In Time

It's not it. The poster and main characters are romantic to some extent, but In Time is a disgracefully wasted opportunity. Andrew Niccol came up with a captivating and highly original story, but unfortunately, he completely fails in other aspects. It's not that I expect flying saucers or a million-person battle, but perhaps just a bit more polished visuals, more fatefulness, more dynamic action, more exuberant artistic stylization, and definitely fewer unfinished plotlines. Buying and stealing time is nice, but if you think about it, it's clear that if someone could gain time just by touching someone else, everyone would have killed each other a long time ago and certainly wouldn't wait in front of a time bank offering thirty percent loans. They could have also done without a certain type of car for the wealthy class, and the retro police cars don't fit in there either – there are simply too many of those things. But to not just criticize, the million year concept is cool, there are occasionally thrilling scenes, Justin Timberlake is good as always, and Cillian Murphy is phenomenal as always. In my opinion, Niccol would have been better as the screenwriter, not the director. (11/11/2011)

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 % (03/11/2011)

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%. (17/12/2016)

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. (13/11/2012)