Sunday, 13 November 2011

In Time

The trailer for In Time passed me by completely and I am not a fan of Amanda Seyfried or Justin Timberlake but low and then behold I was there on opening day more enthusiastic than expected.

PLOT:  In the futuristic present the human population stops ageing at twenty-five and they automatically die at twenty-six unless they earn more time which is the equivalent of currency.  Will (Justin Timberlake) lives in the slums and is always scraping together more time in order for him to eek out his life on a day to day basis.  He saves Henry (Matt Bomer) in a bar fight who in return gives him a century which is essentially the real life equivalent to winning the lottery.  Will heads straight to the rich sector where he ends up kidnapping spoilt little rich girl Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).  The two fall in love and go on the run Robin Hooding time from the rich to give to the poor.  END PLOT

The plot of In Time is fairly decent and I really liked the idea of using time as currency.  There were several neat little themes running through the film such as the people short on time ran everywhere whereas the rich moved ridiculously slowly and the notion that many must die so a few can become immortal.

Of course it is all bollocks, especially the notion that the poor die when they turn twenty-six, as this means that I would have died four months ago.  This amused my friends who are still twenty-five and it just shows the difference in maturity levels five months can produce!

In Time is similar to The Adjustment Bureau as both films have high levels of the best kind of bollocks – enjoyable bollocks. 

I am not sure if it was more terrifying or surprising to learn that Justin Timberlake can lead a film adequately.  Paul Walker and Channing Tatum are officially shitting themselves.

I have never been a fan of Amanda Seyfried and her performance in In Time did nothing to change my mind.  I was relieved that she has finally graduated from playing a teenager but her god awful click on Lego wig was most distracting. 

The supporting cast of Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde and Matt Bomer are all fine although there are no stand out performances.

The action is quite grounded and is nothing more than a few average car chases and copious amounts of running but it all flows well.

Overall I am hard pressed to find a major fault in In Time.  If it were made by a higher class of director and cast it would have given the film some respect but as it stands the best thing about In Time is that it is not bad.

In Time gets a solid 6.5/10.  It was good fun but unless I suddenly develop a taste for N*Sync I can't see the film making it into my dvd collection. 


  1. I was wondering about this film. Now, thanks to your research, I will take a shot at it. I've seen so many crappy movies lately that a 6.5 is the equivalent of a 10! Pitiful huh?

  2. I forgot all about this movie. I might see it if it had someone besides Justin Timberlake. Not sold yet on his acting ability after seeing the facebook movie.

  3. It is determinately worth a look - it isn't ground breaking but it is a fun and easy 90mins.

    Justin Timberlake is a lot better than expected - he is never going to be a great actor but he can hold his own in this type of film.

    Thanks for reading guys!

    K :-)

  4. Enjoyable bollocks..I like that. But then I suppose most main stream films are that are'nt they?! But that is their purpose to entertain and it sounds like this achieved that.
    I was wary of this as well due to Timberlake and Seyfried.

  5. It's a decent film if you want an easy 90mins it just lacked that something to make me want it on dvd!

    If there is nothing else out it might be worth a look

  6. I have no isseu with Amanda Seyfried but then again I have seem the film version of Mamma Mia too many times to unbiased.

    Justin Timberlake on the otherhand, eh, I've been hearing decent things about this flick so I might have to suck it up and give it a whirl.