I thought it was only okay because I really didn't care for Justin Timberlake in the lead role.
R9 he was fine, but so what? The movie was good (and even "important") regardless.
OP, In Time is underrated for a reason. It's a bad film. Really. It's a really bad movie. I'm glad Justin Timberlake has gone back to his usic. He sucks as an actor. The only movie he was decent in was the cameo in Social Network. He essentially played himself.
No, R11. It's not. I've seen it three times now. There's zero justification for calling it a "bad film".
You are exactly one of those people that "under-rate" it.
The movie isn't perfect, but again, that's not the point. The point is: It's under-rated. And it is. It's much better than people like you give it credit for.
It has a lot to say and it says it well.
Poll should've included another option: Never heard of it and don't care.
To me, In Time seemed derivative- half Logan's Run, half Hunger Games- without offering anything truly new or interesting to the genre. I also prefer dystopian movies that are more realistic than sci-fi.
The premise of using time as monetary exchange was interesting but the way the storyline was executed was really cheesy. Plus Timberfake was bad. Cillian came off as an Oscar winning actor compared to him.