Marco L
(CASTELLANO) A 57 Seconds se le ve la idea desde lejos: un artefacto que rebobina menos de un minuto y un protagonista tentado a usarlo para arreglar la vida a base de intentos. Como punto de partida funciona: es sencillo, directo, casi juguetón. El problema es que la película se queda ahí, en el truco, sin exprimirlo del todo ni tomar riesgos.
Josh Hutcherson aporta nervio y cierta torpeza entrañable; Morgan Freeman cumple con esa autoridad tranquila que te compra cualquier exposición. La química está, la puesta en escena es limpia y el ritmo no decae, pero todo avanza sobre raíles conocidos. Cuando amaga con ponerse incómoda —ética, poder, responsabilidad—, levanta el pie.
El dispositivo de los "57 segundos" da para momentos curiosos y algún chispazo de ingenio. Aun así, la película prefiere el camino fácil: repetir, corregir y seguir. Falta esa sensación de consecuencia real, de "cada decisión pesa", que convierte un high-concept en algo memorable. Aquí todo es disfrutable… y olvidable a la misma velocidad.
Se agradece que no se enrede con tecnicismos y vaya al grano. También que tenga un pulso de serie B sin complejos: entra, entretiene y no molesta. Pero cuando asoma el discurso contra los gigantes farmacéuticos o la tentación de reescribir la propia vida, la película se queda en titular.
Al final, 57 Seconds es eso que pones una noche y no te enfada: ligera, simpática por momentos, un poco lista de más en otros. Si vas con el modo "pasar el rato", cumple. Si buscas algo que retuerza el cerebro o el corazón, te sabrá a poco.
(ENGLISH) 57 Seconds has a hook you get right away: a gadget that rewinds just under a minute and a lead tempted to use it to "fix" life by trial and error. As a starting point, it works—simple, direct, almost playful. The issue is it mostly stays there, relying on the trick without really pushing it.
Josh Hutcherson brings jittery charm; Morgan Freeman delivers that calm authority that sells any exposition. The pace is fine, the staging clean, but the movie walks familiar tracks. When it teases tougher ground—ethics, power, responsibility—it backs off.
The 57-second reset yields a few neat beats, but the film favors the easy route: repeat, correct, move on. It’s missing that sense of consequence—the feeling that choices actually cost—that turns a high concept into something memorable. Enjoyable, yes; forgettable, almost as quickly.
I like that it avoids tech babble and gets to the point. The B-movie vibe isn’t a bug; it’s the pitch. Still, when it flirts with Big Pharma takedowns or the fantasy of rewriting your path, it stays at headline level.
In the end, 57 Seconds is a perfectly okay late-night watch: light, occasionally clever, sometimes too pleased with itself. If you’re in the mood to pass the time, it works. If you want your brain—or your heart—twisted, it won’t do.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
11/23/25
Full Review
Kristy F
I feel like it had a lot of potential. I liked the general idea and loved the cast. I feel like the lead actor was made out to be a chosen one of sorts- but there wasn't really enough lead in to suggest that. It felt like an average Joe was considered to be 'very special' without having earnt the title. Also the ending felt abrupt and more like he was being stubborn and reactive in his desire to refuse the offer, rather than logical. Maybe it just needed to be a bit longer to get the storyline a bit more cohesive.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
11/01/25
Full Review
Erin M
Great sci-fi adventure. Definitely well thought out, and kept me entertained throughout! Don’t believe the haters!!!??
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
09/22/25
Full Review
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
Read all reviews
Continue with Google
>
