Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"In Time" is a very under-rated movie

Not because it's got great acting, or even brilliant writing or direction.

But because of the subject matter & social commentary.


by Anonymousreply 1902/02/2013

Watching it again, and it's really a very good movie.

I'm surprised it didn't do better in theaters.

by Anonymousreply 102/02/2013

"For a few to be immortal, many must die"

"No one should be immortal if even one person has to die"

by Anonymousreply 202/02/2013

The beautiful Cillian Murphy is in it. So are Alex Pettyfer and Matt Bomer.

by Anonymousreply 302/02/2013

Great movie!

by Anonymousreply 402/02/2013

Domestic gross was only $37,520,095

Worldwide, it did $173,930,596

It makes me think that Americans are in denial, given how critical it was of capitalism.

by Anonymousreply 502/02/2013

Cillian in "In Time"

by Anonymousreply 602/02/2013


by Anonymousreply 702/02/2013


by Anonymousreply 802/02/2013

I thought it was only okay because I really didn't care for Justin Timberlake in the lead role.

by Anonymousreply 902/02/2013

R9 he was fine, but so what? The movie was good (and even "important") regardless.

by Anonymousreply 1002/02/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1102/02/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1202/02/2013

Poll should've included another option: Never heard of it and don't care.

by Anonymousreply 1302/02/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1402/02/2013

It was a critique of unfettered capitalism.

by Anonymousreply 1502/02/2013

Time is power

by Anonymousreply 1602/02/2013

Time is money

by Anonymousreply 1702/02/2013

In Time

by Anonymousreply 1802/02/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1902/02/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!