In Time

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)

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)

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. (04/11/2011)

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)

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. (06/07/2015)