That's how Alyssa Rosenberg reads the new blockbuster:
In Time is a perfect example of how science fiction, by displacing us from our present circumstances, can create space for us to talk more directly about them. It’s striking to see what movie characters can say when the word “money” is replaced with “time” that they’d never say without the linguistic switch,. “For a few to be immortal, many must die,” warns the wealthy Henry Hamilton at the beginning of the movie. “Everyone can’t live forever…Where would we put them?…The cost of living keeps rising so people keep dying…But the truth is, there’s more than enough. No one has to die before their time.”
Jamelle Bouie calls it "a full-on Marxist critique of capitalism:"
It’s no exaggeration to say that more than anything else on screens right now, In Time seems to be the movie that most captures the mood of the moment. Millions are furious with a system that rewards the rich at the cost of everyone else, and In Time offers one possible solution—the forced redistribution of wealth at the hands of ridiculously attractive people.vFor my part, I think we should approach this movie as Hollywood’s contribution to Occupy Wall Street; flawed, but still worth the engagement.
Caleb Crain is unsure about the film's Marxism:
If this movie were an economist … it would be the sort of economist who believes that the lower classes only take jobs when threatened with starvation, and that recessions and depressions occur because workers have been spoiled by welfare and have come to think of themselves as morally superior to the unpleasantness of toil. Is this movie Marxist or isn’t it? I began petulantly to wonder.
Tyler Cowen and Robin Hanson debate the economics of the flick.
The Dish 