Hubbry Logo
In TimeIn TimeMain
Open search
In Time
Community hub
In Time
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
In Time
In Time
In Time
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In Time
Theatrical release poster
Directed byAndrew Niccol
Written byAndrew Niccol
Produced by
Starring
CinematographyRoger Deakins
Edited byZach Staenberg
Music byCraig Armstrong
Production
companies
Distributed by20th Century Fox
Release dates
Running time
109 minutes[3]
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Budget$40 million[4]
Box office$174 million[5]

In Time is a 2011 American science fiction action film written, co-produced, and directed by Andrew Niccol. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star as inhabitants of a society that uses time from one's lifespan as its primary currency, with each individual possessing a clock on their arm that counts down how long they have to live. Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser, Olivia Wilde, Matt Bomer, Johnny Galecki, and Alex Pettyfer also star. The film was released on October 28, 2011, and grossed $174 million against a $40 million budget. It received mixed reviews from critics, who praised the premise while criticizing its execution.[6][7]

Plot

[edit]

In 2169, people are genetically engineered to stop aging on their 25th birthday, when a one-year countdown on their forearm begins. When it reaches zero, the person "times out" and dies instantly. Time has thus become the universal currency, transferred directly between people or stored in "time capsules". Several major areas called Time Zones exist; Dayton is the poorest, a manufacturing "ghetto" where people rarely have over 24 hours on their clocks, whereas in New Greenwich, the richest Zone, people have enough time to be essentially immortal.

Will Salas, a 28-year-old Dayton factory worker, lives with his 50-year-old mother Rachel. One night, he rescues a drunken 105-year-old man named Henry Hamilton from 75-year-old Fortis and his Minutemen, a group of time-robbing thugs. In a secret location, Hamilton, who has 116 years on his clock, reveals to Will that the people of New Greenwich hoard most of the time, while constantly increasing prices to impoverish people in less prosperous districts. The next morning, he transfers all but 5 minutes of his time to a sleeping Will, then times out before Will can stop him, falling off a bridge. Raymond Leon, the 75-year-old leader of a unit of police-like Timekeepers, erroneously assumes Will robbed and killed Hamilton.

Heeding his friend Borel's warning against possessing excess time in Dayton, Will donates 10 years (the length of their friendship) to him before departing, planning to relocate to New Greenwich with Rachel. However, that night, Rachel suddenly finds herself with insufficient bus fare to return to Dayton, having exhausted her earnings from two days' work in the Garment District to liquidate a two-day loan. The uncaring driver forces her to run, but she arrives a few seconds too late for Will to rescue her and times out at the last moment in his arms, devastating him. The next morning, he furiously decides to avenge her passing by visiting New Greenwich, internalizing Hamilton's words regarding the inequity of the time system.

Arriving in New Greenwich, Will meets 110-year-old time-loaning businessman Philippe Weis and his 27-year-old daughter Sylvia at a casino. While playing poker, Will nearly times out but eventually wins over a millennium in a flawless gamble. Sylvia invites him to a party, and Will commutes there by purchasing a new sports car. Raymond arrives and apprehends Will, who insists his innocence in Hamilton's death. Rather than attempting to prove Will's guilt, he simply confiscates all but two hours of Will's time, explaining it does not belong in Dayton.

Fortis's gang ambushes Will and Sylvia, who have escaped back to Dayton with him taking her hostage, leaving them with 30 minutes each. Will visits Borel's residence to retrieve some spare time, but his wife Greta answers, tearfully explaining that he has drunk himself to death. After the two obtain a day each by pawning Sylvia's diamond earrings, Will calls Philippe to request a 1,000-year ransom to be paid into the time-mission for the desperate, releasing Sylvia when he declines. Raymond encounters Will, but when Sylvia accidentally shoots him in the shoulder, Will transfers two hours to Raymond, allowing him to survive long enough for his squad to retrieve him, and purloins his car.

Now committed to crashing the system, Will and Sylvia rob Philippe's time banks, donating the extra capsules to the destitute, but soon realize that prices are simply increased to compensate for the extra time. Fortis's gang ambushes them, but Will successfully times out Fortis in an arm wrestling match by using his deceased father's technique and kills his Minutemen. He and Sylvia then decide to rob Philippe's vault of a 1,000,000-year capsule. Raymond pursues them to Dayton, where he was born and raised but eventually escaped from, but fails to stop them from distributing the stolen time. Having neglected to collect his per diem, he times out. Will and Sylvia nearly time out themselves, but survive by taking Raymond's salary.

Television reports show factories in Dayton shutting down as everyone abandons their jobs due to possessing sufficient time to sustain themselves. Having witnessed the consequences of Raymond's obsession with the pair, his colleague Jaeger orders the Timekeepers to return home. Will and Sylvia progress to larger banks, still attempting to level the system.

Cast

[edit]

Production

[edit]

Before the film was titled In Time, the names Now and I'm.mortal were used.[8] On July 12, 2010, it was reported that Amanda Seyfried had been offered a lead role.[9] On July 27, 2010, it was confirmed that Justin Timberlake had been offered a lead role.[10] On August 9, 2010, Cillian Murphy was confirmed to have joined the cast.[11]

The first photos from the set were revealed on October 28, 2010.[12] 20th Century Fox and New Regency distributed the film, and Marc Abraham and Eric Newman's Strike Entertainment produced it.[13]

In an interview with Kristopher Tapley of In Contention, Roger Deakins stated that he would be shooting the film in digital, which makes this the first film to be shot in digital by the veteran cinematographer.[14]

The use of retrofuturism is one of many elements that the film shares with Niccol's earlier work, Gattaca; Niccol himself referred to it as "the bastard child of Gattaca".[15]

[edit]

On September 15, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the film by attorneys acting on behalf of Harlan Ellison, author of "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman". The suit, naming New Regency, director Andrew Niccol and a number of anonymous John Does, appears to base its claim on the similarity that both the completed film and Ellison's story concern a dystopian future in which people have a set amount of time to live which can be revoked, given certain pertaining circumstances by a recognized authority known as a Timekeeper. Initially, the suit demanded an injunction against the film's release;[16] however, Ellison later altered his suit to instead ask for screen credit[17] before ultimately dropping the suit, with both sides releasing the following joint statement: "After seeing the film In Time, Harlan Ellison decided to voluntarily dismiss the Action. No payment or screen credit was promised or given to Harlan Ellison. The parties wish each other well, and have no further comment on the matter."[18]

Reception

[edit]

Critical response

[edit]

Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 36% of 173 critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating is 5.30/10. The website's consensus reads, "In Time's intriguing premise and appealing cast are easily overpowered by the blunt, heavy-handed storytelling."[6] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, gives the film a score of 53 based on 36 reviews.[7] CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade moviegoers gave the film was a "B-" on an A+ to F scale.[19] Roger Ebert gave the film a positive review with 3 stars out of 4, noting that the "premise is damnably intriguing", but "a great deal of this film has been assembled from standard elements".[20] Henry Barnes noted that Will is "one of the 99%" and calls the character "a Rolex Robin Hood".[21]

The Atlantic's Noah Berlatsky argued that the film depicted inequality as "sexy" in its portrayal of a romance between a lower-class and upper-class character, and describing the characters' bank robberies as the "hoariest of get-rich schemes" that operates within the capitalist system rather than dismantling it.[22] Writing for Time magazine, Richard Corliss praised the premise but criticized Niccol's direction of the cast, writing that his "imagination is vigorously literary but not thrillingly cinematic", describing the film's second half as devolving into poorly executed action sequences.[23] Manohla Dargis gave the film a mixed review, comparing the story to the works of Philip K. Dick, as well as Niccol's earlier film Gattaca with the inclusion of the "master-slave dialectic" between the rich and the poor, like that of the genetically perfect and imperfect in his earlier work. Dargis also noted the appearance of Holocaust imagery, in which the poor remain lying where they die.[24]

Box office

[edit]

In Time grossed $12 million on its opening weekend, debuting at number three behind Puss in Boots, and Paranormal Activity 3. The film eventually grossed over $37.5 million in the US and $136.4 million internationally for a worldwide total of $173.9 million.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

In Time

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
(Russian: Время) is a 2011 American dystopian written, directed, and produced by , starring as Will Salas, a factory worker from a time-poor , and as Sylvia Weis, the daughter of a wealthy time lender. The story is set in the year 2169, in a world where halts human aging at 25, but individuals must purchase additional time as literal currency displayed on glowing forearm clocks to avoid sudden death when their allocation expires, creating stark divides between the time-affluent elite in fortified zones and the perpetually indebted masses in ghettos. After receiving a century's worth of time from a victim, Salas embarks on a quest for justice against a system that enforces through timekeeper police and , kidnapping Weis and sparking a redistribution of hoarded time among the poor. Released theatrically on October 28, 2011, the film earned $174 million worldwide on a $40 million , succeeding internationally despite underperforming domestically and garnering mixed critical reception, with a 36% approval rating on for its intriguing premise overshadowed by heavy-handed allegory, plot inconsistencies, and underdeveloped characters. While praised for visualizing time as an exploitable resource akin to money—echoing Benjamin Franklin's adage in a literal, high-stakes economy—it faced criticism for simplistic anti-capitalist messaging that some viewed as inadvertently satirizing ineffective redistribution efforts rather than systemic flaws, alongside technical flaws like inconsistent world-building rules. The film received a Teen Choice Award nomination for Timberlake but no major wins, marking Niccol's return to directing since and highlighting his recurring interest in and inequality through speculative futures.

Synopsis

Plot Summary

In the year 2169, ensures that humans cease aging after 25, when a on their activates, initially displaying one year of life that can be extended by acquiring more time, which functions as the sole for all transactions across . Residents of impoverished ghettos like Dayton subsist by working for minimal time wages, often facing expiration from routine expenditures such as bus fares or purchases, while affluent zones such as New Greenwich house elites who accumulate centuries or millennia of time. Will Salas, a Dayton worker, intervenes to save Henry Hamilton—a despondent visitor from New Greenwich possessing over a century of time—from assailants; Hamilton subsequently transfers 116 years to Will's account before deliberately allowing his timer to reach zero. Awakening to his windfall, Will discovers his mother has perished while hurrying to meet him, her time depleted mid-journey, as Timekeeper Leon begins probing Hamilton's demise and flags Will for possessing implausibly abundant time in the ghetto. Fleeing to New Greenwich, Will integrates into elite circles, encountering Sylvia Weis, daughter of Philippe Weis, the overseer of the dominant time-lending corporation; after Leon locates him, Will seizes Sylvia as a hostage to effect his escape, but she soon comprehends the ghettos' plight and joins his efforts. The duo commences a series of heists targeting time vaults and banks, siphoning hoarded reserves to disseminate among Dayton's destitute, thereby inciting widespread unrest and intensifying Leon's hunt. The narrative culminates in Will and Sylvia breaching Philippe Weis's fortified compound to plunder a million-year time repository; amid the confrontation, they initiate a broadcast from New Greenwich, unleashing torrents of time into the ghettos and eroding the elites' dominion. Leon succumbs during the pursuit, and with seconds remaining on Sylvia's clock, Will replenishes her time; the pair persists in undermining the entrenched hierarchy of time scarcity.

Cast

Principal Actors

Justin Timberlake portrays Will Salas, a 28-year-old factory worker in the impoverished Dayton zone who receives an unexpected inheritance of over a century's worth of time, leading him to infiltrate the elite New Greenwich sector. Timberlake, born January 31, 1981, rose to fame as a member of the boy band NSYNC before launching a solo music career with albums like Justified (2002), and entered acting with supporting roles in films such as Alpha Dog (2006) and The Social Network (2010); In Time represented his first starring role in a major feature, selected by director Andrew Niccol for his ability to convey underlying intensity amid a high-stakes narrative. plays Sylvia Weis, the daughter of a powerful time-lending executive who becomes entangled with Salas after a at her family's bank, eventually partnering with him to redistribute time from the wealthy. Seyfried, born December 3, 1985, gained recognition for roles in (2004) and Mamma Mia! (2008), bringing a blend of vulnerability and resolve to the character that underscores the film's romantic and ideological tensions. Cillian Murphy embodies Raymond Leon, the chief timekeeper tasked with enforcing the temporal economy's rules, depicted as a determined antagonist who depletes his own time reserves in pursuit of Salas. Murphy, born May 25, 1976, known for intense performances in 28 Days Later (2002) and Inception (2010), contributes a stoic, methodical presence that heightens the film's cat-and-mouse dynamics. appears as Philippe Weis, Sylvia's father and a tycoon whose monopolizes time loans, serving as a symbol of entrenched elite power. Kartheiser, born October 5, 1979, was concurrently starring as in the television series (2007–2015), lending the role a layer of calculated ambition drawn from his established screen persona.

Supporting Roles

Olivia Wilde portrays Rachel Salas, the mother of Will Salas, whose role underscores the personal stakes of time scarcity in Dayton's , fostering emotional depth in interactions amid economic desperation. Johnny Galecki plays Borel, Will's friend and fellow factory worker, who illustrates peer solidarity and the precarious social fabric of the lower zones through shared routines and risks. These portrayals contribute to dynamics by grounding the story in relatable human connections within the . Matt Bomer depicts Henry Hamilton, a figure from New Greenwich whose brief but pivotal presence bridges class divides and propels plot momentum via interactions that challenge the status quo. embodies Fortis, a enforcing territorial control through predatory tactics, which heightens conflict and reveals the lawless undercurrents exploiting systemic vulnerabilities. Together, these supporting characters populate the film's stratified world— from dwellers to outsiders and criminal enforcers— advancing narrative tension through collective depictions of societal friction and opportunistic behaviors.

Production

Development and Pre-Production

conceived the screenplay for In Time as an original concept exploring a dystopian society where time functions as the primary currency, reflecting themes of and class division in which individuals cease aging at 25 but must earn or inherit additional lifespan to survive beyond a year. The script built on Niccol's prior work in , akin to the genetic class structures in , emphasizing causal mechanisms of resource scarcity driving . Development advanced under New Regency Productions, with co-production from led by and Eric Newman, securing a $40 million budget to realize Niccol's vision without relying on extensive for world-building. Pre-production challenges included aligning the project's modest scale with its ambitious premise, prompting Niccol to advocate for directing after initial studio acquisition of the script. 20th Century Fox committed to distribution, facilitating preparations such as casting principal roles— as protagonist Will Salas and as Sylvia Weis—which were finalized in 2010 to leverage their rising profiles for market appeal. Location scouting centered on neighborhoods to proxy distinct "time zones," substituting for ghettos and affluent districts for wealthy enclaves, minimizing logistical costs while evoking the film's literal time-based segregation.

Filming and Technical Aspects

Principal photography for In Time occurred primarily in , leveraging the city's diverse urban landscapes to visually underscore the film's socioeconomic contrasts. Derelict neighborhoods in downtown areas, including Boyle Heights, the Arts District, and , served as the primary locations for the impoverished "Dayton" ghettos, capturing rundown streets and industrial decay. Upscale districts like represented the opulent "New Greenwich," with its modern high-rises and luxury settings providing a stark to the gritty backdrops. The film's sci-fi elements were grounded through practical on-set effects, particularly for the glowing time displays embedded in characters' forearms. Actors periodically donned hand rigs fitted with LED lights connected to compact battery packs, which emitted a realistic luminescent effect visible during filming and illuminated the surrounding skin. These props allowed for tangible interactions in scenes depicting time transfers and depletion, enhancing the immediacy of the narrative's core mechanic without relying solely on digital augmentation at the capture stage. Action sequences, including foot and vehicle chases across these real-world locations, incorporated practical stunts to convey urgency and physical stakes, filmed directly amid the urban environments to integrate seamlessly with the setting. Director emphasized location-based shooting to maintain a grounded aesthetic, avoiding extensive green-screen work for principal environments and prioritizing authentic spatial dynamics in the film's kinetic pursuits.

Post-Production

Post-production on In Time began in March 2011 after concluded the prior November. This phase encompassed to amplify narrative tension via sequences depicting characters' depleting time displays, sound mixing to underscore the urgency of time as currency, and integration of effects for the film's retro-futuristic interfaces. The work wrapped by September 2011, enabling the film's theatrical debut later that month. Visual finishing involved processing in , facilitating targeted that differentiated the stark, time-scarce ghettos from opulent, time-rich enclaves. Effects work prioritized practical constructions for sets and props—like forearm-embedded time gauges realized through prosthetics and lighting—supplemented by targeted CGI for elements such as vehicle modifications and chase dynamics, preserving a tangible aesthetic over extensive digital fabrication. featured synthesized alerts and rhythmic pulses mimicking digital timers, heightening immersion in the premise without overpowering the dialogue-driven plot.

Themes and Analysis

Core Premise and Dystopian Elements

In the film In Time, humanity has undergone genetic modification to halt physical aging at 25 years of age, preserving youthful appearance indefinitely contingent on possessing adequate lifespan reserves. Upon turning 25, an individual's displays a glowing digital timer initialized with one year of life, which counts down inexorably and triggers upon reaching zero. This remaining time serves as the exclusive , transferable via physical contact for purchases, wages, or gifts, embedding economic activity directly into biological survival. The societal structure manifests as segregated time zones, with lower strata like the Dayton enforcing a grueling cycle of incessant labor due to engineered temporal , where earned increments depreciate swiftly against escalating costs for essentials, perpetuating subsistence-level existence. Affluent enclaves, conversely, hoard centuries or , enabling luxurious insulated from such pressures. This bifurcation underscores the dystopian , where access to time dictates not mere but , rendering the perpetually vulnerable to expiration from mundane expenditures or misfortune. Enforcement relies on Timekeepers, a specialized analogous to , who monitor and confiscate anomalous time accumulations in impoverished zones to preserve equilibrium, ostensibly averting unrest from perceived inequities. Complementing this official apparatus, illicit networks of operate as predatory gangs, conducting raids to time from the populace through , exploiting the system's rigidity for personal gain. These elements collectively forge a of temporal control, where deviation invites lethal reprisal and the commodification of existence stifles organic or beyond survival imperatives.

Economic Interpretations

The film's economic framework portrays time as a finite resource commodified into a universal currency, where the wealthy accumulate vast reserves—often centuries—while the impoverished subsist on daily allotments, mirroring real-world wealth disparities in which the top 1% hold disproportionate assets. This hoarding by elites in fortified zones like New Greenwich symbolizes concentrated capital that sustains for the few at the expense of mass precarity, with systemic mechanisms such as time vaults and patrols enforcing to prevent redistribution. Director framed the narrative around the literalization of "time is money," emphasizing how commodified lifespan exacerbates inequality by tying survival to economic productivity. Inheritance and lending practices in the story further entrench class divisions, as families pass down temporal fortunes akin to generational transfers, while predatory loans from time banks impose rates that drain the poor's allotments, perpetuating cycles of and dependency. These elements critique the absence of progressive taxation or universal allocation, positioning time deficits as engineered outcomes of unchecked market dynamics rather than natural scarcity. Heists, such as the protagonist Will Salas's robbery of a century from industrialist Philippe Weis, represent acts of redistribution symbolizing resistance against elite monopolization, evoking Robin Hood-style interventions in unequal systems. Released amid the 2011 protests, which highlighted the 99% versus 1% wealth chasm following the , the film resonated with contemporary concerns over and , though Niccol conceived the premise earlier as a broader for life's under . Reviewers interpreted the ghetto zones' constant "time tax" hikes—eroding wages to inflate elite holdings—as analogous to inflationary policies favoring asset holders, framing the narrative as a left-leaning indictment of exploitation without viable alternatives.

Critiques of the Film's Economic Model

Critics have noted that the film's time-based lacks mechanisms for growth or capital , resulting in a static rather than the dynamic expansion observed in real-world markets driven by savings and . In actual , accumulated capital enables technological advancements and increased output, as evidenced by historical GDP growth rates averaging 2-3% annually in developed nations over the through reinvestment. The film's system, where time functions as both currency and lifespan, discourages long-term savings or lending due to pervasive theft risks and an favoring short-term security expenditures over productive assets, leading to a downward spiral of concentrated in protection services. The assumption that time by the wealthy inherently causes or devalues the overlooks basic principles of supply and voluntary exchange; without mechanisms to expand the time supply—such as through or controls— would not trigger widespread devaluation absent artificial manipulation. In the film, prices inflate via alleged "manipulation" to cull the , but this ignores how property rights and secure storage could stabilize value, as seen in commodity-backed historically resisting deflationary pressures from restricted supply. Analyses highlight that natural time depletion from daily consumption (e.g., a 1-day drain per person) should induce deflationary tendencies, contradicting the depicted unless unexplained occurs, which undermines the zero-sum premise. The narrative's emphasis on coercive redistribution through as a solution to inequality disregards of such approaches' failures, such as in historical command economies where forced equality stifled incentives and led to stagnation, with per capita income growth near zero in the from 1928-1989. Will Salas achieves wealth via individual risk-taking and evasion rather than systemic reform, illustrating how entrepreneurial action in voluntary markets generates value, yet the film attributes success to luck and predation without acknowledging causal drivers like skill and opportunity exploitation. Macroeconomic stability in the depicted world is implausible due to absent incentives for technological progress or demographic adjustments; with no evident advancements in time-generation efficiency despite centuries of operation, the system fails to explain sustained levels or why innovations do not emerge to mitigate , as rational actors would prioritize such developments in a high-risk environment. Commentators question the lack of business formation amid clear shortages, such as unaddressed price spikes in basics like , indicating suppressed not justified by the rules. This portrayal contrasts with real economies where prompts , underscoring the model's oversight of human agency in adapting to constraints.

Release

Theatrical Release and Marketing

The film premiered at the Regency Village Theater in , on October 20, 2011. It received a wide theatrical release in the United States on October 28, 2011, distributed by . The international rollout commenced earlier in select markets, including and on October 26, 2011, and on October 27, 2011, as part of a coordinated global strategy by to build momentum ahead of the North American debut. Marketing efforts centered on the film's innovative premise of time as a literal , showcased through trailers that highlighted the distinctive visual motif of glowing digital timers embedded in characters' forearms, high-stakes chase sequences, and the pairing of and to draw in younger audiences. Promotional materials, including spots aired during major events and online campaigns, emphasized the sci-fi action-thriller genre and Timberlake's crossover appeal from music to film, positioning the movie as a test of his leading-man potential. The campaign included appearances at 2011 as part of 20th Century Fox's panel lineup, targeting genre enthusiasts without delving into the story's socioeconomic undertones, despite the post-2008 context lending inherent timeliness to its themes of inequality and .

Home Media and Distribution

The film became available for home video purchase in the United States on January 31, 2012, through DVD and Blu-ray formats distributed by Fox Home Entertainment. The standard Blu-ray edition featured , 5.1 audio, and supplementary materials including an track by director , who discussed the construction of the film's time-based economy and dystopian societal framework. Combo packs bundling Blu-ray, DVD, and a were also offered, facilitating multi-format for consumers. Digital download and rental options followed shortly after, enabling purchase via platforms such as iTunes and Amazon Video, with rights managed under 20th Century Fox's licensing portfolio. Over time, streaming availability proliferated across video-on-demand services; by the mid-2010s, it appeared on subscription platforms including Netflix in various territories before shifting due to content rotation. As of 2025, the film streams on Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ in regions like North America and parts of Europe, reflecting Disney's acquisition of Fox assets and subsequent catalog integration. International home media distribution mirrored the U.S. timeline with region-specific adaptations, such as Region 2 DVD releases in compatible with PAL standards and localized packaging. Exclusive editions, including a Media Markt SteelBook Blu-ray in , catered to collector markets and emphasized the film's appeal in regions receptive to its socioeconomic critiques. Licensing variations prolonged dominance in some non-U.S. markets, where streaming penetration lagged, ensuring sustained ancillary revenue through dubbed audio tracks and in languages like French, Spanish, and German.

Reception

Critical Response

In Time garnered mixed reviews from critics upon its release, with a 36% approval rating on based on 173 reviews and an average score of 5.2/10. The consensus highlighted the film's innovative premise—where time serves as literal currency in a stratified society—as a strength, but faulted its execution for a predictable plot, underdeveloped characters, and superficial exploration of socioeconomic themes. On , it scored 53 out of 100 from 36 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews," with praise for its stylish action sequences offset by critiques of logical inconsistencies in the , such as the absence of productivity incentives beyond time allocation. Roger Ebert awarded the film three out of four stars, commending its engaging blend of thriller elements and , describing the concept as "fascinating" and the narrative as a "slick, hyper-stylized yarn" that entertains despite not delving deeply into philosophical implications. In contrast, noted that while the provocative setup and attractive cast provided initial appeal, the film's reliance on conventional lovers-on-the-run tropes failed to sustain intellectual depth, rendering its dystopian critique underdeveloped. Similarly, Deep Focus Review criticized the script for prioritizing market-friendly pacing over substantive world-building, observing that the low-tech visuals and lack of elaborate effects underscored a modest production that did not fully capitalize on its high-concept foundation. Some reviewers appreciated the film's visual style and brisk tempo, with The Independent Critic acknowledging its thought-provoking potential amid fast-paced chases, though lamenting deviations toward commercial accessibility that diluted the premise's edge. Critiques of economic illogic were recurrent, as outlets like The Critical Movie Critics pointed to implausible societal mechanics, such as uniform aging at 25 regardless of lifespan, which undermined causal realism in the time-based currency system without rigorous justification. No major awards for materialized, though the film's practical aesthetic and kinetic received incidental nods in discussions for maintaining viewer immersion. Overall, professional consensus positioned In Time as conceptually ambitious yet narratively conventional, appealing more as escapist fare than profound .

Box Office and Financial Performance

In Time was produced on a budget of $40 million. The film premiered in theaters on October 28, 2011, opening in second place at the North American behind Paranormal Activity 3, with a debut weekend gross of $12.05 million from 3,008 screens. Its domestic run totaled $37.52 million, representing approximately 32% of the opening weekend relative to the full U.S. and earnings, reflecting sustained audience interest over 24 weeks. Internationally, the film earned $136.41 million across 45 markets, with notable performances in ($16.8 million) and ($9.5 million), debuting strongly in several territories post-domestic release. The cumulative worldwide gross reached $173.93 million. This result exceeded the production budget by a factor of over four, marking a profitable return for 20th Century Fox given typical distributor shares and ancillary revenue streams, though exact net figures account for marketing expenditures estimated at $20–30 million.

Audience Perspectives and Cultural Impact

The audience reception to In Time has been mixed, with viewers appreciating its high-concept premise and action sequences despite acknowledging flaws in execution. On , the film holds an audience score of 51% based on over 50,000 ratings, averaging 3.3 out of 5, where many praised its entertaining dystopian setup and visual style over its heavier messaging. Forum discussions, particularly on , highlight entertainment value in the time-as-currency gimmick but criticize underdeveloped world-building, such as how the system avoids demographic collapse from widespread early deaths in lower zones. Users have noted logical inconsistencies, like the sustainability of ghettos where residents expire at 25-30 years old, questioning population replenishment without addressing or birth incentives tied to time scarcity. Culturally, In Time has achieved modest enduring influence, occasionally resurfacing in online conversations about due to its stark portrayal of time hoarding by elites. Some interpretations frame it as a of capitalism's excesses, yet counterviews emphasize the protagonist's self-reliant heists and disruption of entrenched lenders as validating entrepreneurial risk-taking rather than pure systemic . It lacks widespread status, with limited mainstream revival beyond niche sci-fi retrospectives, though its premise continues to spark debates on without achieving the iconic resonance of similar dystopias. In September 2011, author filed a lawsuit in federal court against director , New Regency Productions, and 20th Century Fox, alleging that In Time plagiarized key elements from his 1965 Hugo Award-winning short story "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman". Ellison contended that the film's dystopian premise of a society rigidly enforcing temporal discipline, featuring an authoritarian time overseer (the Ticktockman in the story versus Timekeepers in the film) and a rebellious protagonist defying the system, constituted unauthorized copying of protectable expression. The complaint sought a temporary and permanent to block the film's October 28, , theatrical release, along with destruction of all copies and unspecified damages. Ellison's claims highlighted superficial plot parallels, such as the enforcement of time scarcity leading to execution for lateness and the central conflict over subverting chronological control. However, legal experts noted that copyright law protects specific expressions rather than abstract ideas or sci-fi tropes like time manipulation, which predate Ellison's work in various literary forms. On November 30, 2011, Ellison voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice after screening the film, informing his attorneys that he declined any association with it despite initial similarities in . The withdrawal avoided a judicial ruling on , but underscored the doctrinal barrier in idea-submission cases: courts routinely dismiss claims where high-level premises (e.g., time as a regulated ) lack detailed, original expressive overlap beyond unprotected elements like dystopian enforcement mechanisms. This episode exemplifies broader challenges in , where unprotected "ideas" such as commodified time or surveillance states—common since and earlier analogs—cannot sustain infringement absent verbatim or closely derived plot, character, or dialogue appropriation, as affirmed in precedents emphasizing filtration of (standard tropes inevitable to the genre).

References

  1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/
  2. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_time
  3. https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/In_Time
  4. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/in-time-2011
  5. https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/In-Time
  6. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/10/in-time-a-hollywood-get-rich-quick-tale-disguised-as-capitalist-critique/247515/
  7. https://elenasgrace.com/2022/07/01/in-time-a-lesson-in-plot-holes/
  8. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/awards/
  9. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/time-film-review-253752/
  10. https://collider.com/in-time-cillian-murphy-justin-timberlake/
  11. https://www.gradesaver.com/in-time/study-guide/summary
  12. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_time/cast-and-crew
  13. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/time-premiere-vincent-kartheiser-justin-timberlake-251593/
  14. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/fullcredits/
  15. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/characters/nm0093589/
  16. https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/49530-in-time/cast?language=en-US
  17. https://variety.com/2011/film/reviews/in-time-1117946444/
  18. https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a7251/in-time-andrew-niccol-on-his-gattaca-inspired-new-film-6531927/
  19. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/companycredits/
  20. https://newrepublic.com/article/96895/in-time-andrew-nicool-justin-timberlake-amanda-seyfried
  21. http://filmcityla.blogspot.com/2016/07/in-time-2011.html
  22. https://www.seeing-stars.com/Locations/InTime.shtml
  23. https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/minute-by-minute-the-vfx-of-in-time/
  24. https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/fa6q9i/in_time_2011_is_a_hilarious_waste_of_great_sci_fi/
  25. https://soundeffects.fandom.com/wiki/In_Time_%282011%29
  26. https://www.wired.com/2011/10/in-time-gattaca/
  27. https://msmagazine.com/2011/11/02/in-time-wastes-time/
  28. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6902/where-does-time-come-from-in-the-movie-in-time
  29. https://blog.chewxy.com/2011/11/05/the-economics-of-andrew-niccols-in-time/
  30. https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/539786/
  31. http://education-for-solidarity.blogspot.com/2012/01/reflection-guide-to-movie-in-time.html
  32. https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/in-time-a-closer-look-at-an-unusual-sci-fi-dystopia/
  33. https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/movie-review-in-time/
  34. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/InTime
  35. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2011/10/28/world-where-time-literally-money
  36. https://locusmag.com/review/eight-hours-of-writing-about-two-hours-of-film-a-review-of-in-time/
  37. https://ivypanda.com/essays/in-time-by-andrew-niccol-film-analysis/
  38. https://www.newagebd.net/article/49592/in-time-story-of-exploitation-and-class-struggle
  39. https://gizmodo.com/in-time-really-is-occupy-wall-street-the-movie-5854241
  40. https://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/in_time_justin_timberlakes_ows_sci_fi_thriller/
  41. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/in-time-is-a-bad-action-movie-but-a-radical-statement-on-income-inequality-a9072e7e4ce5/
  42. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/10/in-time-spoilers-about-the-macroeconomic-model.html
  43. https://savvybuck.com/2015/11/07/economics-of-the-movie-in-time/
  44. https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/in-time-economicshtml
  45. https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/35sfiw/in_time_is_bad_economics/
  46. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/time-premiere-red-carpet-arrivals-251570/
  47. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/releaseinfo/
  48. https://www.screendaily.com/in-time/5033929.article
  49. https://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/2011/07/18/san-diego-comic-con-2011-film-panel-schedule/
  50. https://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/5084/In-Time-2011.html
  51. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/In-Time-Blu-ray/33604/
  52. https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6282/in_time.html
  53. https://www.amazon.com/Time-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-copy/dp/B004LWZW7O
  54. https://www.tvguide.com/movies/in-time/2030080979/
  55. https://www.hulu.com/movie/in-time-9e2f583c-cb32-4a48-85a7-ba82913c16c0
  56. https://www.amazon.com/Time-Justin-Timberlake/dp/B006PERRMY
  57. https://www.disneyplus.com/en-ie/movies/in-time/7fnAo3POG2Su
  58. https://www.amazon.com/TIME-TIMERLAKE-JUSTIN-DVD/dp/B0064ALDB0
  59. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/In-Time-Blu-ray/44469/
  60. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_time/reviews
  61. https://www.metacritic.com/movie/in-time/critic-reviews/
  62. https://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/in-time/
  63. https://theindependentcritic.com/in_time
  64. https://thecriticalcritics.com/reviews/movie_review-in_time/
  65. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt1637688/
  66. https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/ymqptl/the_movie_in_times_economy_is_built_on_killing/
  67. https://www.facebook.com/awesomestuff365/posts/an-underrated-2011-movie-in-time-has-been-gaining-attention-for-its-eerie-releva/1106026771561529/
  68. https://www.cbr.com/in-time-cyberpunk-thriller-better-than-rotten-score/
  69. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/harlan-ellison-sues-claiming-foxs-235987/
  70. https://deadline.com/2011/09/copyright-curmudgeon-harlan-ellison-sues-to-halt-release-of-new-regencys-in-time-171948/
  71. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/in-time-harlan-ellison-lawsuit-dropped-267567/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.