Movie-Specific : In Time

[Stewball]

Excellent movie (whether it knows it or not) starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfred, Cillian Murphy (a bad guy with integrity) and Olivia Wilde. Set in the future where time is the currency. Everyone lives to 25 (Wilde is Timberlake's mother!), then a clock in your arm determines how much time you have left. Time can be bought, sold, traded or stolen.

At first glance, it appears to be a parody on class warfare, but the poor are incarcerated or trapped in ghettos from which there is no escape, while the "rich" rule as an oligarchy. The real question that keeps coming up is what is living? Are the rich, captives in a prison of their own design? Their motto is "For a few to be immortal, many must die". Does that equate to, "For a few to be rich, many must be poor." R/T has it at 36 (critics) and 72 (public)--a common split of late. See what you think. 8/10

[mwgerb]

I'm glad to see a positive review for that. I was really hoping that it would be a great sci-fi film (Niccol has at least two to his name), but the reviews were turning me off. I'll make a point of watching it.

[tef]

I'll watch it, but if it sucks I'm holding you accountable.

[TrixRabbi]

I honestly can't by any stretch of the word called this film "Excellent". It is however highly enjoyable, but possibly not for all the reasons it tries to be.

The social metaphors don't pack as much of a punch with all the hilarity (either intended or unintended) ensues. The movie is overfilling with Time-related puns, so that the movie feels it needs to explain in case you missed the joke. [spoiler]"It's your money or your life. But in this case, your money is your life."[/spoiler]

The plot becomes absurd to the point that I was literally laughing at what it would do next. [spoiler]It starts off looking like it'll be an "Innocent-Man thought guilty" type of movie, before becoming a sort of Sci-Fi Patty Hearst story that then turns into Bonnie and Clyde without the cathartic ending.[/spoiler]

The film makes some great musings on modern day society, the current financial crisis, and the concept of money itself. However, the movie tries to hit you over the head with it. Even if the message is good, it's hard to take a film about a world where people have digital clocks embedded in their arms seriously when there's a barrage of puns in your face. [spoiler]"He could have put the time in a capsule."[/spoiler]

In Time is an enjoyable action flick that tries to be more than it can achieve. I do recommend it if you're looking for a sci-fi/action movie with some heart.

Random Notes:

-Justin Timberlake did a great job but Cillian Murphy was a bit flat.
-Darwinian Capitalism. He just said that. He seriously just said that.
-They really missed a good pun opportunity with the phrase "Take your time".

[Stewball]

I honestly can't by any stretch of the word called this film "Excellent". It is however highly enjoyable, but possibly not for all the reasons it tries to be.

You argue against yourself, particularly when you throw perception and subjective taste into the mix.

Random Notes:

-Justin Timberlake did a great job but Cillian Murphy was a bit flat.

How so, he was precisely in character? And the time counters were well within the bounds of sci-fi artistic license.

Darwinian Capitalism. He just said that. He seriously just said that.

Yeah, I cringed too, but primarily because it wasn't clear what was meant. But I'm going to have to wait to review it to see if it did make any sense.

-They really missed a good pun opportunity with the phrase "Take your time".

[ayall]

Just saw this, thought the movie was decent.
Could have been better, but the basic concept of "time is money," was interesting.

I also liked JT's acting in this film, he's been impressing me more and more with his film career.

I wasn't a fan of the lose rules/explanation; Specifically around transferring time from one person to another or those little machines used to hold time (since someone might be able to "hack it" and add time).

Also, I wasn't sure how the "clock" worked as far as sudden deaths;
While that one guy from Rosanne drank himself to death "with 9 years left on the clock'; Scarecrow stayed alive after being shot because JT added more time to his clock.

I did like the fact that a nice car costs you 50 years of your life... i thought that was interesting, that people would need to make decisions on material possessions based on the fact that it would reduce their life-span.

[Stewball]

An additional thought:
Life, as presented in the movie, is made into a zero-sum game, ostensibly because they weren't ever able to do that with money. In doing so the haves were forced to fence out the have-nots, imprisoning themselves in the process--you could still be killed with a million years on your clock. She was even afraid to swim at the beach. For the haves to have freedom, they must provide the opportunity for all to partake of it.

[ayall]

^you're reading into the film a bit more then I would, but i agree with some of the good examples like she was afraid to swim.
Also, similar, the police (minus scarecrow) were afraid to follow JT, and take minor jump/leap from the window, as it might cause them harm.

[Stewball]

Taking the criticism to heart, I decided to go see it again, and I liked it even better this time, which I really didn't expect. I actually liked the story better, but the real difference was Amanda Seyfried. Her versatility is awesome and she even had some of the best lines, "The poor die, and the rich don't live." I haven't' really liked her rolls that much until now or the movies she was in.

Some other things:

I thought "Darwinian Capitalism" was very appropriate, at least from her father's viewpoint. The fittest, in this case the luckiest, survived. It could also be applied (unintentionally) to the idea that the fittest economic system is where money is the medium of exchange, not time--but that's for a political thread.

I agree with the Bonnie and Clyde comparison, it occurred to me when I saw it the first time, but disagree that they should have followed B & C's example. I think the ending was set up beautifully [spoiler]by the death of his mother under the same circumstances.[/spoiler]

I don't think Cillian Murphy's performance was flat, it was perfect for the role, making him well cast. But it WAS almost identical to his roll as Fischer in Inception. He may become type cast or labeled as a character actor, which will limit his career, but those two performances, on their own, were excellent. I expect he can do more. If not.....

[Stewball]

i liked the movie, didn't listen to critics.

Good for you. Unfortunately, they have a power to influence the box office that we, down her in the hinterlands, can't control. Also, if we're trying to gauge whether to see a movie or not, we tend to be at their mercy. Thank goodness for the modern age of word of mouth which the Internet has given greater import to (e.g. Criticker, R/T, IMBd etc.). Now all we need to do is sort out what's subjective and what's objective--relying of course on humanity's innate sense of honesty, self- and otherwise.

Better luck next time I s'pose.