25. Once they turn 25,they only have one year to live, unless they find a way to get moretime.Will lives in the ghetto where people constantly are timing out(running out of time and dying), while Silvia lives in New Greenwichwhere people have centuries. It's extremely dangerous to have too muchtime; those with centuries are usually accused of stealing and areimmediately killed.When Will is accused of murder, he takes Silvia hostage and they runfrom the timekeeper (Cillian Murphy). Several times, they findthemselves cutting it close with only seconds left on their clocks.The concept is extremely unique and innovative, which made me think itwas going to be an "Inception"-type film. However, it was disappointingto see "In Time" fall short of my expectations. It pains me to saythis, but Justin Timberlake should not have been chosen for the role ofWill Salas. He just can't pull off the character of a tough guy fromthe ghetto. Amanda Seyfried is decent as Silvia, but she and Timberlakedon't have much chemistry.I also don't think the script was very well written, which causesTimberlake and Seyfried to be even less believable as their characters.In addition, the characters are not developed enough; it's difficult toget a sense of whom these people, from opposite worlds, really are.I found myself checking my watch multiple times throughout the movie. Iwas distracted and the movie felt much longer than it actually is. Forall of these reasons, I give "In Time" a 6 out of 10. Great idea.Poorly executed.

Sam Watts

(2012-03-10 15:09:08)

A rehash of rehashed hash.

Spending my hard earned money at the movies is usually not my firstchoice for entertainment. Especially with some of the turkeys thatHollywood is prone to produce. That being said, I actually had theopportunity to see In Time at a discount theater (it was a friend'schoice for his birthday). There was a part of me that really wanted toenjoy this film simply because of the occasion.I must admit, I really knew very little about it going into thetheater. Which was a good thing. Had I known it was Justin Timberlakewho had the lead role, I might have lobbied hard for Puss In Boots orsome other mindless offering. At least with a movie like that you knowwhat you are getting into. That being said, I was actually quitesurprised at Timberlake's performance. Ah, the joys of living with noexpectations...*** Spoiler Alert *** The one thing I couldn't help shake throughoutthe movie was this nasty relationship Hollywood has with Big Businessbeing the bad guy. In this story, like SOOO many stories you'll see inthe theaters, Big Business is the monster, and the poverty stricken andthe down trodden are the poor, helpless, mindless masses that need asavior. Listen, I have a heart, I feel the need... but I also have abrain and I know when I'm being spoon fed this pabulum... yet again.Everyone knows for a good plot you need a villain and a hero. Whetherit's a love story or a spy remake, there will always be the good guyand the bad. But for the life of me, I can't understand why the richand powerful, (i.e. Hollywood), love making the rich and powerful thebad guys ALL THE TIME.I will say there was one very insightful moment in the movie ***SpoilerAgain *** where as soon as all the people that live in the ghetto getall the time they need... they all stop working! There was actually avoice over commentary about the "Factories lying dormant" or somethingto that effect. This is one of the things my brain can't shut off. Nomatter how hard I try, I can't turn this off. I would love to see amovie at face value and walk away thinking, I just spent 15 - 30dollars and I'm in a better mood, or more relaxed, or filled withenergy, or whatever. Nevertheless there is one redeeming aspect to thismovie which I will get into shortly.But here the truth sneaks out. Hollywood's socialistic movers andshakers let their diamond studded, silken slips show - if but for amoment. THE POINT: If the president or king promises free housing, freehealth care, free food stamps, free clothing, and jobs for everybody...the question is, What do we need JOBS for? If you are gettingeverything you need, what more do you need to do? You get the point,right? I just thought it was a very INSIGHTFUL point that the factorieswere all shut down once the "redistribution" of time commenced.Oh well. I suppose if you want to see the exciting gymnastics of achase seen or the heady dialogue of a seasoned actor, you are justgoing to have to kiss a lot of frogs as a movie goer.(Sorry frogs, Ididn't mean to compare you so harshly!) It's a shame too. Because thereare so many good stories that have yet to be told. Why is it thatHollywood gets it wrong with the majority of Americans TIME AND TIMEAGAIN?! I just don't get it. They just love catering to the left, or tothe mindless, (which are not mutually exclusive), and when the moviefails to bring in the gross revenues they anticipate, they scratchtheir heads as if to say, "Gee, I didn't see that coming." To end it on a brighter note, the movie did offer one unbending nuggetof truth that we all must yield to... Time Is Short. We must all beaware of the fact that our time is limited- and we should make everyeffort in this life to live honorably and with gusto! I certainly don'thave a hard time with that.

davidshort10

(2012-03-09 20:16:38)

Such a stupid movie. Time equals money...Doh

How anyone not manacled to their seat could get through the whole ofthis entire movie is beyond me.At first, the idea that time is all everyone cares about and that theyhave this time clock on their forearm is interesting, but once you see(is this a spoiler coming up? I don't think so, but look away) thempunching in time after work and spending time on various things, ie itis money, then so what? So you get rich people in different time zones(neighbourhoods0 who have lots of time.Well, richer people have always lived longer.And what is the motivation of the timekeepers, who are given only a dayat a time? I just cannot go on. Some many holes in the whole thing. Notleast, we don't care if anyone lives or dies in this, and the 'English'villain is such a ponce and a wimp. When will Hollywood give up giving 'English' accents to its villains.You got rid of us English a long time ago. Where the hell did you thinkmany of you came from? Get over it.We won't mention the fact that it was you guys who, once there withoutus, erm, did you know what, as you took over the north Americancontinent for yourselves.Casting an Englishman as a villain in movies can't rewrite history.Anyway, this is just such a stupid film.

DarkVulcan29

(2012-03-06 05:26:05)

Out Of Time

In the not to distant future, where on your is measured on how long youhave to live, you don't age past 25, that is when your time is up,unless you can buy more time. Now the rich have all the time in theworld, there almost immortal. A young man named Will(JustinTimberlake), who's time is just about up, rescues a man who has acentury on his arm, from gangsters, who are called Minute Men. Whentakes the man to a safe place, but the man does not like the life ofimmortality, and switches times with Will, while he was asleep, thenext day the guy dies, and Will has a century on his arm. Will decidesto use it his advantage, but happens when a cop(Cilliam Murphy) knownhas a timekeeper stumbles upon him? Justin Timberlake does alright, but does not quite have the actingchops, to pull it off, Joesph Gordon Levitt probably would have been abetter choice. Amanda Seyfried who I'm amazed still has a career afterRed Riding Hood, is only in it for sex appeal nothing more. CillianMurphy is pretty good in his role, so is Vincent Kartheisher(Angel, MadMen). I was hoping for something like Gattica(1998), It just annoyinglykept changing it's tone.

thomasajjouri

(2012-03-05 22:50:27)

A awesome idea wasted

I honestly didn't know what to give this movie. The idea is trulyawesome and the movie is actually entertaining, which for me is perhapsthe most important thing. But at the same time it could have been somuch better.The main problem is simply that it is insanely unrealistic. Forexample: why has the CELLPHONE been uninvented? They don't exist in themovie. Only phonebooths :/ The death of the mother could have beeneasily prevented with a simple phone call or SMS. And why on earth isthe security in general so weak? It is WAY too easy for them to robbanks and do whatever they want. Just one guy and one girl withhandguns. Why hasn't someone done it before? If I knew I was going todie in a few hours unless I robbed a bank or something I think I wouldat least TRY it. Would you? Doesn't make any sense at all! So in theend I'll give it 6 because the idea was great and the movie kept meentertained. But besides that I think it was a waste of a really goodidea...