57 Seconds

Audience Reviews

View More (84)

Christian K This is a movie full of missed chances. It is not bad, at the end of the day, and after watching it, there are some things to think about. But, to me, it feels like, the potential of the story and of the great actors is killed by boring storytelling and bad camera work. With a different man on the camera, some more epic scenes (like the opening sequence of the movie), a little bit more action and mystery, this could have been REALLY great. But I guess they invested more of the budget into the actors than into the making of the film. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 09/08/25 Full Review Ryan M As much as I like seeing him use the power to make moolah, this had a thin plot and was poorly shot. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 08/25/25 Full Review The G 🎬 57 Seconds (2023) – A Strong Concept Wasted by Shallow Writing and Weak Execution Rating: ★★☆☆☆ (4.5/10) Review: 57 Seconds is built around a highly intriguing sci-fi concept: a magical ring that allows its wearer to jump back in time by 57 seconds. The idea itself is promising and could have been presented in a more grounded and thrilling way—but sadly, the execution fell apart on multiple fronts. The screenplay, casting choices, and direction all felt underwhelming. The opening scene, where the protagonist uses his newfound power for sexual purposes, is particularly jarring—especially if you're watching with family. It’s not a reasonable or meaningful introduction to such a powerful concept. First, the protagonist Franklin (played by Josh Hutcherson) uses his time-reversal ability in an inappropriate and repeated scene that serves no real purpose. This immediately kills the tone of what could have been an impactful sci-fi experience. These scenes feel forced and make the film unsuitable for family viewing. Second, the story itself lacks logic. The main antagonist is Sig Thorenson (Morgan Freeman), head of a pharmaceutical company (Promethean) that manufactures a drug knowingly laced with poison just for profit. There’s no sign of government regulation, media backlash, or public accountability—none of which is believable. To make things worse, the company’s HQ looks more like a run-down mansion than a corporate giant. The character Antoine (Greg Germann) is written in an overly shallow way. His magic "energy-boosting necklace" has zero scientific or even sci-fi explanation behind it. Meanwhile, actor Sammi Rotibi (playing one of the company’s insiders) was one of the very few who brought any authenticity to his role. As for the female lead, Jala (played by Lovie Simone), the casting was off in terms of both appearance and chemistry with the protagonist. Their relationship escalates absurdly fast: they meet, sleep together, and get engaged—all within two days! That’s neither romantic nor realistic. There is also a glaring lack of emotional depth surrounding the death of Franklin’s sister—a key event that's supposed to drive the plot. Her story is barely touched on until halfway through the film. Overall, the narrative remains shallow, and the suspense boils down to just two memorable scenes: The casino scene The vault scene The latter, in particular, was both clever and funny—and honestly, it’s the only reason I downloaded and watched the movie. --- Suggestion: This film could’ve worked much better with a more realistic approach: a humble guy finds a ring, uses it to help others, gradually becomes greedy, and then realizes the danger it brings. His girlfriend, who should ideally be someone grounded and relatable, helps him return to his moral path. Eventually, he chooses to give up the ring, understanding the responsibility that comes with such power. That would’ve delivered a deeper story with a meaningful message. --- Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 06/05/25 Full Review Roman B Good movie with good actors and I love morgan freeman! About an hour in it starts to get stupid. Dude gets drugged an is to stupid to use the ring to go back an not drink the drugged drink.....then of course the girl freaks out over nothing at all typical movie garbage. Then of course as usual more garbage movie crap. He doesn't hit the ring when he should during the end of the movie for the kidnapping. Instead of leaving when he should he of course was stupid n stayed tp watch the news lmfao an of course they find him at his house. More movie garbage he sees them an instead of hitting the ring he talks n allows them to knock him out an kidnap him, then of course he is playing with the ring while not wearing it so it could be dropped or grabbed from him and yup that happens. Like a 2 year old playing with a toy ignores his mom, thats what he was doing when the bad guy was talking. So of course like a mom the bad guy goes to take the ring he is so distracted by so he will pay attention and listen to him and of course sets the ring off. Then realized what it does and yup ypu can guess the rest lmfao Lazy director and writers bullcrap Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 05/28/25 Full Review Puneet G listen to critics review, don't watch this below average flick and save 100 minutes of your life. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 04/14/25 Full Review Gluteus M What 57 Seconds does well is its core concept: a device that lets you jump exactly 57 seconds back in time. That sounds like the perfect setup for some creative twists and clever moments. The film does have a few entertaining scenes, some solid action, and familiar faces like Josh Hutcherson and Morgan Freeman, who both do a decent job. The pacing is fast, and at times, it manages to build some tension. But in the end, it feels like Looper and Limitless—just the budget version you'd order on Wish. The story moves way too quickly without taking the time to build real suspense or develop its characters. There are barely any surprises, and most of the time, you can see what’s coming from a mile away. For a movie dealing with time travel, that’s a real missed opportunity. Final Verdict: 57 Seconds isn’t a bad movie, but it’s also nothing special. The idea is cool, but the execution is just average. It’s the kind of film you watch once and then immediately forget. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 03/14/25 Full Review Read all reviews

57 Seconds

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now