In Time
In Time
PG-13 | 27 October 2011 (USA)
Watch Now on Prime Video

Watch with Subscription, Cancel anytime

Watch Now
In Time Trailers View All

In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a corrupt police force known as 'time keepers'.

Reviews More Review

Simply A Masterpiece


A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Kien Navarro

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

View More
Mandeep Tyson

The acting in this movie is really good.


I wonder how many times the word 'time' is mentioned in In Time. It's a lot of times, I'm sure, but I didn't take the time to count. Maybe next time.Starring Just-In Time-berlake and Amanda Seyfried (whose name doesn't really lend itself to any clever time-related puns), this film has a very intriguing premise - that time is a commodity that can be bought or sold, allowing the rich to live indefinitely while time runs out for the poor.Sadly, writer/director Andrew Nichol fails to do the idea justice, his film spending most of its running time being little more than one long chase, as his photogenic leads try to bring down a big-time time magnate, while Timekeeper (i.e. cop) Raymond Leon works around the clock to call time on their antics. It'll only be a question of time before you'll be picking holes in the plot, Nichol having clearly not spent enough time ironing out In Time's wrinkles.4/10, just for keeping me amused for most of the time with its incessant use of the word 'time'. Best line of dialogue: 'Time'.

View More

The single best thing that happens in this movie is Cillian.My 10*review goes to him. No matter the script or the flaws, he is,simply, gorgeous!

View More

I just saw "In Time" again for the third time or so, and it's my new favorite movie. It's hard science-fiction, much harder than most. The future doesn't look like "the future" at all, but more like the 1970s. The cops drive 1970 Dodge Chargers, not goofy electric golf- carts. There are phone booths, no cell phones, and the Internet is not a major force in anyone's life. No one is emigrating to Mars, as in "Gattaca (1997)" -- also written by Andrew Nicol -- and there are certainly no star-ships, and no space aliens. The single technology that has gone forward is medicine, and that life clock thing, naturally. "No one dies; no one gets sick." That's the thing that makes it "hard" science-fiction; it resists throwing a bunch of stuff on the wall, instead holding tightly to its premise. Because of the immortality-with-a-price premise and the 1970s action-movie styling, comparisons to "Logan's Run (1976)" are unavoidable. Whereas "Logan's Run" envisioned a future where we got everything we ever wished for, only to see it wind down, "In Time" envisions a sort of stagnant future that one rarely imagines in a movie, not even obviously dystopian, just stagnant. This is what I love about the movie: it's not really about immortality at all, but about Economic Fascism. In the movie, people have jobs making widgets, making just enough to live day to day. Prices are methodically inflated so that no one gets ahead. There's no upward mobility whatsoever. It's like "1984", except Economics (with the help of that clock thing) does all the work of the secret police. It's a metaphor for our modern post-2008-crash economy. This movie reminds me a bit of "The Island (2005)", which I also liked, a big difference being that there's no "secret". The characters in "In Time" tacitly consent to their situation. This is a fast-paced, beautiful action-adventure science-fiction film with a brilliant premise, destined to be a cult classic. Hollywood, please make more movies like this.

View More

Too many glaring plot holes really screws this movie out of any enjoyment value for me. I can't stand it when the reasons for a characters actions aren't adequately explained. (Perhaps if the story was better I wouldn't have had time to pick it apart.)IN TIME posits that time is now the world's currency. Everyone carries around their life's savings displayed as a digital clock in their arm. Anyone can take or give you 'life' by merely clasping your arm. If this was the case, I think murders and muggings wouldn't be restricted to a couple of 'minutemen' (hoodlums) driving around in a car. Every single street corner would have someone who, about to run out of time, was primed to steal your time.The premise states that all people born are immortal; genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. This sounds great until we're told that this age marker initiates a countdown starting at 1 year worth of time. If your counter reaches zero you die, instantly and painlessly.All income and payments for goods and services in this new world are applied in time units. The ultra-rich have thousands of hours on their clocks and the corporation they run manipulate what time is worth in order to control the population of workers.Several things really bothered me about this premise. How do people live until they are 25 if their clock doesn't start until then? How do they perform the transactions needed to purchase food or receive wages? I saw one child begging for money (time) using a 'cassette', but that scene only opened up more questions. I can see why the film glossed over the problem.With only a few Timekeepers wandering around, crime would have been rampant. Look how easily 2 people could take what they wanted from the time loan banks and even from the Greenwich ultra-rich.What could have made this film better? I would have had Will download the million years into his arm which would make his clock malfunction. He would then download his malfunction to every person he could, and ask them to do the same, starting a chain reaction. This would be the start of a revolution. That's as far as I want to go without rewriting the book but it would have been a more satisfying ending in my opinion.

View More