Anon

Simply put, I think this is superb. It is crisp, clinical, science-fiction, and reminds me of Predestination in the way that it is a decent sci-fi thriller but will obviously fly under-the-radar. There is a lot of sex and nudity, which is seductively slipped in to our protagonist's Utopian existence. And I am sure other people will pick it to pieces, but there was just about enough explanation of proxies and hacker stuff for me to accept it and enjoy the plot, without saying "oh, but why didn't he just do that, and then this, and all would have been solved". Although, I do have one gripe; why on Earth did Niccol name his son Salvador? eek.

B+

This was a pretty solid sci-fi thriller. Andrew Niccol usually makes interesting films when he's doing sci-fi even though Lord of War is still my favorite film that he's directed. Gattaca is my second favorite, but I didn't care for In Time that much. I enjoyed this movie for the most part though even if like Algren said it can easily be torn apart. The mystery at least kept me engaged, and I'll admit that I actually didn't see that twist towards the end coming. Really liked Clive Owen's character in this and Amanda Seyfried oozes a lot of hotness, although they cleary used a body double in one scene.

B

Andrew Niccol is responsible for three of my favorite films (as the writer of The Truman Show and as the writer and director of Gattaca and Lord of War), so I am always interested in his latest project. His seventh feature, a Netflix original neo-noir set in an overcast future where every citizen's every sight is stored online, is deeply uneven; at times, it is intriguing, but it is also frequently inert and frustrating. The execution definitely falls short of the concept's potential. In addition to its chic art direction and a few cleverly staged action sequences, the film's strongest asset is a superbly enigmatic and sultry performance by Amanda Seyfried as unnamed woman with the ability to manipulate what people see in the moment and entirely alter their digital recollections. Unfortunately, she is let down by the screenplay in the third act; the mystery (of her character's true nature and a string of murders the police suspect she committed) is solved in the most anticlimactic, empty way imaginable. It is an unpredictable twist not because it is so deviously crafty, but because it is so futile, random, and unearned.

People's mileage may vary in this regard, but the almost constant point-of-view shots irritated me. I admire the intention and the desire for an almost experimental level of immersion, but they are unconvincing to a peculiar degree. Simply put, our eyes do not produce clinical Steadicam shots; we glance up and down and right and left, we squint, we sway, we scratch our noses, etc. And the film never even remotely tries to emulate this; more often it evokes a first-person shooting game, particularly when a character's handgun is placed directly in the center of the frame.

Its ambitious but its too smart for its own good. There are some really good ideas which are displayed really nicely here but once Amanda Seyfried's character is revealed it becomes too complicated and proceedings/twists come out something that the script needed than demanded. It also does not help that the leads have no chemistry even though they are individually great in this. I liked the visual style and its consistently great in here than to Nicoll but after first hour it gets repetitive and at times annoying.

C+