Search movies

Typing something do you want to search. Exam: Movie Name, Actor, Release Year, Director...
if you want to find exactly, Please input keywords with double-quote or using multi keywords. Exam: "Keyword 1" "Keyword 2"

In Time

In Time

Genders: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Director: Andrew Niccol

Writer: Andrew Niccol

Actors: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde

Year: 2011
Run time: 1h 49min
IMDB score: 6.6
Updated: one year ago

Movie infomation

Movie name: In Time

Genders: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Imdb Score: 6.6

Runtime: 1h 49min

Released: 28 Oct 2011

Director: Andrew Niccol

Writer: Andrew Niccol

Actors: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde

Box Office: $37.6M

Company: 20th Century Fox

OfficialWebsite

Imdb Link

In Time Available Subtitles

English subtitles In Timeone year ago
Serbian subtitles In Timeone year ago
Farsi/Persian subtitles In Timeone year ago
Serbian subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
Spanish subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
English subtitles In Time2 years ago
Spanish subtitles In Time3 years ago
Arabic subtitles In Time3 years ago
Danish subtitles In Time3 years ago
English subtitles In Time3 years ago
English subtitles In Time3 years ago
Arabic subtitles In Time3 years ago
English subtitles In Time3 years ago
English subtitles In Time4 years ago
Serbian subtitles In Time4 years ago
Arabic subtitles In Time4 years ago
Arabic subtitles In Time4 years ago
Russian subtitles In Time4 years ago
Norwegian subtitles In Time4 years ago
Swedish subtitles In Time4 years ago
Chinese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Norwegian subtitles In Time4 years ago
Chinese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Romanian subtitles In Time4 years ago
French subtitles In Time4 years ago
Serbian subtitles In Time4 years ago
Serbian subtitles In Time4 years ago
English subtitles In Time4 years ago
Chinese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Chinese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Chinese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Chinese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Portuguese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Turkish subtitles In Time4 years ago
Hebrew subtitles In Time4 years ago
Finnish subtitles In Time4 years ago
Brazilian Portuguese subtitles In Time4 years ago
Italian subtitles In Time4 years ago
Dutch subtitles In Time5 years ago
Greek subtitles In Time5 years ago
Spanish subtitles In Time5 years ago
Indonesian subtitles In Time5 years ago
English subtitles In Time5 years ago

Trailer


Review

Make Time for this Movie.

5/10 A very unusual film screen-play, well written and shot, don't expect any CGI effects here, this is a very down to Earth sci-fi that bears more than a passing resemblance to our current problem with world banks. Surprisingly Justin Timberlake puts in a very professional performance, and not a song in sight, Timberlake carries the part with a very grounded performance being so laid back that he is almost horizontal. Amanda Seyfried submits a polished performance although her make-up makes her look like one of those Japanese animations of what a European looks like, complete with over-sized eyes. The film holds the attention from the first to the last frame and provokes some emotion from the viewer on several levels. Certainly worth a watch, not quite a Rolex, but much better than a Timex.

4 years ago

Great start, decent follow-through.

7/10 As others have said, the idea of this movie was excellent. You could call it a skeptical analogy of what is happening in some parts of the world – the richest people of the planet abusing poor.

What I liked about the movie, especially in the early stages, was how much the movie made me think. It was also bizarre to think of what things would be like if nobody looked older than 25. The movie played upon the possibility of multiple generations would look the same age – at least for those rich enough to afford to purchase the additional years. The story was also well thought out in relation to how people would act within the differing classes of society: the rich would take their time and take few risks. The poor would treasure their time, moving quickly, and, with less to lose, would be less risk adverse.

Great premise, great start to the movie, decent follow-through. Although I wish the strong start was able to be carried throughout the movie, I found this movie quite enjoyable to watch.

4 years ago

A Really Good Drinking Game

4/10 The only way In Time could be fully enjoyed is make a drinking game whenever someone says "time" in the movie. You will be drunk halfway through the movie and most likely dead at the end of it.

There were two things that made me want to see this movie: 1) The premise sounded interesting. The fact that it's about people living off time, with the rich living forever and the poor living off borrowed time is a rather thought-provoking one. And 2) I like Justin Timberlake. What saddens me is that he just wasn't very good in this movie, as he and the dowey-eyed Amanda Siegfried both just seem so bored throughout the entire movie. They have zero chemistry and I'm even going to say that they are just as bad as Anakin and Padme in Star Wars. That's the lowest bar you can go in the chemistry lab.

Not only did Justin Timberlake seem bored, but he also has a hard time conveying certain emotions. Take the scene where his mother dies in his arms, for instance. Wasn't convinced, Justin. His crying felt forced and it was. After that he vows revenge against all the time people, and risks being chased by the Timekeeper (the always awesome Cillian Murphy), and after he is given a decade worth of time from someone who is tired of living, he meets up with some rich people and kidnaps a rather high Amanda Siegfried and then starts taking time, and giving it to people, you know, like Robin Hood.... except with time. They work together, bored the whole way through, and they try to convey emotions like love.... because if you have a guy and a girl on screen together, you have to make them full in love. That's Hollywood 101 right there!

This is really disappointing to me because I expected better out of In Time. What I got is pretty much a boring movie, with a premise that sounded interesting but then it turns the movie into a one-note-wonder. If I could turn back time, I would have seen Puss In Boots instead.

4 years ago

Great idea. Poorly executed.

6/10 Live forever or die trying. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star in the new sci-fi action film "In Time". Will Salas (Timberlake) and Silvia Weis (Seyfried) live in a futuristic world where time is the currency. In this world, people stop aging at 25. Once they turn 25, they only have one year to live, unless they find a way to get more time.

Will lives in the ghetto where people constantly are timing out (running out of time and dying), while Silvia lives in New Greenwich where people have centuries. It's extremely dangerous to have too much time; those with centuries are usually accused of stealing and are immediately killed.

When Will is accused of murder, he takes Silvia hostage and they run from the timekeeper (Cillian Murphy). Several times, they find themselves cutting it close with only seconds left on their clocks.

The concept is extremely unique and innovative, which made me think it was going to be an "Inception"-type film. However, it was disappointing to see "In Time" fall short of my expectations. It pains me to say this, but Justin Timberlake should not have been chosen for the role of Will Salas. He just can't pull off the character of a tough guy from the ghetto. Amanda Seyfried is decent as Silvia, but she and Timberlake don't have much chemistry.

I also don't think the script was very well written, which causes Timberlake and Seyfried to be even less believable as their characters. In addition, the characters are not developed enough; it's difficult to get a sense of whom these people, from opposite worlds, really are.

I found myself checking my watch multiple times throughout the movie. I was distracted and the movie felt much longer than it actually is. For all of these reasons, I give "In Time" a 6 out of 10. Great idea. Poorly executed.

4 years ago

Time is wasting and you may want your time back at the end of the film

5/10 I'll start straight off the cuff. Niccol is one of my favourite writer/directors. In fact, one of my favourite films is Gattaca, which has been so under-rated over the years since its release. To me he's been a great Sci-Fi writer, so going into this I was hopeful of something of quality.

Alas, "In Time" is not for the true Sci-Fi thinker. It paints a world in which time is money. That isn't that new an idea, but Niccols does succeed in pushing the metaphor as a commodity. Those with time are rich, those without time are poor. It's a simplistic analogy. As with Niccol's other films, the cinematography is beautiful. The best actors in the film aren't the main characters, rather Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser and (surprisingly) Alex Pettyfer present more interesting characters. They all shine, especially Murphy. The film seems like one long car chase, when what you actually want to delve into are the complexities - the debates between the characters themselves over the issues of the world they live in. Not a single clever conversation happens between anyone. Murphy is a great actor and I would have been interested to see the debate about right and wrong become greyed through some thinking. Life is not black and white. The film ending is unrealistic and I wonder if this was the ending envisioned by Niccol or the ending the producers wanted to boost sales.

Sadly this film could have been a great deal more. It had a good topic. It had some great actors, yet it failed because the story lost the nuances and complexities to meet the lowest common denominator, rather than raising questions or making the viewer think critically. See it, but be prepared to be disappointed. It isn't subtle.

4 years ago