It's not Inception, and may not have been trying to be, but it's still fun.

Rating: 8/10 (11 March 2012)

To me, it feels like a lot of films have been following in Inception's footsteps. A lot of films are trying to have unique story plots with brilliant complexities. And they've worked. The Adjustment Bureau wasn't really one, but it had a sort of unique-ness to it that worked, and so did Source Code.
In Time, from director Andrew Niccol(Lord of War) is the latest attempt. And it probably has the most original of the premises, excluding Inception, but yet it's also the most unrealistic.
The films takes place in a world where you only live up to 25 years old, and after that you have to buy time in order to stay alive. But you remain looking 25 forever(Joan Rivers and Dolly Parton could've done with this world). Will Salas(Justin Timberlake) struggles to buy time, but when he is bestowed with over a hundred years of time, his world is turned upside down.
After the death of a loved one and the death of a stranger, it comes to Will's attention that some people don't actually need all this time, and that everyone should get a fair share instead of those who have too much. So soon Will and a girl(Amanda Seyfreid), who's father is the richest man in the world, become Robin Hoods and try to escape the law, lead by an Elliot Ness-y character played by Cillian Murphey.
The film has a neat, cheeky if not ridiculous premise that never really runs out of steam. It's fun, but I feel that the ending could have been a little better. I like the weirdness of it. I like how Olivia Wilde plays a 50 year old, and Justin Timberlake's mom. What a good looking family that must of been. Who was the father? George Clooney? Sister? Megan Fox?
Is it Inception? No, and I don't think anything will ever be,excluding The Dark Knight and P.T. Anderson's Magnolia. Unless that film is directed by Christopher Nolan. But it's good while it lasts, so see it.
B+