or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › IN TIME - new scifi thriller written & directed by Andrew Niccol
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IN TIME - new scifi thriller written & directed by Andrew Niccol

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
From the guy who brought us Gattaca, The Truman Show, and Lord of War comes a new, original film starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy, Johnny Galecki, and Matt Bomer.

post #2 of 63
You had me at "Amanda Seyfried".
post #3 of 63
You lost me at Justin Timberlake.
post #4 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker View Post

You lost me at Justin Timberlake.

Weak, he's put in enough good performances by now with Alpha Dog, Edison, The Open Road, and The Social Network. Certainly don't dismiss this film just because of him!
post #5 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Weak, he's put in enough good performances by now with Alpha Dog, Edison, The Open Road, and The Social Network. Certainly don't dismiss this film just because of him!

I'll have to grudgingly agree. I was expecting him to be a bomb in Alpha Dogs and was pleasantly surprised by his performance. Plus, anybody that can pull off "D**k In A Box" has my vote.
post #6 of 63
Whatever. We have such low expectations anymore that just because someone doesn't completely blow chunks we elevate them far higher than they deserve. Yeah I'm talking 'bout you Mark Wahlberg. If you enjoy the guy's work, more power to you, but his stuff doesn't strike me as anything special.
post #7 of 63
Thread Starter 
I think he's done well in a few movies, but he's not an actor that I get excited about seeing. I'm just saying don't let his presence keep you from seeing a great-looking film. But please, by all means let him keep you from seeing average-looking films.
post #8 of 63
That is by far the dumbest premise for a movie that I've ever heard in my entire life.
post #9 of 63
Thread Starter 
Time is money, as they say. Curious, why do you think that Josh?
post #10 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

I think he's done well in a few movies, but he's not an actor that I get excited about seeing.

Yet he might become one imo. He's smarter than I thought he was in his N'Sync days, he seems to manage his career wisely. I don't know if he plans to stop singing (which I wouldn't mind personally but maybe there's a good actor in him.

As for the premise of the film, well, I really don't think it's the dumbest I've seen. And Cillian Murphy rarely disappoints. Finally, the sole presence of Olivia Wilde almost makes this a must-watch for me
post #11 of 63
Well, i love the premise, taking Logans Run to another level perhaps. I think though from that trailer, it looks more like a thriller based on sci-fi than the reverse. Looks worth watching though.

I gotta admit, Justin Timberlake does NOTHING for me though.
post #12 of 63
While the premise is interesting in a thought experiment "what if?" kind of way, I have a problem with envisioning how our world gets to something like this "time is literally money" world. I don't see how it could ever happen. I know that getting to this future from our present isn't what the movie is about, but I can't really make the leap to get engaged in it. I didn't see Surrogates for exactly the same reason.
post #13 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post

While the premise is interesting in a thought experiment "what if?" kind of way, I have a problem with envisioning how our world gets to something like this "time is literally money" world. I don't see how it could ever happen. I know that getting to this future from our present isn't what the movie is about, but I can't really make the leap to get engaged in it.

This is a problem with almost everything that Andrew Niccol writes, IMO. He comes up with these outlandish concepts, but neglects to think through the plausibility of how the world would get there or the logistics of how it would operate in a day-to-day reality. I know that Gattaca has a lot of fans, but I find it enormously overrated. I just can't get over the fact that there's no way the world could function as its depicted.
post #14 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This is a problem with almost everything that Andrew Niccol writes, IMO. He comes up with these outlandish concepts, but neglects to think through the plausibility of how the world would get there or the logistics of how it would operate in a day-to-day reality. I know that Gattaca has a lot of fans, but I find it enormously overrated. I just can't get over the fact that there's no way the world could function as its depicted.

Wouldn't that logical hurdle prevent you from enjoying many science-fiction films?
post #15 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Wouldn't that logical hurdle prevent you from enjoying many science-fiction films?

A sci-fi movie needs to set rules for itself and then operate within those rules. Gattaca is allegedly set in the "real world" just slightly ahead of us in the future, not some galaxy far far away. Yet its internal logic is filled with holes and gaps in plausibility. The Truman Show and S1m0ne have similar problems.
post #16 of 63
Fist of all... this is the entire film.

Second, I agree with Josh about this film (bot not Gattaca).
post #17 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Wouldn't that logical hurdle prevent you from enjoying many science-fiction films?

I know you asked this of Josh, but yes, sometimes it does. I like logically consistent storytelling. Far future outlandishness is easier to swallow precisely because of the large gulf of time between now and then. But near future stuff needs to be better thought out or I'm resistant.

One of my biggest problems with Blade Runner is that it's set in 2017. I'm old enough to have seen it in the theater during it's initial run and remember thinking, "Oh, come on! No way is this going to happen in a couple of decades!" 2417 would have been a more believable date.
post #18 of 63
Thread Starter 
Interesting, thanks for responding guys. I find that with those types of films I am lenient with the storytelling. I usually excuse it with the notion that clearly things will have had to have happened between now and then that the film does not delve into; or that it is being presented as the future of the story itself and it's reality, not necessarily our (the audience's) future. I find it fascinating to watch what other people suppose our future could be like, regardless of whether it seems logically possible in our present reality or not.
post #19 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

You had me at "Amanda Seyfried".

Had me at Olivia Wilde.

The trailer is a good one.

As for the validity of the premise, I don't know....the trailer doesn't reveal enough.
post #20 of 63
Agreed about the timeframe, but I'll just think of it as an alternate reality (there are cars in the trailer that are old even by today's standards, like the wood-paneled station wagon....unless that comes back in style in 2070 or something).

I think it looks like an interesting concept....plus a good excuse to have your movie full of young, beautiful people

The trailer gives way too much away though. Feel like I barely even have to watch the movie now.
post #21 of 63
Thread Starter 
It's not the trailer, it's the Comic Con trailer with extended footage. I warned you guys!
post #22 of 63
Thread Starter 
post #23 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Interesting, thanks for responding guys. I find that with those types of films I am lenient with the storytelling. I usually excuse it with the notion that clearly things will have had to have happened between now and then that the film does not delve into; or that it is being presented as the future of the story itself and it's reality, not necessarily our (the audience's) future. I find it fascinating to watch what other people suppose our future could be like, regardless of whether it seems logically possible in our present reality or not.

It's not just about the time frame. Going back to Gattaca, the movie tells us that the main character has to have total and complete control over every hair, fiber, or skin cell that he might leave behind as evidence anywhere he goes or on anything he touches, on a second-by-second basis every single minute of every day. All the while, people are watching his every step and taking samples from every surface he comes in contact with. Yet he somehow does this successfully for years and never gets caught.

I just can't suspend my disbelief for that. Life is far too messy for that. It just isn't feasible. Interesting idea, not well thought out.

And this one... Geez, it just looks flat-out stupid. It's like he watched Logan's Run and thought: "This is just too intellectual. How can I take this concept and make it way dumber?"
post #24 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

It's like he watched Logan's Run and thought: "This is just too intellectual. How can I take this concept and make it way dumber?"

Heck, I guess I won't ask if you want to host the LogansRunForever.com fan site...
post #25 of 63
I agree with Josh on Gattaca, I had a real hard time to overlook the problems it created as far it's premise, but it did have a fairly decent "thriller" or "suspense" inside of the movie. which didn't rely on the sci-fi elements. As for Timberlake, he never played a lead role, which is what this film will try to elevate him into. Sure he can play some supporting roles, but that's not the same, so he might not measure up here, but as always reserve judgement after seeing this.
post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Heck, I guess I won't ask if you want to host the LogansRunForever.com fan site...

I actually enjoy Logan's Run for its campiness. Plus, any movie where Jenny Agutter gets naked is worth watching in my book.
post #27 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Plus, any movie where Jenny Agutter gets naked is worth watching in my book.

You have a point there....
post #28 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I actually enjoy Logan's Run for its campiness. Plus, any movie where Jenny Agutter gets naked is worth watching in my book.

Whenever anyone mentions the movie Logan's Run, the Jenny Agutter nude scene always comes up. Gratuitous, maybe. But it's the only thing that made that camp-fest remotely worthy of historical reference. God bless her.
post #29 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker View Post

You lost me at Justin Timberlake.

Chuckles , funny stuff. Same here, I don't mind him in an ensemble or supporting roles but not as leading man. Don't get me wrong, N sync was my fav boyband during the late 90's but for films JT is not ready for Jason bourne material just quite yet. Maybe another 4-5 yrs experience and paid dues he will be ripe and could even perhaps leapfrog someone like Shei Lebouf.
post #30 of 63
I'm betting I can suspend disbelief enough to enjoy this one. I am looking forward to it despite the fact that Timberlake has no panache at all. Actually, not being from his era, I have no recognition of him, but judging from the trailor, he won't add much or subtract. The story and the telling better carry this film because the lead doesn't promise to be the attraction. The concept of added life as currency makes sense to me though even as the how it would physically be achieved is more than hazy. I'm willing to let the story teller fill in the blank spots.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › IN TIME - new scifi thriller written & directed by Andrew Niccol