Lopott idő

Tipikus Niccol sci-fi, amely futurisztikus díszletek, digitális robotok vagy bármi más látványos repülő valami nélkül is leköt és szórakoztat. Csak egyszerű, de zseniális ötletre van szüksége, és annak intelligens beillesztésére a humanista értékeket hirdető akciótörténetbe. Justin OK, Cillian mint mindig király, Amanda Seyfried-et pedig csak le kell vetkőztetni, leönteni csokival, és eltölteni vele az élet utolsó óráját. Ilyen méltóságteljes akart lenni a Mostow Hasonmás című filmje. (2011.11.06)

A clever simple hyperbole that advancing contemporary commodity fetishism and Darwinian-conceived capitalism ad absurdum. Moreover, the film makes irony out of its own impossibility to step out of the established constraints of show business. But Niccol never put the few attractions (Bond quotes, Bonnie and Clyde romance, dystopian films) before the very idea of fighting an unfair system in which the wealthy exploit (ontological) wealth by exploiting the defenseless. Some of the theses feel like Niccol read Badiou's “The Communist Hypothesis" and modified it for the needs of a Hollywood spectacle (i.e., he did not allow himself to go that far, but dutifully stepped in there - see the excellent ending). The film is full of holes in logic and motivation, the script is very unbalanced, the editing and camera somewhat toothless, but the whole feels like a pleasant impulse to reflect on the state of contemporary society and the utopian nature of the system. This is what makes In Time a remarkable and stand-out title in the contemporary Hollywood peloton, though not exactly a flawless title or one worthy of boundless enthusiasm. (70%) (2011.10.24)

The heist of the century, which, if we combined the teams of Ocean’s Eleven and Mission Impossible, would be enough for two films, shouldn’t last two minutes in a dystopian sci-fi satire. A naive far left film with which I cannot and I will not agree ideologically. Unfortunately, other than the idea, In Time doesn’t offer anything else (like breathtaking action, some tension, etc.), it’s just well made. But that core premise is great, it’s a pity that Niccol wasted it in such a dumb film. 60 % (2011.11.03)

The Bonnie and Clyde of the digital age yearned for analog, resulting in a sympathetically understated film set in the future. In it, a single serious nag at the laws of Niccol's world immediately takes away from the positives but is then ultimately saved by the great Timberlake and even better Murphy. (2012.01.14)

Niccol significantly updated the Faustian motive and threw in a swashbuckling hero who somehow got the abilities (physical skill, playing poker at a Bondian level, outstanding marksmanship and masterful control of cars that he had probably never driven before) with which he now fights for a classless society for whatever reason. Due to the shoddy depiction of the characters and the conditions in which they live, his motivation is very unconvincing. He simply behaves as he does because the director/screenwriter/producer needs to convey a few theses through him. The stimulus for discussion isn’t bad; all we need for that is to read the synopsis or watch the trailer. If In Time disappoints as a “film with an idea”, it doesn’t work much better as an action thriller. Niccol failed to smoothly work his messages into the genre formulas, so the characters, whose time is constantly running out, engage in numbing “sit and deliver” dialogue scenes at times. Will’s goal long remains unclear, his actions lack logic, which can unfortunately be said about the whole film (the actual overdrawing of time, which a sleeping person cannot control, is perhaps too easy to assail). The other characters also make decisions that can be expected from them given the rules of the genre, but not decisions that make sense in the context of what’s happening. In the end, what entertained me more in this ambitious American genre flick than its loose narrative – which I more frequently appreciate in European films – was Roger Deakins’ cinematography, which differentiates the individual classes through different combinations of lighting and colours, and Alex McDowell’s austere production design, in which, for example, the “police” cars are nicely reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi movies from the 1970s. But overall, a waste of time. Appendix: Not that I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t understand why Amanda Seyfried wears a cocktail dress through the whole film (and running in high heels, of course). 50% (2011.10.24)