Title: In Time Post by: Tale on August 03, 2011, 09:08:41 PM Yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGHQokMhZ0 Title: Re: In Time Post by: Surlyboi on August 04, 2011, 12:48:25 AM Yeah, saw the trailer for this in Cowboys and Aliens. So fucking down for that.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: HaemishM on August 04, 2011, 07:35:58 AM Damn, that looks really fucking good. :drill:
Title: Re: In Time Post by: Chimpy on August 04, 2011, 11:03:39 AM Interesting.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: luckton on August 04, 2011, 11:24:13 AM Damn, that looks really fucking good. :drill: Title: Re: In Time Post by: Furiously on August 04, 2011, 11:25:50 AM I bet Logan's Run was better.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: Bunk on August 04, 2011, 12:46:45 PM The concept is cool enough to get me intrigued, and the cast is interesting. Hopefully its more than just a generic action thriller.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: K9 on August 04, 2011, 04:02:20 PM Yup, colour me interested.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: Samwise on August 30, 2011, 01:21:07 PM Late to the party, but after seeing the trailer I am incredibly stoked for this movie.
October 28th. Be there. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Sand on September 07, 2011, 07:04:11 AM Meh. Looks like another version of Repoman or The Island with time replacing the organs/clones.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: Samwise on September 07, 2011, 12:16:36 PM The main reason I'm stoked about this movie is that the concept of artificially allotted time to live being used as currency is one I haven't heard before, and it's really fun to think about how that system could have become necessary and how it would play out over time. Honest-to-god sci-fi movies that explore interesting concepts and moral dilemmas are very rare.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: Ironwood on September 07, 2011, 01:04:30 PM I just want my Altered Carbon movie. Is that too much to ask for ?
Title: Re: In Time Post by: DraconianOne on September 08, 2011, 01:11:44 AM The main reason I'm stoked about this movie is that the concept of artificially allotted time to live being used as currency is one I haven't heard before, Pretty sure Michael Marshall Smith's novel "Only Forward" features a similar concept. Dangerous criminals who are given a death sentence are given an allotted time to live and the countdown timer is attached to them. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2011, 01:18:44 AM You mean released ?
Because that would be a fucking stupid idea. If I liked to murder enough to get a death sentence and they released me back into the wild with a time limit, well, it's 10 oclock. Bitch raping time. Title: Re: In Time Post by: DraconianOne on September 08, 2011, 01:24:22 AM I haven't got time to explain the novel or how the world in the novel is set up. Yes he's released, yes he's one of the protagonists associates, yes it works in the context of the novel.
Think of it as more like released into John Carpenter's walled off New York prison. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2011, 01:32:19 AM It's ok, I wasn't seriously suggesting the author had put that little thought into it.
I just expect it to be next on the Republican agenda. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: In Time Post by: DraconianOne on September 08, 2011, 02:38:53 AM Note to self - don't deal with Ironwood before first coffee of day.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: HaemishM on September 08, 2011, 07:09:31 AM Yours or his? :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: In Time Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2011, 08:24:24 AM We're in the same time zone and I'd Juuuuust had mine.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: SurfD on October 28, 2011, 01:28:58 AM So, Just got back from screening this:
Reccomendation: Avoid, unless you really want to see how a really awesome idea ends up when shackled to one of the worst movies i have seen all year. Premise behind the movie was awesome. Actual implimentation sucked giant balls. There were so many holes in the plot, story and setting that it makes fish netting look like a fucking brick wall in comparison. Unfortunately, any "thought provoking" morality tale the movie might have attempted to inspire will be lost in 90% of the provoked thoughts being about how their entire society made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Sand on October 28, 2011, 08:25:12 AM Just as I predicted.
Title: Re: In Time Post by: MuffinMan on October 28, 2011, 08:42:06 AM :cry:
Title: Re: In Time Post by: murdoc on October 31, 2011, 07:58:54 AM So, Just got back from screening this: Reccomendation: Avoid, unless you really want to see how a really awesome idea ends up when shackled to one of the worst movies i have seen all year. Premise behind the movie was awesome. Actual implimentation sucked giant balls. There were so many holes in the plot, story and setting that it makes fish netting look like a fucking brick wall in comparison. Unfortunately, any "thought provoking" morality tale the movie might have attempted to inspire will be lost in 90% of the provoked thoughts being about how their entire society made absolutely no sense whatsoever. This is the nice way of putting it. Awesome premise, brutal execution. What a waste of a potentially interesting story. This movie was SO bad and disappointing. Title: Re: In Time Post by: shiznitz on October 31, 2011, 09:49:38 AM I would be curious to hear more about how this got screwed up. I don't think anyone here is going to go see it. Was this a failure to really distinguish time from money?
Title: Re: In Time Post by: SurfD on October 31, 2011, 05:02:29 PM I would be curious to hear more about how this got screwed up. I don't think anyone here is going to go see it. Was this a failure to really distinguish time from money? For me at least, it had to do mostly with the rules by which they govenrned time, and a lesser extent, with the society they built to house the idea in the world of the movie:Something of a tagline for the movie was "many must die, so a few may be immortal", which had more to do with population control in a society where anyone can theoretically live forever, rather then anything to do with using the hours of your life as a currency. Society was your classic "have vs have not" deal, where social strata were seperated into "timezones" where day-to day clock punchers lived in the slums, while the rich people, with hundred or thousands of years on their clock lived in fancy upper class areas. Haves and have nots were kept strictly appart (mainly because it would be completely impossible for a have-not to "pay" his way into a have area, or even survive there at the prices everything cost), and "time" was monitored by the "time keepers", a police type organization who made sure that giant wads of time didnt end up in timezones where they didnt belong (and it is implied therefore theoretically upset the population balance by letting the clock-punchers live much longer then they normally would). The wealthy existed, but never really "lived" because they were all perpetually afraid of doing something risky (or fun, or exciting) and accidently killing themselves, while the poor were sort of in the same boat, but on the opposite end, where they never really "lived" because they were almost completely consumed by the need to wake up every morning having earned enough time to keep themselves alive for another day. Which all sounds like a great idea, untill the movie gets rolling and it all falls on it's face. The Problems: In the end, there were a number of neat ideas and points brought up, but they end up crushed under the stupidity of the society and system the movie used to pesent them. Fixed for spoiler tag. Title: Re: In Time Post by: taolurker on October 31, 2011, 07:40:45 PM I'm pretty sure that's almost all spoiler material, SurfD...
I saw this and agree it was a wasted premise, and some really bad dialog with terrible cliched scenes. Combined with an abundance of slow mo, glowing clock graphics, and Amanda Seifried batting her eyes at the camera, it was forgettable. Title: Re: In Time Post by: murdoc on November 01, 2011, 07:20:04 AM In the end, there were a number of neat ideas and points brought up, but they end up crushed under the stupidity of the society and system the movie used to pesent them. This sums it up perfectly. Every time there was an interesting idea, it was completely killed by the stupidity and plot holes that followed it. I'm usually pretty forgiving of movies but simple things like there was no cell phones, he becomes a professional stunt driver in a sports car even though he's NEVER been in a car before. A convertable can flip through the air and land with both passengers ok. It easy to steal an armour truck to use it to rob a bank. It was ridiculously stupid. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Ironwood on November 01, 2011, 08:03:27 AM I kinda knew this was gonna happen the minute Sam wrote 'BE THERE'.
That never bodes well. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Samwise on November 01, 2011, 11:34:05 AM I kinda knew this was gonna happen the minute Sam wrote 'BE THERE'. That never bodes well. :awesome_for_real: Ah well. Title: Re: In Time Post by: HaemishM on July 09, 2012, 09:59:53 AM I finally watched this on DVD.
Fuck me. Such a fantastic premise, so much promise just utterly and completely wasted. The movie didn't have any idea what it wanted to be. It starts with a high-concept science fiction premise and then proceeds to shit all over it from a great height with glaring inconsistencies, bad dialogue and non-sequitors. Cilian Murphy's "Time Keeper" cop character makes no fucking sense. The tiny little barrier between time zones makes no fucking sense. They segregate people into various time zones according to their wealth of time (or lack therof) but the road between zones is block by waist high barricades that are unmanned toll booths - as if poor people can't climb over a barrier that requires them to lift their leg 3 feet. There really isn't anything redeeming about this movie once Matt Bomer's character leaves the scene. Title: Re: In Time Post by: Tale on July 09, 2012, 11:49:24 PM Yeah, I finally watched it too. What Haemish said. It just left me feeling empty.
|