In Time

The Bonnie and Clyde of the digital age yearned for analog, resulting in a sympathetically understated film set in the future. In it, a single serious nag at the laws of Niccol's world immediately takes away from the positives but is then ultimately saved by the great Timberlake and even better Murphy. (2012-01-14)

Niccol significantly updated the Faustian motive and threw in a swashbuckling hero who somehow got the abilities (physical skill, playing poker at a Bondian level, outstanding marksmanship and masterful control of cars that he had probably never driven before) with which he now fights for a classless society for whatever reason. Due to the shoddy depiction of the characters and the conditions in which they live, his motivation is very unconvincing. He simply behaves as he does because the director/screenwriter/producer needs to convey a few theses through him. The stimulus for discussion isn’t bad; all we need for that is to read the synopsis or watch the trailer. If In Time disappoints as a “film with an idea”, it doesn’t work much better as an action thriller. Niccol failed to smoothly work his messages into the genre formulas, so the characters, whose time is constantly running out, engage in numbing “sit and deliver” dialogue scenes at times. Will’s goal long remains unclear, his actions lack logic, which can unfortunately be said about the whole film (the actual overdrawing of time, which a sleeping person cannot control, is perhaps too easy to assail). The other characters also make decisions that can be expected from them given the rules of the genre, but not decisions that make sense in the context of what’s happening. In the end, what entertained me more in this ambitious American genre flick than its loose narrative – which I more frequently appreciate in European films – was Roger Deakins’ cinematography, which differentiates the individual classes through different combinations of lighting and colours, and Alex McDowell’s austere production design, in which, for example, the “police” cars are nicely reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi movies from the 1970s. But overall, a waste of time. Appendix: Not that I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t understand why Amanda Seyfried wears a cocktail dress through the whole film (and running in high heels, of course). 50% (2011-10-25)

I don't want to live in this world. But I would look at it, maybe every day. The brilliantly selected cast of young Hollywood up-and-comers gives you a taste of a story about justice, love, and adventure, but it is precisely the simple yet perfectly powerful idea of an alternative present that creates such a versatile spectacle out of In Time. And yet, because the idea itself is not enough, there is nothing left but to salute Andrew Niccol for the relentless pacing. With the support of Craig Armstrong's soundtrack, it is easy in the decisive moments to forget to breathe. (2011-11-04)

Disguised moralizing boredom that gets 2.5 stars. The idea is good, but poorly thought out, the central couple is rather poor, and the plot is not very good. Thank God for the excellent Cillian Murphy, at least. It's far from as good Niccolo's other films, and as far as recent sci-fi spectacles go, the likes of The Adjustment Bureau is much better. (2012-11-13)

Andrew Niccol has two super blockbusters to his credit, Lord of War and above all Gattaca were able to inspire me and when I add his work on the script for The Truman Show, his merits are exceptionally high in my eyes. Simone may not have been a film that could be talked about in superlatives, but it was still a very decent and definitely above-average affair. On the other hand, In Time is a decline in quality from all sides, which is rarely seen. This is especially painfully true in comparison to the genre and the thematically related Gattaca. I would describe Gattaca as a cultured and clever film, this film is banal shallow Hollywood nonsense without a hint of logic. True, it is filmed at a fast pace and with undeniable directorial professionalism, and it has "quality" (but at least attractive) actors in the lead roles, so I will give it a second star, especially considering Niccol's previous merits. But I do it with a truly heavy heart because this film is simply, to put it bluntly, stupid. Overall impression: 30%. (2016-12-18)