In Time

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% (24.10.2011)

Absolutely divine sci-fi. At first I felt like an idiot, but after a few minutes I immediately got into it. Justin Timberlake once again showed me that he can be a great actor. And that even though I hated him as a musician. Nevertheless, he chose a truly great idea, which was filmed by Andrew Niccol. Honestly, I haven't seen such an interesting idea in sci-fi for a long time. And yet that idea hides a classic view a la Robin Hood. However, even the processing of that world, the music, the action...all of it deserves attention. (16.01.2012)

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. (14.01.2012)

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 % (04.11.2011)

A typical Niccol sci-fi flick that captivates and entertains even without futuristic sets, digital robots or any kind of spectacular flying machines. All he needs is a simple yet great idea intelligently incorporated into an action story with humanistic values. Justin Timberlake is okay, Cillian Murphy is excellent as usual, and just undress Amanda Seyfried, cover her in chocolate and spend the last hour of your life with her. This is how respectable Mostow's Surrogates wanted to look. (06.11.2011)