Genres

Visitors Review

narinthy 2012-05-24 18:19:18

So sad that this innovative idea turns rubbish

This is my first ever review on IMDb, apologies for the language used.During the first 15 minutes, I said WOW. The film idea is so innovativeand interesting. The concept of time as the primary human constrain isgreat. The initial impression of everyone being young and good-lookingis amazing.This film reminds me the mixture of Surrogate, Equilibrium, Gattaca,and even the Matrix. However, as time goes by, it simply lacks power. The time is so wasted.The idea should have been executed better in term of story-line,casting, and action sequences. It was often that I said to myself "whatthe heck?"So sad and disappointed. I really hope that this similar idea will bereused again by more competent screenwriters and directors.

artie412 2012-05-24 10:58:33

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.

Ashutosh Jain 2012-05-23 04:08:29

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!

queeniete-299-402348 2012-05-22 19:38:56

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.

smexymelly 2012-05-22 02:17:08

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! :)

shamsuzzohan 2012-05-21 07:14:07

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.

justicewillprevail 2012-05-20 22:21:25

Pretty faces, Ugly script... Don't waste your time

Why does Hollywood insist on spending on stars, but not enough onscript? Massive fail, gaping plot holes. You will know what you're infor when the opening line is "don't know how it happened, it's justlike that". Suspend my disbelief is fine, just don't insult myintelligence.*Spoiler begins* Time is the only currency, and once out you get amassive heart attack and die. Transfer of currency is by skin contactand doesn't even need compliance from the owner... Which is called a"fight". This is my most major beef with the script. Even credit cardsneed verification to process transactions, in this show one can canjust touch and take. Gives a whole new meaning to touch of death.The nonsense continues: I seriously LOLed when the stars "rob" a bank(just crash a car through the front door) and the "villain" Cilliandied. He plays a "Time Keeper" but dies by forgetting to watch histime... the mysterious stranger who gives away time also needs noreason to, other than being tired of living.There was even an oversight somewhere in the middle, whereby JT asks ASfor a "loan" only to get rejected though he has but hours to live. Hehandles rejection by falling asleep only to wake up in the morning(presumably sleeping past his heart attack). Surprised ANYONE in thismake-believe world could fall asleep, seeing as you might be deathtouched in the night... *spoilers end*If anything, this show taught me the importance of time. Don't make mymistake, do NOT watch this movie.

napierslogs 2012-05-20 09:25:36

Time is money and the science fiction romance genre is money for Hollywood

In the world of "In Time", time is money. Literally. Set in a futurewhere 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 eternallyand the poor don't always have a chance to live. Time zones are classesof wealth and you can't cross over without upsetting the order of theworld. It's quite possible that they have taken this time is moneyequation too far.But I enjoyed this twist on the same old action movie. It even startswith some thoughts on philosophy. A rich boy finds himself in a poorman's bar where everybody wants a piece of him, so much so that hisconsiderable wealth and time line are in danger. While the poor are inconstant need of money, it turns out that the rich don't have the samedrives for life. This rich guy is impressed by Will's (JustinTimberlake) honesty and earnest desire to find out how the other sidelives. Will is then faced with the possibility of an infinite life timeof money.From there, we get a Robin Hood action movie. Will pairs up with adaddy's girl vixen, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) and they are on the runfrom the time keepers (Cillian Murphy). I have enjoyed Timberlake'srecent foray into the world of movie stars, but I like him more as acomedic straight man than as an action hero. Seyfried, on the otherhand, proves that she can play pretty much anything. A mysteriouslyinnocent, 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 usualaction movie set-up. Hollywood has ventured again into the sciencefiction romance genre, and has again come out with an intelligent,action-packed film with something for everyone.

saurabhj 2012-05-20 03:40:59

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.

Harry T. Yung 2012-05-19 08:04:46

Lola and Clyde playing Robin Hood

The best case of a young-looking old mother is in Gilbert andSullivan's Iolanthe where the titular character, being a fairy, looks"a maid of seventeen" where she is in fact a 200-year-old mother of thehero. For looks, however, you can never beat Olivia Wilde who in thismovie plays a 50-year-old mother to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake).The rather ingenious plot perimeters of this science fiction arelucidly explained at the outset so that unlike in many other movies inthis genre, the audience's mind is not led through a maze of twists andturns but rather left free to enjoy the story and action. Unexplaineddetails are unimportant, and the clever souls labouring to pick plotholes are wasting their time and money.It goes like this. In this brave new world everybody looks 25-years-old(and therefore Wilde can appear as gorgeous as she always is) althoughthey may have already lived for a long, long time. The important thingis not how much time they have already had but how much is left, andthis is clearly marked on your wrist in glowing digital numbers, whichcan in theory range from a million years (or more) to one second. Theclock keeps running and when it shows zero, you drop dead. Nice andsimple, isn't it? But there's more and that's where the ingenuity comes in. Time serves adual purpose, the other being the medium of exchange, i.e. currency.When you buy a burger at a fast food chain, you put your wrist againsta device (they're all over the place) and they charge (i.e. take awayfrom you) 6 days (or whatever). When you press your wrist againstsomebody else's, you are transferring time (which way it goes dependson which has the upper hand, literally). Again, nice and simple? But ifyou put the two together and ponder for a second, you see theingenuity. Never in any fiction is poverty and death so closely linked– not through things like starvation or illness, but instant death whenyour clock winds down to zero. In the poor district in the movie, mostpeople carry only a day or two's remaining time on their wrists andhave to labour to refill it, or die. Never is "living from day to day"more literal. In one poker scene, the hero bets all he has, and watcheshis clock run down to 3, 2…then 1 second when his life is saved in thenick of time when 100 years start pouring in upon his win.Against this backdrop, however, is a familiar story….nay, severalfamiliar stories. In essence, it starts as kidnapping a rich girl forransom, continues through a predictable Stockholm Syndrome and ends upwith Bonnie and Clyde playing Robin Hood. In form, it's "Run Lola Run"(1998) and it's an amazing sight to see rich girl Sylvia Weis (AmandaSeyfried) running in, what, 5-inch heels every 15 minutes throughoutthe movie. Here, she does not run alone though but with her dashinglyhandsome beau.As the word "chemistry" has been so overused, let me just say thatTimberlake and Seyfried look really well together (despite somedisparity in height, hence perhaps the heels, even in running). Theaudience should well remember how with dashing charm and cocksureconfidence Timberlake nailed the character flamboyant Sean Parker in"The social network" (2010). Seyfried moved on from sweet innocentSophie in "Mama Mia" (2008) to challenging roles as titular "Chloe"(2009). They will both go far.The other highlight in casting is Callian Murphy who, for movie lovers,needs no introduction. His character here as a "Timekeeper" is oftenmisunderstood to be a villain. It has in fact been depictedsympathetically: a law enforcer who blindly follows his orders andliving, unlike the poor, in a day-to-day existence through his daily"per diem". Reminds me of Javert in "Les Miserables".

thomasajjouri 2012-05-18 00:01:23

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...

tavm 2012-05-17 04:57:02

In Time is an intriguing thriller about the value of time as literally money for survival

Just watched this futuristic thriller with my movie theatre-workingfriend. It has people wearing a "watch" on their arms which digitallygives them a certain number of time that they use to pay for whatevermeans they need for survival. It stars people like Justin Timberlake,Olivia Wilde, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy. Oh, and also JohnnyGalecki from "The Big Bang Theory". The writer/director is AndrewNiccol who also penned the screenplay for another movie I liked calledThe Truman Show. This was almost as good as that with many expositionsin the dialogue that explain whatever plot points you may be a littleconfused by. So on that note, In Time is a worthy thriller that makesyou think about how precious time really is.

Achyuta Ghosh 2012-05-16 22:55:20

good, could have been great!

Time is money- our parents used to say, and in an era of decliningpersonalization and increasing digitization some of us still bow inreverence to that farsighted thought. In Time takes this concept a stepfurther, to a cacotopian earth, where time IS everything indeed,including money. And it is this subsumption that makes the moviedistinct, and watchable.In this world, through genetic technology, everyone stops aging at 25,and from that moment they have 1 year to live. Their life henceforthcan be extended if they are able to conjure up deals, trade-offs or ofcourse, crime. And this earth too like ours can provide for everyone'sneed but not everyone's greed (Gandhi). Hence this presumably utopiansociety has similar set of problems- an even deeper rich-poor dividewhere the poor live in ghettos, amid a life of crime and misery, and onborrowed time, while the rich live in opulent mansions, ride swankycars, and have literally, all the time in the world. The first scene in the movie presents one of the biggest fallouts ofthis theory- that a 30 something Olivia Wilde playing mother to, well,a 30 something Justin Timberlake. The people here are born with adigital clock in their hands which tells them exactly how much timethey have left to live, which, when over, leads to sudden death. Thisis all a ploy to maintain balance in the world- "for a few immortals,many people must die"- as one protagonist explains. In this carefullyorchestrated world of orderly chaos, Justin Timberlake is Will Salas,who when falsely accused of stealing time from someone rich, starts achain reaction which ultimately brings down the system. It would be foolish to read between the lines in this type of analternate world movie- just how does one keep track of global timesupply? How can exchange of time, and in essence life, happen just byholding someone's hand without putting into play the intent of theperson (which means a criminal doesn't need a gun to kill you, justhold your hand)? And it is fairly obvious that there wasn't a lot ofbudget to play with in this movie. But what matters here is the amount of thought and detail that thedirector has been able to put into the story, which is good when itstarts, mediocre in the second half, when the film resembles a versionof Bonnie and Clyde, with Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried turning modernday Robin Hoods. And while there is not an iota of doubt that both ofthem look pretty all the time, there is a shocking lack of chemistryand interest in the movie on their part. In other words, they mostlysleepwalk through their role- begs the question, were they paid moneyfor this, or time :PThis year has given us some grand movies- superheroes, aliens,superspys, witches and warriors, all with mega budgets, 3D renditionsand little thought. But In Time is perhaps the years first sciencefiction movie that has some originality, and makes you sit up andcogitate, and in that, the movie is just IN TIME, before the year ends:)

eldestjay 2012-05-16 11:14:25

No Good At All

This movie left me with so many questions. Not questions about theplot, because the plot was very clear; nothing was confusing or hard tounderstand. It left me only with questions like: "Why is 25 the agethey stop at?" "Who the heck authorized this system of currency?" "Howin the heck does it even work? They just drop dead once they're time'sup?!" In Time really ticked me off. The gaping holes in it's back story leftyou assuming things left and right. It was agonizing to watch, becauseit was interactive; but not interactive like Inception, where you hadto pay attention to every single detail. It was interactive because youwere forced to guess things. To fill in the obvious blanks that thescript and plot-line left sitting there like a duck waiting to be fed.The movie sincerely wanted to be what we would call "a smart thriller.You know, like Inception, the Matrix, Alien? That kind of thing.However, the bad writing and unabridged amateurism displayed by all ofthe young actors and actresses, left the movie gasping for breath, butstill caught under the avalanche of atrocity that it was desperatelytrying to run away from. I wish I could say that the acting was on par with what you'd expectfrom "A-List" actors like Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. Sadly,it wasn't. Becoming an A- lister clearly doesn't take talent any more.Just a pretty young face, and an agent good enough to get you a part inthe latest teen-friendly melo-thriller, focused on brining joy to thosewho aren't that adequate when it comes to things like... well, thinkingor speaking or anything that involves using their brain.It's sad really.... Anyway, don't go see In Time.

Girish Winchester 2012-05-13 21:30:54

Time is Money

Its the year 2161 and genetic alteration has allowed humans to stopaging after their 25th birthday thereby making it possible for them tolive forever. But due to concerns of overpopulation, the system istweaked so that money is replaced by 'living time' as the standardcurrency and people must acquire more time through labor and commercialmeans after turning 25 years of age, or die within a year. Will Salas(Justin Timberlake) is a 28-year-old man who lives with his 50-year oldmother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde) in the ghettos and works in the factory.He encounters a 105-year-old Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who has morethan a century on his clock and is attacked by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer),the 75-year old mobster boss of a gang called the 'Minutemen', who areinfamous for stealing other people's time by force. Will helps Hamiltonescape the confrontation. Hamilton tells Will that there's enough timefor everyone, but it is being stockpiled for the rich to use inbecoming immortal. An upset Henry describes how he is tired of beingalive. He commits suicide, but not before transferring all his time toWill. Raylond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and his Timekeepers investigate thedeath and believe Will killed Henry for his time. So now Will is on therun from the law. After the tragic and unjust death of his mother laterthat night, Will promises to bring down the system and exact revenge.He forages into the upper class New Greenwich and along his travails,he meets the beautiful 27-year-old Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) who isthe daughter of the 90-year old millionaire, time-loaning businessmanPhillipe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser). Will kidnaps Sylvia while escapingthe Timekeepers.If not for the extremely powerful performance by Cillian Murphy, thismovie would have been less than mediocre. He brings a level ofcomplexity and intensity which is much needed to the movie. A fewscenes on his back story wouldn't have hurt. Alex shines in his role asthe bad guy. This is the first time that I thought Timberlake wasactually an able lead actor who could carry a movie all by himself.Seyfried was amazing as well. She was perfect in her transformationfrom a doe-eyed, young, bored rich girl to a fighter who is rebellingagainst the system and more so, against her father who suffocates herlife. The movie isn't too subtle about raising the issue of the hugedivide between the rich and the poor or the human bodies which layabout the ghettos in broad daylight while the people never seem to beinterested in them and move on like its normal, as in our society. Butit never came across as heavy handed. The movie could have done awaywith some of the cheesier dialogues and scenes though. The openingscene where we find out that Olivia Wilde's Rachel is actually themother of Will amazed me. Her death was heartbreaking and Olivia playedher role wonderfully. It was a bit disconcerting to see everyone beingso young in a movie and yet playing the parts of mothers, fathers andfamily. Also the use of guest stars was done really well. JohnnyGalecki had a forgettable outing, but Bomer really impressed in hisshort screen presence. Andrew Niccol who has brought us really good movies such as Lord of Warand Gattaca has let go of some of the intellect he had there. "In Time"is a slick action movie which is quite ingenious and has a terrificconcept. Its like a Robin Hood movie, where time is the money. But itis almost undone by some of its fatal flaws in screenplay and writing.The lack of security in time banks and video cameras on the streets,Will infiltrating the security of Phillipe, the apparent lack ofTimekeepers who are the law enforcers and many other improbable,jarring flaws. But it does make us look at life from a differentperspective and raise interesting questions. Its not as good as itshould have been given the rich narrative. Despite that it isentertaining and I enjoyed the movie. The way i see it, people will behighly opinionated about it. But in the end, I think it is worth awatch and definitely not a waste of your time.7/10

Paspro 2012-05-13 04:43:30

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!

ssiebels 2012-05-13 03:55:24

I can understand why Ellison dropped his lawsuit

I've read "Repent Harlequin," and it's nothing like "In Time." Thewrong author sued, however. This movie is a great deal like anothershort story - "Time is Money" by Lee Falk, published in PlayboyMagazine in 1975. Don't ask why I was reading Playboy as a teenager,but this story stuck with me, more because of the premise than thewriting. The use of time as currency, with death when your clock hits0:00, the super-rich with centuries in the bank, the desperation ofpeople about to time out, the population never aging, even the mannerof transmitting time - a touch, are all reminiscent of "In Time," somuch so I can't believe that whoever wrote this script hadn't seen thestory.

gusmannen 2012-05-12 17:21:04

Not really enjoyable

I went in with low expectations watching this, usually that renders asomewhat redeeming view of plot holes and bad casting, but in this caseit just added to the dullness of this movie.The script comes across as something done by a grad student. It is amishmash of Robin Hood, Romeo and Julia and Bonnie and Clyde. The wholepremise is a version of the capitalistic system in America on crackwith cash being replaced by time as currency.Justin Timberlake can act, and I wouldn't say he is bad in this one,it's more down to script and direction. I found myself laughing outloud a few times to the extremely cliché lines.Bad, predictable character development also adds to the dullness. Sodoes the fact that some major events happen without explanation. In theend we are left with characters with hardly care about and a story thatnever really takes off. It's all built around a protagonist, but I alsofelt it was the wrong way around, instead of making a poor guy fightthe rich, why not have a rich guy find the error of the system andrevolt? Sure, the movie has some of these elements but it's from thesupporting female character which doesn't really cut the cake.To sum this up, the movie isn't even OK, the dullness andpredictability destroys it. 4 out of 10

artalmarcelo 2012-05-10 10:42:56

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.

Christian_Dimartino 2012-05-10 07:06:56

It's not Inception, and may not have been trying to be, but it's still fun.

To me, it feels like a lot of films have been following in Inception'sfootsteps. A lot of films are trying to have unique story plots withbrilliant complexities. And they've worked. The Adjustment Bureauwasn't really one, but it had a sort of unique-ness to it that worked,and so did Source Code.In Time, from director Andrew Niccol(Lord of War) is the latestattempt. And it probably has the most original of the premises,excluding Inception, but yet it's also the most unrealistic.The films takes place in a world where you only live up to 25 yearsold, and after that you have to buy time in order to stay alive. Butyou remain looking 25 forever(Joan Rivers and Dolly Parton could'vedone with this world). Will Salas(Justin Timberlake) struggles to buytime, but when he is bestowed with over a hundred years of time, hisworld is turned upside down.After the death of a loved one and the death of a stranger, it comes toWill's attention that some people don't actually need all this time,and that everyone should get a fair share instead of those who have toomuch. So soon Will and a girl(Amanda Seyfreid), who's father is therichest man in the world, become Robin Hoods and try to escape the law,lead by an Elliot Ness-y character played by Cillian Murphey.The film has a neat, cheeky if not ridiculous premise that never reallyruns out of steam. It's fun, but I feel that the ending could have beena little better. I like the weirdness of it. I like how Olivia Wildeplays a 50 year old, and Justin Timberlake's mom. What a good lookingfamily that must of been. Who was the father? George Clooney? Sister?Megan Fox?Is it Inception? No, and I don't think anything will ever be,excludingThe Dark Knight and P.T. Anderson's Magnolia. Unless that film isdirected by Christopher Nolan. But it's good while it lasts, so see it.B+