I just watched it and really liked the idea. It got only 6,5 on IMDB and I dont know why. It's one of these movies that I never heard about before I watched them. It has great dystopian system and is pretty believable, really I dont know why people didnt like it. Sure it has it's weak points but I think the movie should be given credit.
I write this post because I feel sorry for the storywriter.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Some of e valid complaints were about the fact that it quickly devolved into a typical action cliche, and wasted an interesting premise on mindless violence and peril, witch left the "message" preachy and rushed rather an evolved and intriguing.
:spoilers:
The allegorical implications of the ghetto rats "discovering" that the financial system is rigged with fixed price increases- as if they didn't notice that they were practically chattel slaves already (or worse, since they couldn't even run away), were somewhat marred by their mind-numbing obviousness.
For my part, I'm highly annoyed by movies in which the "reveal" has implications so obvious and so plainly self-evident that it reveals absolutely nothing I hadn't already grasped in the first five minutes. In this case- a bunch of litersl wage slaves discover that the system under which they are living is designed to favor an elite class... Which you could glean from the trailer. It's insulting how stupid the film thinks its audience really is.
eta: I was also annoyed by the stupidity of a woman who pays off a loan and budgets herself a half hour before*death* to meet her son and get a few more hours. They play this for emotional impact, but it's like feeling bad for someone whose daily practice is to commute by foot across a busy highway.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
This movie had so many problems I don't even know where to start, so I'll just list them as best I can. Spoilers below.
1. Bonny and Clyde story
2. What reasonable society would ever allow this kind of economy to surface? It makes no sense.
3. Even if it could happen, how do these babies get born with clocks on their wrists? Why can't they just be implanted at birth? And if that's the case already, why not show it?
4. The cops. Seriously, "Time Keepers"?
5. People saying laughable things like "You're out of time!" or "I keep time, sir!" So many stupid and over-the-top cheesy lines. A lot of them had me laughing out loud. It honestly sounds like 10 year old fan fiction.
6. Justin Timberlake. The man simply doesn't have the charisma or acting capability to hold an entire movie together. He's OK as a secondary character, like in Alpha Dog, but they should have chosen someone else.
7. The mother (olivia Wilde) is an idiot. Like Orincoro said, why would anyone go and pay their rent with only 30 minutes to spare? I understand she lives in the slums and life sucks, but come on. Give yourself at least an hour. How has she survived so long without dying already if she is this stupid? Furthermore, it's way too coincidental for her to do this on the very night her son gets all that "time". You can say it's just movie coincidences, but come on. It sounds like bad writing if you ask me.
8. The bad guys are right. Seriously, if you really think about it, the bad guys are totally, 100% correct. The main character and his girlfriend are only going to make things worse in the long run. Overpopulation is a huge concern, and while it might be great for all the poor people in the world to get this "time", it's going to ultimately screw the entire race over. The bad guy is right when he says the world needs balance.
9. The fact that you can kill a person by tilting their hand a little to the left. Are you kidding me? You can steal a person's life by shaking their hand the wrong way? Who would ever come up with a system of currency exchange that could so easily be manipulated? It's like you are intentionally setting it up with the idea in mind that people are going to murder other people for their "time".
10. It's just predictable. After about 30 minutes, you should already know the ending. If you don't, you've probably been hoping for something better and your brain wouldn't let you accept the fact that this was really what was going to happen.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yeah, I mean, I do agree with almost everything, really. But I liked the idea a lot. Though I do agree that the mother scene was simply pathetic and so is the ease with which they take and give time away. Main character was like 30 sec left, then he was 1000000000 years and so on and so forth. But I really liked the idea. I have to stress that, cause my post is starting to look like a complete failure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Starting?
Hey, just kidding. It's a matter of taste. I just have more. Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Cheers. Starting, cause I really do agree that the movie sucks at so many levels. And yet I had to let the world know that I feel a little sorry about the fact that the movie concept was really cool and it was unfortunately ruined by... oh I'll just shut up. I got no taste.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Don't listen to Orincoro. He just likes to tease people.
There's nothing wrong with liking something that kind of sucks. After all, everyone likes a crappy movie or two. I thought Battlefield Earth and Super Mario Bros. were great, even though they are both horrible films. I think the difference is that with In Time, there's just no excuse for me. The director of Gataca made this, which means it should be awesome, but it's not even close to the same level. I saw the trailers for In Time, but I refused to believe it was bad because I had so much faith in the director. On the other hand, when I watched Battlefield Earth, I'd already heard how horrible it was, so my expectations were ridiculously low.
But anyway, as I said, we all have movies we know are crap but like anyway. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I saw this on a pretty disastrous date, so I'm slightly biased against it. But I really liked the idea too.
I liked it to start with, because I thought it would get clever any moment. However, as others have said, there was no twist - what you saw really was what you got, which was pretty disappointing. There were a couple of touches I did like - like the rich father only giving his daughter ten years, rather than thousands, so he could always keep her under the thumb. And everyone looking around the same age was interesting visually, (though some of them didn't quite look 25).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
This thread depresses me because I'd never heard of this movie until I read about it here, and it sounds so interesting and yet you've all basically explained why it sucks.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I didnt! Jeff C did it! He did!
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
But then, he wrote some kinda spoiler warning
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Cheers. Starting, cause I really do agree that the movie sucks at so many levels. And yet I had to let the world know that I feel a little sorry about the fact that the movie concept was really cool and it was unfortunately ruined by... oh I'll just shut up. I got no taste.
It's true, I'm just teasing. I actually found the movie watchable, if annoying at moments. Visually, the brutalist motifs were intriguing, though they are overused in dystopian fiction. People who do this think they are emulating Orwell, even though Orwell employed brutalist imagery as a contrast to the minute details of unerasable physical history. The things Winston sees in 1984 are relics of a history contrary to official facts, which help to cement in his mind the concept of history being self-evident, rather than a subjective quantity. The brutal architecture stands out as a bold statement of enforced cognitive dissonance. The scenery in this film serves no function apart from type and mood. Poor people live in filth, and the rich live, apparently, in office parks.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This thread depresses me because I'd never heard of this movie until I read about it here, and it sounds so interesting and yet you've all basically explained why it sucks.
At least now if you see it you won't have high expectations. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, that's true.
Thanks, Jeff!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I thought the concept was pretty interesting and it was an OK movie, but mostly because of Amanda Seyfried. I love me some Amanda.
A lot of it was laughable, and about halfway through it REALLY started to annoy me how the movie was basically a Michael Moore movie with a sci-fi / action twist.
I did enjoy the whole time/currency thing though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Aw that's even more disappointing, Geraine.
I mean, I get from the premise that it's going to be anti-capitalist, and I can largely handle that from interesting dystopian flicks, but... Michael Moore movie? Ouch. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
That's a little insulting to Michael Moore, don't you think?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I can't tell if that's sarcasm, or not, Jeff, but I read it as being harsh to In Time, not Michael Moore.
Frankly, I find Battlefield Earth more believable than the typical Michael Moore movie.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You mean those millions of sobbing 20 year olds were wrong to believe someone whose idea of political commentary is to ambush Republicans on the street and ask them why they don't "send" their adult children to war?
But I love how nobody, *ever* mentions how Moore set the collapse of the world trade center towers to "What a Wonderful World," with "Ooohhhh yesss..." mashed up against a plane hitting the North Tower. I saw that film again recently, and thought... "oh my god... this man is actually celebrating this event." It reads like a weird form of black humor or sarcasm, but actually, I don't think it is.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Agreed.
Also, you just gave me the creepy crawlies. I'd willed myself to forget everything about that movie.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think the only Michael Moore movie I've seen is Canadian Bacon, and it was pretty bad. The only funny part was Dan Akroyd telling the main characters that by law their graffiti had to be in both French and English. I have absolutely no desire to see one of his documentaries.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I can't tell if that's sarcasm, or not, Jeff, but I read it as being harsh to In Time, not Michael Moore.
Don't worry, I was being sarcastic Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, this is why I like this community.
Because we may disagree on trivial stuff like religion and politics... but we can all reach agreement on the really big issues, like how much of an irredeemable hack Michael Moore is!
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I didn't know Michael Moore is considered such a "irredeemable hack" in the US. Why is that exactly? Is he some kind of a left wing populist? I know him only for Fahrenheit and Sicko, though I haven't watched the latter.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, that's basically it.
Though I'd say Michael Moore is a left-wing populist the way that the sun is a tad warm and a bit dense.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Nice simile Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I didn't know Michael Moore is considered such a "irredeemable hack" in the US. Why is that exactly? Is he some kind of a left wing populist? I know him only for Fahrenheit and Sicko, though I haven't watched the latter.
He's just... so bad. And sadly, he deals dishonestly with a lot of issues that don't require a good deal of dishonesty to be shocking to people.
He's the kind of guy who thinks that it's not good enough to show the disaster that is US healthcare in all of its glory, but instead, he needs to go to Cuba and show how *good* their healthcare is. As if lauding communism is going to win anyone over. The fact that cubans spend most of their income on basic necessities? Eh- he doesn't mention it.
It's the kind of tactic that's designed not to persuade anyone, but just to insult and embarrass- and I don't like having my own feelings about our political or economic situation in any way related to that kind of person.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't like having my own feelings about our political or economic situation in any way related to that kind of person.
Heh. As a conservative, I sooooo know what that feels like. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I can only imagine. My parents reregistered as democrats sometime before the 2004 primaries. Not that being longtime San Franciscans and being Swedenborgeon Christians had ever made them core base republicans, but they stopped believing at some point that there was anyone left with the GOP whom they could relate to.
Since then, they have seen one daughter marry another woman, and been horrified by the national debate on the issue, which, for anyone who has a gay friend or relative, much less one who wants to be married, is mystifying in the extreme.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Michael Moore has this point in all of his movies where the movie was about something else but now it is about Michael Moore doing some incredibly stupid pandering stunt like the megaphone and the boat at the entry to guantanamo bay. I'm glad he's so much less present these days than he used to be.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Yeah, those stunts always made me tilt my head when I saw them. They don't serve much of a purpose to the message of the film, so why have them? Because it's Michael Moore...?
I enjoy sections of his films when he is explaining his reasoning or giving you a history lesson (like the presidential speech in Capitalism: A Love Story), but when he's doing stuff like going outside a building and taping it off with yellow police tape because he wants to cause a scene...that's when it gets to be too ridiculous for me. Every movie he does has a scene like this (from what I can remember, anyway), and each time they ruin the film. It really seems like he only does it to get attention, like a spoiled child when they're not getting their way, so they flail their arms around and cry until someone notices.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)