In Time is a 2011 American science fiction action film written, produced, and directed by Andrew Niccol.

Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star as inhabitants of a society that uses time from one’s lifespan as its primary currency, with each individual possessing a clock on their arm that counts down how long they have to live. Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser, Olivia Wilde, Matt Bomer, Johnny Galecki, and Alex Pettyfer also star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Time

the poster

  • 🅿🅸🆇🅴🅻@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    16 days ago

    I remember it, and I’m a sucker for any SciFi with new ideas, but the delivery on this one had the subtlety of a brick. The idea of the plot is the punchline and that’s it, no other social commentary. Justin Timberlake was mediocre at best and to me so obnoxious that it was very hard to identify with him as a justice warrior. 5/10.

    “Don’t Look Up” was not subtle at all, but it had the kind of in-your-face so well done, that proofed exactly that the target audience it was mocking will not understand the direct slap they were getting.

    “The Menu”, or “Parasite”, or “The Platform”, or “The Hunger Games” are also orders of magnitude better if you want to watch a “eat-the-rich” kind of movie.

    I’m bad with words and not a movie critic, but hope you get the point.

    • perishthethought@lemm.eeOPMEnglish
      3·
      16 days ago

      Your take on this one is in-line with others. I didn’t watch it, just couldn’t find anything better to post. :|

      Don’t Look Up was terrifying for how accurate it was.

      I need to check out those other films. Thanks for the ideas!

  • Sergio@slrpnk.netEnglish
    2·
    13 days ago

    Hey, it wasn’t that bad. It was definitely TV-movie quality in terms of plot and dialogue, but the basic idea was great and the aesthetic was cool, especially the cars, the clothes, and Amanda Seyfried’s look. Yeah, Justin Timberlake’s acting was distracting, and Seyfried’s wasn’t that much better. I bet if they’d got a better leading man and a top-notch director, they could have made a classic. As it is, the movie made a pretty good profit, so I’m not the only one who thought it was all right.

    • ehecatl@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      9 days ago

      Movie was enjoyable. I don’t know if in the so-bad-it’s-good or simply not-terribly-bad-and-interesting sense, but at least it’s interesting. And let’s be honest. I watched the movie only to see Amanda but was kinda intrigued by the plot

      • Sergio@slrpnk.netEnglish
        2·
        9 days ago

        I think if I’d paid $20+ for a theater viewing I’d be disappointed, but as a freebie to play in the background it was great.

        I watched the movie only to see Amanda

        Her style was great, especially in the earlier scenes, and the cinematographer did a good job. I wish they’d given her character more personality though, she’s a good actor, she could have handled it.

        Also there was this scene towards the end where her character’s running a long distance across rough terrain, and they zoom back a bit and supposedly she had been running in stilleto heels… I guess it’s possible to do, but it’s not a skill her character had likely ever picked up…

        • ehecatl@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Well, I guess she running with stilettos is a perk Bryce Dallas Howard inherited for the New Jurassic Park movies, haha

  • ehecatl@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    9 days ago

    Amanda Seyfried is hot, the movie has at least nice visuals, the plot is at least remotely interesting so, grab some popcorn and enjoy some dumb fun