Justin Timberlake’s sci-fi thriller has audiences and critics divided. By Kara Warner Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in “In Time” Photo: 20th Century Fox What do you get when you mix a futuristic, time-as-money/life-or-death premise; a cast of pretty young things, including Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Matt Bomer and Cillian Murphy; plus the sound sci-fi sensibilities of writer/director Andrew Niccol (“Gattaca,” “The Truman Show”) and appropriately stylized cinematography by Roger Deakins (“True Grit,” “The Reader”)? “In Time” is what, a complex, visually appealing sci-fi thriller that has audiences and critics somewhat divided. (The critical collective over at Rotten Tomatoes is at 36 percent rotten, while its audience rating sits at 76 percent fresh.) Take a few moments to check out the film’s ticking points, if you will, as we sift through the “In Time” reviews! The Story “The premise builds on the notion that time is money. In the movie’s dystopian future, where today’s cars have tomorrow’s grilles, time has replaced money. People are born with genetic clocks that stop at the age of 25; after that they’ve got one year in which to beg, borrow, steal or even earn more time. If they don’t, the digital clocks embedded in their forearms dwindle down to zero and they time out, i.e., die. That’s clever, right? But then there are roving gangs called Minute Men (Teddy Boy types out of ‘A Clockwork Orange’) who steal time; the borderline-silly spectacle of almost everyone looking 25; the polemic element of social injustice (the richest of the rich can live forever because they’ve got eons socked away); and the action-adventure element, a clumsy amalgam of Robin Hood, ‘Bonnie and Clyde,’ ‘The Avengers,’ ‘Les Mis
