Visitors Review

born-r (2012-05-24 13:10)

Nice starting plot, bad unfolding story

"In Time" is a 2011 film directed and written by Andrel Nicoll, andwhich stars Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in the lead roles.The story is about a dystopian future where people live to 25 years,stopping the aging process by this age, but that is the limit age oflife and they may live only another year after that. When they turn 25,by some means of biotechnology, a fluorescent green marker appears onthe right wrist, that shows the remaining lifetime. In this future(which is similar in part to our own world), instead of money, theexchange of lifetime between the people is used to buy things, paysalaries and everything else.There are a kind of police in this future, called Time Guardians whocontrol everything, and investigate cases of theft of time: this isnecessary, for the world and cities (in case a version of Los Angeles),are divided by time zones, which divide the poor citizens of the rich(and the amount of lifetime determines this).Will Salas (Justin) is a resident of the city's poorest area, who liveswith his mother (Olivia Wilde), and is always a altruistic person,giving time of life for those in need, remaining with 24 hours - heends up meeting a stranger in a bar, with more than a century of life,which passes to him his lifetime... from these point and other events,the story unfolds.Raymond's mother dies and he wants revenge for it, going to the richestdistrict, to try to change the system, where he get to know SylviaWeiss (Amanda) - but the claims of life gained by him are beinginvestigated, and he is suspected of murder and chased by Raymond Leon(Gillian Murphy).The film presents an interesting approach to the plot, which hasappeared in other films by the way, but the future of this film isdifferent: it is interesting to see how everything has a priceadvertising that is marked in minutes or hours instead of money, a verynice feature that the production did well.The rest of the movie is set in suburban neighborhoods and somelocations in the center, with large buildings, but everything else hasa "clean" and artificial look - the vehicles of the future, aremodernized versions of classic cars like Mustangs and Shelby Cobras.Also the streets are generally very empty, and is even stranger in adystopia future.The acting in the movie is very good, but only by the protagonists.The great problem of the movie is that from two-fifths of it forward,the story fades, and begins not have much logic basis, dealing onlywith the consequence of the initial events, without otherrepercussions, in addition, the "Bone and Clyde" duet that main actorsbecome do not have much logic... for example, banks in the future hasno security at all?Anyway, the movie contains an interesting plot in the beginning thatpromised a interesting movie, but it dissipates during it, which ispartially saved by the performance of Justin Timberlake. I finished themovie disappointed, hoping that would have been different in the way itwas conducted. My score: 5.5 / 10.0.

seshgriffj (2012-05-23 23:56)

Decent movie, changing the representation of a possible reality.

After viewing the film in a cinema for the first time in my life Idecided to write a review. Keep in mind, I always look different films,and only high-rated (if some estimate, then for his young life lookingfor more than ten thousands of movies and series of various TV seriessuch as Doctor Haus, Beyond, Dexter, etc., try to avoid black andstupid comedies and any "soap operas", only high-quality cinema.) Allthis is written to ensure that the previous film as much leaves theimpression is called "The Matrix". After the movie "Time" when payingat the store or analyze what we are able to do anything, even the timeto buy for the money you know how much hard time in the film world,where different from our reality, any mistake is death without a break.I am sure those who know in this life that lives deeper and many-sidedthan it seems and it seems the overwhelming number of people - thisfilm sink into my soul. Thanks for the story and acting. P.s. Some actors look much older than 25 years, although in reality,someone even younger than 25.

Simple_Jack13 (2012-05-22 22:06)

Maybe not the best of films, but very entertaining.

In Time presents a very interesting capitalism vs. communism debate. Inthe end is presents its obvious choice of which is a better path tofollow; however, it still does a fair job at presenting both sides witha decent amount of support.Overall, In Time was plagued with some poor written lines and baddelivery from the actors. Nevertheless, it maintained my attentionthrough its intriguing concept and plot progression.Justin exceeded my expectations and proved he can lead a film. CillianMurphy was amazing! He totally stole the show.Good movie, highly recommended.

iniazy (2012-05-22 07:41)

Awful Movie

What a waste of time indeed. That, and money. It is just a RobinHood-wanna-be, only here Robin Hood steals time, rather than money.Everything else is the same. Robin Hood steals time from the time-richpeople, and gives it to the time-poor people. So there is no such thingas money.The idea is so stupid, transferring time from one person to another bytouching one another's arms, or by using special devices that storetime. And how is time transferred from one direction to another, andnot the other way around, is never explained. This movie undermines myintelligence.

antoniotierno (2012-05-19 11:45)

interesting and unsettling

A science-fiction movie set in a future where people could liveforever, if they didn't have a time limit on their lives. It shows avery good plot and continues having a lot to say. Justin Timberlake andAmanda Seyfried are the futuristic Bonnie and Clyde, whose destiniesare crossed with Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving it tothe poor. The movie is decent, acting-wise, and soon turns into a chasefilm examining all the possible moral quandaries. Cillian Murphy aswell, playing a Timekeeper — cop charged with making sure people staywhere their place in society — is an interesting character. In Time hasits rhythm in the right place, it's not a masterpiece but certainlyclever and original.

saurabhj (2012-05-19 02:34)

Interesting concept, extremely poor execution

Honestly, I went into the movie purely because the concept seemedinteresting to me. The movie starts off well but loses the plot in thefirst 20 minutes or so.The concept I agree is interesting and may probably become true - butthe futuristic reality did not seem very probable and the movie lacks alot of treatment (and acting skills from Justin Timberlake).I was expecting a Minority Report kind of a film - but was highlydisappointed. Whereas Minority Report was extremely well thought offwith every little detail taken care of, it seems in this one - thedirector (who is also the writer) decided to wing it after finalisingon the concept.Overall, a very unsatisfactory film. I would have been satisfied evenif the story was well laid out - but it felt like people were in a rushto get this over with.The characters are extremely emotionless and even scenes in whichpeople die, you don't feel sorry for them.I would recommend people to stay away from this film if you areexpecting any action, sense or treatment for the plot and use the moneyto watch something else.

charles000 (2012-05-18 00:05)

I was skeptical at first, but I must admit, it is a fun film to watch . . . and yes, the concept of time as a commodity has been the quest of many

Of course, everyone will no doubt think of this as a remake of Logan'srun . . . but wait, hold that thought.As a sort of side note, I personally have actually had some interactionwith what might be referred to as applied nanobiology in the context oftreating the pathology of aging, as an attainable medical regimen.These concepts are no longer strictly confined to the realms of sciencefiction, as I can attest to such from direct personal experience. Intoday's world, are we anywhere even remotely within reach of the worlddepicted in "In Time"?. No, hardly, but that does not suggest theseexact questions have in fact been discussed quite seriously, in variousacademic and scientific circles.So it was with this particular background that I wanted to see thisfilm, to get a gander on what Hollywood would do with such a concept,extruded through the lens of early 21st century technopop culture.Some aspects of the film were just plain silly, but that can beoverlooked to a certain degree. Justin Timberlake does deliver hischaracter well enough, but for me at least, Amanda Seyfried was thereal sparkle in this production. Was it entertaining? Yes indeed, I'll probably see it again withvarious comrades. Does it beckon some interesting questions? Yes itdoes, and that may be what makes this particular production so timely(please forgive the terrible pun). The questions that have been raised in previous eras, encompassing theentire overarching arena of ethics in a biotech enhanced, geneticallycontrived reality preserved for the privileged few, the agony ofoverpopulation vs quality of life, "genetic capitalism" and so on, havebeen discussed many times, by very serious people.But now, it is within some potential future timeline that the tools forcrafting such a genotopia for privileged elite is actually beingconsidered not as fiction, but rather as the next level of pricelesspossession, an outcome of artificially induced evolution as anacceptable "norm" in the eyes of some. I should know, having personallyseen bits and pieces of this puzzle already being assembled.If nothing else, if this entertainment platform inspires furtherthought into this realm, perhaps that is the real value of this film.Even if all the potential viewer is looking for is an entertaining bitof fantasy filmcraft, I don't think many will be disappointed. As Isaid, I was initially more than a bit skeptical at first, this couldhave been much worse . . . but I will confess (perhaps it's a bit of aguilty pleasure), it was quite fun to watch.

BenedictMorrissey (2012-05-17 06:52)

Take a little more time

Great concept for a film, it doesn't make much sense on how they gotthere or when 'in the near distant future' this take place as it states2061 but has numerous style references to the 60's, but who cares whenthe concept is as good as it is. The film is slick and smart, withSuits and vintage cars and slick haircuts. Im not so sure if this filmis meant to have a message about today's world with the rich gettingricher and the poor getting poorer but it certainly didn't feel like itwas meant to. I liked all the characters in this film and thought that AmandaSeyfried came out of this movie quite well, whether that was down tobeing the lead role next to Justin Timberlake i don't know.In Time sets off at a great pace and keeps you entertained for theduration, however i came out of the cinema thinking 2 things1. that was good and worth the money 2. If they had cast someone betteras the lead role it would have been a brilliant film.Don't get me wrong, i think Justin Timberlake is talented and hisacting skills are OK as shown in The Social Network but i cant take himseriously as a lead role, especially in a movie like this. He comesacross to cheesy and false, when the character is after revenge, youjust don't feel that he really portrays this.All in all, not a terrible movie and certainly better than some of theremakes 2011 has brought us, for the sheer concept alone i gave it a 6out of 10.I would have given it a higher score if they had cast it slightlydifferent.

Hellmant (2012-05-17 03:22)

Extremely disappointing considering all it had going for it!

'IN TIME': Three Stars (Out of Five) A futuristic dystopian science fiction film that starts out with agreat premise but loses all of it's creativity and originality toroutine by the numbers action scenes. It's written and directed byAndrew Niccol, who also helmed the similar themed 'GATTACA' which wasquite good. Niccol also wrote 'THE TRUMAN SHOW' which was a very goodfilm as well so it's a little surprising that he handled this one soham-handedly. The film stars Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried andCillian Murphy and Murphy is the only one who brings anything to thetable. The film as a whole is very clunky and disappointing.It's set in a world where people stop aging at 25 and will die a yearlater if they don't earn enough currency to prolong their lives. Timeis traded as money and the rich live as immortals while the poor scrapeby what ever they can just to make it another day. Your remaining timeis worn on your arm, in a digital readout, and scanned to pay allmonetary transactions. Prices and taxes are raised all the time withoutwarning in order to keep the weak majority at bay. Timberlake playsWill Salas, who lives with his mother (Olivia Wilde) in the ghettos andnever has a full day's worth of hours. One night he helps a rich man,Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), from being mugged and killed in a bar bygangsters known as the Minutemen. Hamiltion repays Salas by giving himall his remaining time, 116 years before committing suicide. He passeson some words of wisdom and lets Will know that everyone could andshould live a happy natural life and then die. Will is then suspectedof murdering Hamilton and goes on the run with a millionaire'sdaughter, Sylvia (Seyfried), he meets while flaunting his new money.The two begin robbing from the rich and giving to the poor while tryingto disrupt the system and avoiding the Timekeeper (Murphy), who policestime.The idea behind the film is the perfect social commentary and isespecially relevant to our times and modern economy. Life in the filmisn't really that much different from modern reality. It's a shame thatsuch a great idea was wasted though. It could have been the perfectPhilip K. Dick type sci-fi film and instead we get a weak action filmstarring Justin Timberlake! His casting was the first way the moviewent wrong but there's a lot more at fault to it than just that. Everyword of dialogue seems forced and every scene seems like nothing morethan the plot and action formula just pushing itself forward. There'sno heart or character to it at all. Most of all the film is justdisappointing, considering all it had going for it.Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KzFGXKpG30

jhonny-201-705311 (2012-05-16 09:31)

Worst movie i've seen in a cinema for a long time

So we went to see this movie with my girlfriend, she was eager to seeJT so i said oh well, my friend said it's a one-timer so we can give ita shot... and a shot in my head too.I don't know where to begin. The good things: only one. The wholeconcept of the film is a great idea that money=time, and that richpeople are greedy and they steal all the money(time) and poor peoplehave to live day by day or they just die, not literally. Which is justlike how the world is going, and which way the world is going atm. Sothat i liked. There were some OK suspense moments also, but seriously,those are the only good things i can say about this film.What i didn't like: everything else. So there is this 28 year oldbadass guy from ze "ghetto", * (OBVIOUS) SPOILER ALERT * they gettogether with this gal from uptown, and after figuring out what to do,they break into a bank in the middle of the ghetto. There are no copsor security to stop them, they just drive through the glass, open thevault, hand out all the cash, then drive away. Seriously, why didn'tany of the ghetto people EVER thought of this before? And after that,they rob one of the richest people of the USA, get away with so muchmoney(time) that the whole economy could collapse... and they justdrive away in their car. No police, no nothing. Oh yea, did i mentionthat cops don't have any radios or anytin? Super- future where computerinterfaces are all over the place that can read human DNA, but not asingle cell phone or any mobile device, NOT EVEN FOR THE POLICE!!! AREYOU FREAKIN KIDDIN ME? Is this for real? And all the time, all the same3 people chase our heroes around. The girls father walks around withlike 15 security people, and they have 3 cops to chase the big badvillains. Yep, that's the future for you. And these 2 always get awayjust by running & driving around. JT beats every1 and any1 not evenbreaking a sweat. But hey, what did i expect, i guess it's my fault...Conversations are like if they were written by 5 year old, and i'm notkidding. I can't even remember one, but it's something like this:stupid question, stupid obvious answer, rince & repeat.And i could go on and on, but there's only 1 more thing i'll mention.The structure of the film. Holy Cr*p. It's like they just made cuts andscenes, pasted them together and thats it. They just get from onesituation to another and i was scratching my face, what the hell arethey doing here now? How did we get here? And seriously, WHY? Why isthat everything in this film is soooo obvious, that i would've liked toscream out loud in the cinema while tearing my own hair out. The firstfew mistakes you smirk and get over it, but they just keep coming andcoming at you like if someone deliberately wrote this to test yournerves.So that's it. I've never written a movie review before, but i just hadto put it out there to warn everyone. I'm only giving this film a 2 outof 10 because the idea wasn't that bad to begin with. But everythingelse is screwed up, almost as if someone would try to deliberatelywrite a bad script out of a good idea.

galaxy9000 (2012-05-15 19:56)

Great Movie, great story and great Actors/Actresses

After a dozens of time that i see this great movie in the cinema inMunich (Kinopolis Mathaeser), this movie is one of the best, that ihave every seen. Friends and family are the same opinion, that is movieis, short, awesome! The resonance of most of the audience people aregreat and the most time the full cinema rooms every day since about 3-4Weeks, answer it itself.The storyline is great, sure little political, very thinkable about theworld. The balance between action, dramatic, emotional, and specialeffects making this movie to a on-of-kind (my opinion).Amanda Seyfried (she is very beautiful in this movie), JustinTimberlake, Cillian, Olivia, Vincent and so on making a greatperformance in their roles in this movie. Justin is a great actor,Amanda is amazing, her wonderful eyes are hypnotically :) And the otherstars are also very good in their roles. That was a very good Joice.People who has not seen this movie, go in the cinema and shot it. Makeyour own Opinion of it. For me, this is 9.5 of 10 Stars! Thanks to thestory-writer, producers, and and and...Many regards from Germany Christian P.

wittmann73 (2012-05-15 03:16)

Interesting concept, but ...

Let me play the nitpicker here: First off, the idea that your "clock"is always visible is pretty stupid to begin with. That's like uswalking around with out bank balance stamped across out arm. It shouldbecome visible with a touch on the wrist or something.The fact that all you have to do is touch arms to take time is stupid,,too. There's no way to make it voluntary? No kind of security? I mean,it's you life for crying out loud!! Will and Sylvia robbing their first time bank. How did they get a holdof an armored truck in the first place? All you have to do to rob abank and get all the time you want is crash into the front? If it wasthat easy, everyone would be doing it! There are people dying in thestreets everyday and no one has thought to do this? Olivia's death, it was too cliché. Literally missing it by like asecond? Come on!Why would the lead Minute Man want to 'fight' Will? (also, they nevermade that concept clear until they sat at that table) Why wouldn't hejust take his time and be done with it? He had nothing to gain from it.It was just weak writing in my opinion.And what happened to that subplot of Will's father? They kept alludingto some great reveal or that Leon knew something Will didn't, but thenthe film just forgot about it. Are they trying to tell us that Will'saltruism was hereditary? When Will got to Greenich, what was his plan?It seemed to me like he was just buying his way into high society andplaying with the rich. I couldn't figure out what his endgame was goingto be.This one is again not a flaw, but can we all agree that car crash intothe ditch looked just ridiculous? Terrible CGI and not believable atall.And how they got the jump on Weiss, Sylvia's father. He's got moresecurity around him than the President, but all you need is a pair ofsunglasses to get the jump on him? Does the "security team" consist ofrandom people who do not know each other? Then once you got him to leadyou upstairs, all his bodyguards did what? Went out for lunch? Whydidn't they go after him? Why weren't they waiting downstairs for him?Why weren't any alarms sounding? Stupid. So you have a million years inyou hand and presumably only an hour on you wrist, yet you don't takeany for yourself? I guess handing a little girl 999,999 years, 11months, and 28 days just doesn't have the same resonance.You can pay one year to get into Greenwich zone ... or you just walkin, there is no security or guards anyway."Wire me my per diem- wait, never mind ..." that was stupid. All he hadto do was put his arm out. Also, it made it obvious from that point howLeon was going to die.Conclusion: If you're the kind of viewer who can overlook flaws likethis, I can see someone finding this movie enjoyable, it had aninteresting premise, with a good cast, but plots holes you could drivea monster truck through.

artalmarcelo (2012-05-10 09:00)

The right concept in the wrong hands.

I'm still asking myself what would have been of an idea like this inthe hands of Spielberg, Riddle Scott, Nolan, among others. Probably agreat experience. Well, sadly, those guys had nothing to do with thismovie, and instead, we received a movie with nothing but holes. Allkind of holes. You shoot them, they are there. I'll mention lamedialog, terrible acting and a nonsense chain of events that ultimatelymakes you think you are wasting your time watching it. It's really awasted opportunity, cause such a rich idea could have had one visionaryguy behind, like one of the above mentioned (and those are only fewexamples, but there are MANY), who would have made sure to tell a storythat makes sense and take the most of an original initiative. I've saidthis many times already: ONE IDEA IS NEVER ENOUGH. Good ideas have tobe surrounded by substantial execution: a good script, good acting,good photography, etc… Here the concept is brilliant, genius, but theexecution is poor.

chellebaldy-189-607550 (2012-05-09 13:54)

Robin Hood meets Bonnie and Clyde

Over the weekend I went to see the new movie in time with my husband. Iwas really excited because from the trailers I had a preconceived ideaof how the story would go. That's never a good thing to do when goinginto a movie because it usually leads in disappointment. Sure enough Iwas disappointed at the end of this movie.Most people are saying that the acting was awful. I don't really sharethis viewpoint. I think the acting was OK enough. I was not impressedwith the story....... The rest of the review herehttp://addapocalypse.blog.com/2011/11/01/in-time-spoiler-alert/

transientdreams (2012-05-07 23:54)

Beter than imagined. Stronger than not!

Damn fine little movie that gives a new perspective on currency andtrade. It keeps a decent tension throughout while offering slightlymore than an above par 'B'+ movie, yet with added twists that pervadethe film. Damned original in how it approaches the subject of universalexchange and certainly well executed from a cinematic perspective. Muchas I don't care for Justin Timberlake, he always impresses me in film.It's truly an emotional ride in many ways by way of an improbablefuture, 'Logan's Run' being an obvious inspiration to this visage. I dorecommend it for its ease of delivery and entertainment, as well as thecurrent, socio-reality aspects alone.

asamoahsamuel (2012-05-07 12:31)

completely falls off a cliff

Interesting concept. Time is the new currency. We all live and die bytime. Human beings are genetically altered to have stop watchesembedded on their arms and each person is given a minimum of 25 yearsto live. To live past that time you'll have to earn your time byworking for it. On top of that you no longer begin to age after you'vereached the age of 25. The poor have to work extremely hard to earntheir time to live and the rich do not and they have all the time inthe world. Transactions are done using the time you have as currency.So a simple cup of coffee could cost 5 mins of time which shortens yourlife as a result. It's a society where almost everyone works to live.This is more or less the same way we all live our lives. The differenceis that we age quicker and our clock is more biological. This filmworks for about half an hour then it completely falls off a cliff.Timberlake's character Will is a blue collar worker making ends meet ina poor neighbourhood. He runs into a man named Henry, who has over 100years on his clock. But Henry decides he doesn't want to live forever.He gives Will the 100 years of life he has left and kills himself.Gangsters known as Minute Men find out Will has a hundred years andstart pursuing him so they can kill him and take the 100 years forthemselves. The authorities also known as Timekeepers are also afterWill, thinking he's killed his newly deceased friend Henry. To makematters worse, Will then loses his mother. She dies or times out asit's referred to in the film. Will feeling angered after losing hisdear mum (gorgeous Olivia Wilde), plans to avenge her death by going tothe rich side of town and stealing all the time he can get his handson. There he meets Sylvia daughter of some tycoon, she likes him helikes her, coppers find Will. Will takes Sylvia hostage and then Sylviahates Will for about two minutes until Will gives his sob story aboutwhat he's trying to do for his dead mum and the neighbourhood he livesin. Will wins Sylvia over and the two become the Bonnie and Clyde ofthe future and decide to rebel against the system by stealing all thetime from the rich to give to the poor. So you have Bonnie and Clydemeets The Getaway meets Robin Hood with a dash of Equilibrium thrownin. The concept is original, the story however isn't. It's a mess and Ihad to explain the overall premise in the hope you don't go and seethis film. Performances: Timberlake is OK, but he's been better. SocialNetwork, Alpha Dog has shown the man can act when called upon. This wasa decent performance at best. At times looking like a rabbit in theheadlights when saying dialogue that consists of more than 3 words.Syfried is better and plays a character who displays very littleemotion. Sometimes less is more. I was impressed with her. CillianMurphy as the antagonist Timekeeper does well as does VincentKartheiser (Pete Campbell from Mad Men) as Sylvia's father. The rest ofthe performances, range from bad to terrible. Alex Pettyfer for exampleis the leader of the Minute Men. He's probably one of the worsevillains ever in film. His lines were awful, the character has nothingspecial about him and on top of that his performance was probably theworst. Hated the way he played the character and hated his performance.Set pieces were filmed well, but the dialogue was awful andunimaginative. Also scenes between Timberlake and Seyfried were tediousand long. Some sort of character development going on there. This filmlooks like Niccol's futuristic take on America's current economicsituation. My head is already hurting from working out how beneficial areferendum would be for Greece. I don't need a similar storylineembedded in this film. It would've been better if Timberlake walked upto the camera holding a placard saying LIFE IS SHORT! Andrew Niccol isa good director. Truman Show and Gattaca are amongst his best work.This looked like something he cared little about. And it's rubbed offon me, because I can't I wasted almost 2 hours of my life on this. Ialmost timed out watching this. Take my advice, there are only 8/9 moreweeks till 2012. Use the rest of your TIME this year wisely, byavoiding this and watching something else instead.

Ashutosh Jain (2012-05-07 08:24)

An awful movie

I went to the movie with high expectation generated by really goodtrailers. But the good part ends there. The storyline is too simplisticand out of depth. The protagonist is modern day robin-hood who takes itupon himself to rob time rich people and distribute the excess time tothe poor. He robs the bank with such an ease and without any resistancethat I wonder why anybody before him didn't try that! The movie is a series of goof ups. 1) The girls gets her hand on the gun first time and she shoots like apro. 2) She and the hero have and argument, runs down a long road, negotiateand sells the ear rings and then hide from the police but the twominute that was left of the girl's life doesn't end. ROFL! 3) When the chase between the cop and the protagonist begins suddenlythe road turns lively teeming with cars and trucks and as soon as itgets over the road suddenly gets deserted.4) The building into which the protagonist takes a man in course ofsaving his life is nondescript and empty except for two costly lookingpieces of sofa kept right in the middle of the floor. As if somebodyknew that they will be coming and arranged so that our hero doesn'tface any discomfort.Leave along the hero, even the villain does't lives up to theexpectation and dies without a whimper. Clearly, the movie lacks strongstoryline. The direction was without the direction and acting average.Its a total waste!

otto-burgess-713-201104 (2012-05-06 15:23)

see it for the concept...

see it for the concepts, not for the good but contrived action or thehot young actors. i spent all the hours since seeing this filmyesterday thinking about the missing parts, wishing they were allthere. all films are a product of collaboration and compromise. afterall, a fall action flick should not be too philosophical or last muchmore than 90 minutes and both would have been required to make it theway i would have liked to see it. maybe in the uncut or directorscut...not going to happen. this film is worth seeing in either case.see it, and think about it. 'life' time as the currency. the 'rich'sucking from the poor lower class 'time zones'. a new robin hood. it'sclassic and not far from where we are now. something the occupy wallstreet people should appreciate as well. on a related film, 'margincall', jeremy irons says it all...'it's all made up anyway', acontrivance of man. (in reference to the economy and money itself).

Screenerz (2012-05-01 14:49)

Timberlake ruined yet another movie that could of been good

Why does Timberlake continue to get roles? He made Olivia Wilde lookgood, that's how bad he is. I'm wondering if they cast the all theextras, day players, & supporting actors blatantly horrible on purpose,to try and make Timerblake look good.... Well if so, it didn't work.The only watchable acting in this train wreck was Amanda S, The guy whoplayed her father, and the Irish actor who played the cop. PLEASE STOPCASTING TIMBERLAKE NOBODY LIKES HIM IN DRAMA'S!!! If I was to comparethis to an equally bad movie I would say surrogates. It had all thepotential in the world, but fell short by miles. Fire whomever thoughtJT would sell seats.

headly66 (2012-04-30 22:14)

Wasted time......

Another future/past movie where nothing is ever explained as to why thecurrent situation is what it is and when this is supposed to take placeor how people stay young. As has been done in several other movies inthe future we supposedly drive cars from the past for some inexplicablereason other than the fact that they look cool on camera. There are nocell phones but pay phones are back in style and the device on you thatholds time can be hacked by anyone even when you are sleeping, whichwould stop no one from just murdering you for your time. Every woman isof super model quality even in the poorest neighborhoods when it wouldhave been much more realistic if the hotties were only with the rich. As for the story if you can call it that, it is full of holes some ofwhich are blatant. In the beginning we see Will get time from the guywho wants to end his life giving him 116 years. Then he gives hisfriend a decade leaving him 106 years. He gives up about 1.3 years withthe tolls leaving him 104.7 when he arrives in New Greenwich (we neversee him pay for the limo). He then pays for the hotel (a standard roomwas 2 months so lets guess a suite is 6 months) so he is now at about104.1 years.He pays for breakfast (9.5 weeks) a new tux($?) and 1 year for entranceto the casino so the most he could have when he sits down to play pokeris around 103 years. Yet he calls on a 50 year bet (leaving him with 53years) and a then another 200 years which would give him a negative-147 years yet after the bet he still has time left??? ALL IN means ALLIN.I stopped caring at that point, in a movie that is all about numbersand countdowns how could they make such a huge mistake?Then in the water we see the girl has 1040 years but after the caraccident the thugs say she has a decade and make a big deal out of it.This was a silly waste of time.