In Time

I don't know about you but looking down at the reviews there seem to be an overwhelming amount of negative responses. I was completely disheartened by this.

In my opinion, In Time was an original well written and well acted and truly thought provoking production and I loved it. The fact that it subtly questioned our morality and made us question real world issues such as poverty and political stance was just one of the things that made me love this movie.

To the people who dislike the feature and to those negative reviews which I have read I have a few responses. Firstly, I saw a point about not enough back story into the body clock. The first thought that struck me was really? The movie is not centred around the body clock, and furthermore throughout the film we are told of its uses and get to a fairly good understanding to how it works. Do you not agree that any more back story would waste time and most likely just bore the typical viewer? Finally to those who disliked the acting and script I strongly disagree. I though both Justin and Amanda played there parts very well and there chemistry was as good as any action film I have scene.

I would highly recommend this film to anyone, and suggest if you haven't already seen it you should definitely make some time if you think you will enjoy this movie.

If there's something instantly captivating about a movie - it's when the idea's new. In "In Time", the plot revolves around the interesting idea that time is the new currency and rules the world like the Dollar once used to. The poor must fight to live for a few days, the rich are practically immortal.

This could have become a new scifi milestone, if it wasn't for the poorly executed script, stiff acting and highly predictable plot. The scenes are thrown together and feel like reenacted from typical "Bonnie and Clyde", "Romeo and Juliet", two against the world and enemy of the state type movies. None of the scenes seem original or well executed. Actions and reactions by the actors seem unnatural or rushed, unrealistic even. Some character development just feels plain wrong. Not because of the plot, but because the characters don't seem to be portrayed very well. Although a scifi movie, realism is still necessary. "In time" shows a world that is not believable and many scenes seem straight stupid.

It's not a great movie. If not for the cool plot idea and the likable main character, it wouldn't be worth watching at all. But if you want to see a world, albeit fake, where people fight over time to survive, give it a go.

I had the privilege of watching this movie earlier than most people in the world because its released early in Malaysia, to profit from Deepavali public holiday crowd on 26 Oct.

The story is simple. Time is the commodity in the future. But the best part is how the filmmaker show the audience how to use this commodity in normal everyday life. How much time you pay for certain things, where to get extra time, etc. Simply brilliant.

I never cared too much about Timberlake before, but his performance in Social Network caught my attention, and In Time further proves that he can act. The pace can be quite a drag here and there, but its full of suspense all the way, many chase scenes and all.

For those of you who are tired of prequels, sequels, three-quels, superheros, robots, aliens, etc, give In Time a shot, its definitely worth your time. The most original movie this year. 109 minutes is a commodity well-spent.

A very unusual film screen-play, well written and shot, don't expect any CGI effects here, this is a very down to Earth sci-fi that bears more than a passing resemblance to our current problem with world banks. Surprisingly Justin Timberlake puts in a very professional performance, and not a song in sight, Timberlake carries the part with a very grounded performance being so laid back that he is almost horizontal. Amanda Seyfried submits a polished performance although her make-up makes her look like one of those Japanese animations of what a European looks like, complete with over-sized eyes. The film holds the attention from the first to the last frame and provokes some emotion from the viewer on several levels. Certainly worth a watch, not quite a Rolex, but much better than a Timex.

In the world of "In Time", time is money. Literally. Set in a future where everybody ages until 25, then they have one year left to live, except that one year is currency. The rich can live at age 25 eternally and the poor don't always have a chance to live. Time zones are classes of wealth and you can't cross over without upsetting the order of the world. It's quite possible that they have taken this time is money equation too far.

But I enjoyed this twist on the same old action movie. It even starts with some thoughts on philosophy. A rich boy finds himself in a poor man's bar where everybody wants a piece of him, so much so that his considerable wealth and time line are in danger. While the poor are in constant need of money, it turns out that the rich don't have the same drives for life. This rich guy is impressed by Will's (Justin Timberlake) honesty and earnest desire to find out how the other side lives. Will is then faced with the possibility of an infinite life time of money.

From there, we get a Robin Hood action movie. Will pairs up with a daddy's girl vixen, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) and they are on the run from the time keepers (Cillian Murphy). I have enjoyed Timberlake's recent foray into the world of movie stars, but I like him more as a comedic straight man than as an action hero. Seyfried, on the other hand, proves that she can play pretty much anything. A mysteriously innocent, sharp-shooting, sexy action girl suits her well.

The logic that this new world presents is pretty easy to figure out, but as you are doing that at least you are distracted from the usual action movie set-up. Hollywood has ventured again into the science fiction romance genre, and has again come out with an intelligent, action-packed film with something for everyone.