Twenty minute coffee? Who hasn't had one of those?

Rating: 8/10 (4 November 2011)

I have to admit, I had high hopes for this movie and wasn't completely disappointed. The basics, for those of you who don't like to read:
Interesting concept. Decent acting. Brilliant action sequences.
I'm sure a lot of us 70s geeks watched the trailer and had Logan's Run flashbacks, but I actually found a lot of this movie original. In a future where immortality is possible, very little has changed. "In Time" shows a world where time is currency and just like in our own lives-- where we never have enough money or time--many must suffer, so few can prosper. And if you have ever wondered at the human limit for digesting puns about time, this is a must see (we get it: word games make you clever!).
There's lot's of plot holes and un-sciencey stuff that I'm sure the sci- fi geeks have already picked a part, but "In Time" is a really good way to waste two hours of your life. If you can afford it. (Oh look, it's contagious.)
Like other reviewers have suggested, this movie was thinly veiled social commentary. Class warfare has taken to the big screens, and I hope no one in Occupy Wallstreet has the the cash to see it. The rich live forever, the poor die young and no one complains--supposedly, because those with time are greedy and those without it are stupid enough to think they have a shot at immortality. Apparently, only one world-weary immortal has the brains to put it together (but not the guts to do anything about it).
I really hope it was time constraints that made this movie so one- dimensional and filled with deterministic culture. (Where were the bleeding-heart liberal elites? The underground proletariat intelligentsia?) "In Time" might understand the injustices of a capitalist system, but it's failed to portray what we have always had in abundance: good intentions.
The acting was good, though not flawless. Somehow it's always surprising when pop-stars give passable performances, and Timberlake always does. Seyfried is adorable as the bored, over-protected socialite, but this role left no room for emotional depth like her parts in Big Love or Chloe. The leads' chemistry was awful and the romance left me cringing. Cillian Murphy stole every scene. Maybe it's because he played the only interesting character. He plays a justice-mad "Time Keeper", in charge of policing time thieves and anyone still naive enough to believe in upward mobility.
With wonderful world-building and a complete lack of depth, I'm sure this movie is begging for a franchise. And with a concept so beautiful, I really hope they get it.