Good idea ruined by undeveloped premise.

Rating: 5/10 (15 May 2017)

Too many glaring plot holes really screws this movie out of any enjoyment value for me. I can't stand it when the reasons for a characters actions aren't adequately explained. (Perhaps if the story was better I wouldn't have had time to pick it apart.)
IN TIME posits that time is now the world's currency. Everyone carries around their life's savings displayed as a digital clock in their arm. Anyone can take or give you 'life' by merely clasping your arm. If this was the case, I think murders and muggings wouldn't be restricted to a couple of 'minutemen' (hoodlums) driving around in a car. Every single street corner would have someone who, about to run out of time, was primed to steal your time.
The premise states that all people born are immortal; genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. This sounds great until we're told that this age marker initiates a countdown starting at 1 year worth of time. If your counter reaches zero you die, instantly and painlessly.
All income and payments for goods and services in this new world are applied in time units. The ultra-rich have thousands of hours on their clocks and the corporation they run manipulate what time is worth in order to control the population of workers.
Several things really bothered me about this premise. How do people live until they are 25 if their clock doesn't start until then? How do they perform the transactions needed to purchase food or receive wages? I saw one child begging for money (time) using a 'cassette', but that scene only opened up more questions. I can see why the film glossed over the problem.
With only a few Timekeepers wandering around, crime would have been rampant. Look how easily 2 people could take what they wanted from the time loan banks and even from the Greenwich ultra-rich.
What could have made this film better? I would have had Will download the million years into his arm which would make his clock malfunction. He would then download his malfunction to every person he could, and ask them to do the same, starting a chain reaction. This would be the start of a revolution. That's as far as I want to go without rewriting the book but it would have been a more satisfying ending in my opinion.