In Time - January 31, 2012 Review

[cvm]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

if we're talking about enjoying bad movies....i'm currently considering buying Troll Hunter....that doesn't scream oscars or anything but it still looks like a fun movie.

if it can entertain me, it's better than 95% of any oscar winning movie in my eyes.

Exactly.

[Nathan2]

Originally Posted by veritas

I have to respectfully disagree. They played on the "wasting my time" and other time phrases too much that it wasn't even clever, the action was sparse, cliche and those running scenes were completely cheesy and not dramatic

[Show spoiler]When his mother runs to meet him and he runs when he knows she missed the bus, it's like I know I should care for them, but the characters weren't likable, so when she died in his arms with 1 second, I just said, "Good. One less character to see for the rest of the run time."

It wasn't horrible, but just predictable, bland and boring at times. My player on my computer

[Show spoiler]thankfully read my mind

and crashed with 10 minutes left in the entire run time, and I didn't care to restart it and finish.

What a waste of my time. See what I did there?

I had hopes for this movie since the director of Gattaca, Andrew Niccol, was directing but the movie just didn't impress me like Gattaca did. Not to say it wasn't good it just could have been much better.

[Serendipity]

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

Yes, I agree. I'm not convinced Timberlake can carry a film either, he was a bit wooden. I put In Time in the same class as other recent sci-fi films like Repo Men or Surrogates, they're all a fair way to pass a slow afternoon but ultimately they're all flawed and rather forgettable.

I loved Repo Men. The soundtrack to the film just worked so well that it took the movie to the next level, at least for me. It helps that I'm a Jude Law fan though and found the self repo scene kinda sexy... I know I've watched it at least a dozen times.

Anyway, I wanted to like this as I like Sci Fi and Cillian Murphy is one of my favorite actors, but Timberlakes "acting" just killed this for me. I couldn't take him seriously and it was distracting. If a stronger actor was in the lead role, someone like James McAvoy, this would have been great. I wouldn't recommend this for a blind buy. I would rent or stream first.

[StoogeFan1118]

Watched this yesterday and it was far better than I was expecting. The performances were good even the characters who had little screen time such as Olivia Wilde and Johnny Galecki though I felt the weakest performance came form Timberlake. The movie was a highly entertaining scifi film overall I feel it was great blind buy for me plus it has Amanda Seyfreid who I am a fan of . Check this out if you like Scifi or just eant to be entertained

[Batmon77]

ill pass and in ten years no one will mention this

[krazeyeyez]

I was really impressed with this, one of the more enjoyable movies i have seen in a long time. Was it another Gattaca, no, but it came very close in my opinion. Like any good sci-fi i thought it conveyed the real world issues it was trying to tackle extremely well without feeling heavy handed.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

ill pass and in ten years no one will mention this

my biggest gripe with the film is that it was too easy to steal from someone; just grab their arm and take all their "money/time"?

like when they were laying there after the accident. peeps just took their time. in real life if someone was just laying on the street, you could only rob their wallet, not all the money they had at home and in the bank.

[megafan999]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

my biggest gripe with the film is that it was too easy to steal from someone; just grab their arm and take all their "money/time"?

like when they were laying there after the accident. peeps just took their time. in real life if someone was just laying on the street, you could only rob their wallet, not all the money they had at home and in the bank.

Yeah, I was like "shouldn't they have like a password or something? >_>"

[Blu-Benny]

Maybe it was designed that way.

The whole time thing was to weed out the population so it doesn’t get out of control…by making it easy to steal, it would guarantee the “weak” members of society would be taken out.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

Maybe it was designed that way.

The whole time thing was to weed out the population so it doesn’t get out of control…by making it easy to steal, it would guarantee the “weak” members of society would be taken out.

But one isnt weak if they've been in an accident and are lying on the side of the road when another steals from your arm..

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

But one isnt weak if they've been in an accident and are lying on the side of the road when another steals from your arm..

No, but ultimately it serves the purpose of another person dying.

[krazeyeyez]

I don't think it was "easy to steal" perse, as the fighting aspect showed, but those that take time in that way obviously develop a skill for it, and being unconscious would obviously keep you from any kind of resistance.

Also while the whole you steal their wallet thing is applicable to our time and our world there are still exceptions with those that carry all they have in their pocket. IN TIME shows a world where the classes are so far removed from one another those in sector 12 live day to day second to second while the rich have storage devices that contain as we saw a million years.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

No, but ultimately it serves the purpose of another person dying.

Not to mention it keeps those without power fighting amongst themselves rather then the "system" which history has and continues to show is entirely way to effective.

[growler]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

my biggest gripe with the film is that it was too easy to steal from someone; just grab their arm and take all their "money/time"?

like when they were laying there after the accident. peeps just took their time. in real life if someone was just laying on the street, you could only rob their wallet, not all the money they had at home and in the bank.

That was a huge problem for me as well. I hated the move despite being really eager to see it when the previews came out. The concept of Time as currency was a very good one. Poorly developed, IMO. I also disliked

[Show spoiler]the "Robin Hood" turn of events."

But, to each his own. I like movies others hate. Re buying movies that are just O.K. I rate movies 1-4 stars when seen in the theater & generally buy those I rated 3 & up but have bought some 2.5s due to great FX or great portions. When I was buying BBV sale BDs & you needed 5 for $20, I picked up some 2s. Downside to this is shelf space <GRIN>

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by growler

That was a huge problem for me as well. I hated the move despite being really eager to see it when the previews came out. The concept of Time as currency was a very good one. Poorly developed, IMO. I also disliked

[Show spoiler]the "Robin Hood" turn of events."

But, to each his own. I like movies others hate. Re buying movies that are just O.K. I rate movies 1-4 stars when seen in the theater & generally buy those I rated 3 & up but have bought some 2.5s due to great FX or great portions. When I was buying BBV sale BDs & you needed 5 for $20, I picked up some 2s. Downside to this is shelf space <GRIN>

Right.

To me, it's about quality titles vs quantity. I could easily have 800 titles right now. I choose to have under 300.

Collector or not, are there really 800 great movies out there? No. Absolutely not.

[Darth Anakin]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Right.

To me, it's about quality titles vs quantity. I could easily have 800 titles right now. I choose to have under 300.

Collector or not, are there really 800 great movies out there? No. Absolutely not.

Not every movie I own has to be great, my criteria is a movie either entertains me or tells a story well or both. I do agree that there probably aren't 800 movies on BD worth owning but to each their own.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Right.

To me, it's about quality titles vs quantity. I could easily have 800 titles right now. I choose to have under 300.

Collector or not, are there really 800 great movies out there? No. Absolutely not.

I'd say there's at least thousands worth seeing. Granted, many of them might not be great or even good. But that's what being a movie lover is all about--finding new movies to cherish.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Not every movie I own has to be great, my criteria is a movie either entertains me or tells a story well or both. I do agree that there probably aren't 800 movies on BD worth owning but to each their own.

[quote=Seymour]

I'd say there's at least thousands worth seeing. Granted, many of them might not be great or even good. But that's what being a movie lover is all about--finding new movies to cherish. .[/

Seymour]

Exactly. I want to see every movie. Its what I think is a 3 out of 5 or higher that I want to own.

I know I own some not-so-great movies in the critics' and public's eye, but for some reason or another they entertained me (funny, strange, dramatic, acting, a certain character...etc), so I wanted to own it.

I dont want sitting on my shelf a title I feel is a 2... a title I'll never watch again. I dont want to own it just to collect... just to own.

[arcadeforest]

Been wanting to watch this for awhile and finally got around to it tonight. I thought it was decent - better than I expected but throughout the film I though that it could have been better. Not sure how at this point, maybe with a little reflection and a second watch it will come to me.

With that said I give this movie a ten if I base it just on seeing Amanda Seyfried in heels. Man she was hot in this.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Not a fan of JT as an actor...singer, well as anything really. His voice gets on my nerves, he sounds like a really young kid and its hard for me to take him seriously as a grown man action star.

I saw Friends With Benefits and while it was funny from time to time I didn't really like him in that either.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by arcadeforest

With that said I give this movie a ten if I base it just on seeing Amanda Seyfried in heels. Man she was hot in this.

Isnt it funny that Amanda Seyfried was the "ugly" one in Jennifer's Body! That's crazy!