Home > Action >

In Time

In Time (2011)

October. 28,2011
| Action Thriller Science Fiction

In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a corrupt police force known as 'time keepers'.


Watch Trailer


Similar titles


Vlado Vladimirow

It has been a wasted, mediocre overturned film due to its potentially low budget.System criticism is great. I do not have a word for him, but it's bad. If there is a race against time they should run normal but constantly running. It starts from somewhere and then starts to fancy. There are two serious logic mistakes.There is not even one security guard in the bank you go to. 2 people are doing robbery in the elina arm. Latter; What did you break into so much protection? How did they not notice you? I wish I could have big directors and high budget. It could have been a masterpiece.


I just saw "In Time" again for the third time or so, and it's my new favorite movie. It's hard science-fiction, much harder than most. The future doesn't look like "the future" at all, but more like the 1970s. The cops drive 1970 Dodge Chargers, not goofy electric golf- carts. There are phone booths, no cell phones, and the Internet is not a major force in anyone's life. No one is emigrating to Mars, as in "Gattaca (1997)" -- also written by Andrew Nicol -- and there are certainly no star-ships, and no space aliens. The single technology that has gone forward is medicine, and that life clock thing, naturally. "No one dies; no one gets sick." That's the thing that makes it "hard" science-fiction; it resists throwing a bunch of stuff on the wall, instead holding tightly to its premise. Because of the immortality-with-a-price premise and the 1970s action-movie styling, comparisons to "Logan's Run (1976)" are unavoidable. Whereas "Logan's Run" envisioned a future where we got everything we ever wished for, only to see it wind down, "In Time" envisions a sort of stagnant future that one rarely imagines in a movie, not even obviously dystopian, just stagnant. This is what I love about the movie: it's not really about immortality at all, but about Economic Fascism. In the movie, people have jobs making widgets, making just enough to live day to day. Prices are methodically inflated so that no one gets ahead. There's no upward mobility whatsoever. It's like "1984", except Economics (with the help of that clock thing) does all the work of the secret police. It's a metaphor for our modern post-2008-crash economy. This movie reminds me a bit of "The Island (2005)", which I also liked, a big difference being that there's no "secret". The characters in "In Time" tacitly consent to their situation. This is a fast-paced, beautiful action-adventure science-fiction film with a brilliant premise, destined to be a cult classic. Hollywood, please make more movies like this.

Alan Smithee Esq.

I avoided this movie because I judged a book by it's cover. Sci-fi action thriller where the minutes and hours of your life are literally currency that people will kill for. That sounds interesting, oh but it's got Justin Timberlake in it. No thanks. I was wrong. Not only does the fast paced plot keep you fully engaged but JT holds his own, Amanda S does her thing and Cillian Murphy steals the show. It's well written, well acted and wonderfully directed. The visuals are soo good that you could turn off the sound and watch it.


Too many glaring plot holes really screws this movie out of any enjoyment value for me. I can't stand it when the reasons for a characters actions aren't adequately explained. (Perhaps if the story was better I wouldn't have had time to pick it apart.)IN TIME posits that time is now the world's currency. Everyone carries around their life's savings displayed as a digital clock in their arm. Anyone can take or give you 'life' by merely clasping your arm. If this was the case, I think murders and muggings wouldn't be restricted to a couple of 'minutemen' (hoodlums) driving around in a car. Every single street corner would have someone who, about to run out of time, was primed to steal your time.The premise states that all people born are immortal; genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. This sounds great until we're told that this age marker initiates a countdown starting at 1 year worth of time. If your counter reaches zero you die, instantly and painlessly.All income and payments for goods and services in this new world are applied in time units. The ultra-rich have thousands of hours on their clocks and the corporation they run manipulate what time is worth in order to control the population of workers.Several things really bothered me about this premise. How do people live until they are 25 if their clock doesn't start until then? How do they perform the transactions needed to purchase food or receive wages? I saw one child begging for money (time) using a 'cassette', but that scene only opened up more questions. I can see why the film glossed over the problem.With only a few Timekeepers wandering around, crime would have been rampant. Look how easily 2 people could take what they wanted from the time loan banks and even from the Greenwich ultra-rich.What could have made this film better? I would have had Will download the million years into his arm which would make his clock malfunction. He would then download his malfunction to every person he could, and ask them to do the same, starting a chain reaction. This would be the start of a revolution. That's as far as I want to go without rewriting the book but it would have been a more satisfying ending in my opinion.