In Time

I don't want to live in this world. But I would look at it, maybe every day. The excellently selected cast of young Hollywood gives 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 has created such a versatile spectacle out of "In Time". But because the idea itself is not enough, there is nothing left but to salute Niccol for the relentless pace. With the support of Armstrong's soundtrack, it is not difficult to forget to breathe in the decisive moments. (11/04/2011)

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. (11/13/2012)

A clever simple hyperbole that advancing contemporary commodity fetishism and Darwinian-conceived capitalism ad absurdum. Moreover, the film makes irony out of its own impossibility to step out of the established constraints of show business. But Niccol never put the few attractions (Bond quotes, Bonnie and Clyde romance, dystopian films) before the very idea of fighting an unfair system in which the wealthy exploit (ontological) wealth by exploiting the defenseless. Some of the theses feel like Niccol read Badiou's “The Communist Hypothesis" and modified it for the needs of a Hollywood spectacle (i.e., he did not allow himself to go that far, but dutifully stepped in there - see the excellent ending). The film is full of holes in logic and motivation, the script is very unbalanced, the editing and camera somewhat toothless, but the whole feels like a pleasant impulse to reflect on the state of contemporary society and the utopian nature of the system. This is what makes In Time a remarkable and stand-out title in the contemporary Hollywood peloton, though not exactly a flawless title or one worthy of boundless enthusiasm. (70%) (10/24/2011)

The heist of the century, which, if we combined the teams of Ocean’s Eleven and Mission Impossible, would be enough for two films, shouldn’t last two minutes in a dystopian sci-fi satire. A naive far left film with which I cannot and I will not agree ideologically. Unfortunately, other than the idea, In Time doesn’t offer anything else (like breathtaking action, some tension, etc.), it’s just well made. But that core premise is great, it’s a pity that Niccol wasted it in such a dumb film. 60 % (11/03/2011)

Looks like Andrew Niccol has been partying with Ken Loach. It's beyond my power of comprehension how a kind of pub idea that lays down its meaningfulness in a film right after the first confrontation could win 40 million, regardless of the box office. Putting aside the traditionally excellent Deakins behind the camera and the ever-divine Cillian Murphy (who, of course, makes the acting limits of both protagonists stand out), all that's left is a tiresomely immature anti-utopian vision crossed with incredible Bonnie & Clyde romance and boundless naivety. There's no point in addressing the sheer technical background of time as currency, and in general the entire internal economy of the film has the logic of a 15-year-old Greek leftist revolutionary's brain. Instead it's the Marxist railing against a system that resembles apartheid communism in its centralization (everyone works under a central evil company) that piques the interest. The fact that the film informs us that if an ailing bachelor lays out $315 billion in front of the workers on the street in the ghetto (see trivia), everyone will take their decent piece and go see the world is perfectly consistent with the perception of the world's problems from the armchair of a millionaire director out of touch with reality. (07/06/2015)