Time Lapse

It entertains. It's not the best sci-fi film I've ever seen but it's reasonably high up the list and as a bonus, it keeps getting more interesting as it goes along and thankfully, the ending was fitting.

A few suggestions for improvement:

The characters all seemed like strangers in the beginning and they all waited a set time for their turn to speak which gave the film quite a stilted effect. George Finn was the only one who didn't 'look' like he was acting. Danielle Panabaker annoys me in most of her work because she tries to pull off being innocent and sweet when the character she's playing doesn't need it (either that or she just isn't any good at being 'sweet') - it comes across as being quite fake. The camera could have been expanded on for example; its creation, design, and they could have experimented with various settings. As it stands, I still don't know how they figured out certain things about the way it functioned (but I might have missed the explanation while munching).

Some praise:

Matt O'Leary pulled off a really funny 'wtf are you talking about' moment when his best friend and girlfriend were casually discussing a dead body. Although the opening scenes were jarring because of the lack of chemistry and low budget feel, with literally every scene, the film got more and more engrossing so stick with it. The story was really well written. It progressed at a good pace and although George Finn's character development seemed a bit over the top, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and for once, the ending was fitting and extremely satisfying.

I think everyone involved should be really proud, any criticisms are fairly minor, and I can easily recommend this.

7/10

I spent the first part of this film umming and ahing as to whether or not I was enjoying it, but towards the end I was totally gripped and at the end I absolutely loved it.

The story and pacing of this film are practically perfect, making it a definite winner in my book, but any prospective viewers might benefit from being aware of a couple of things before they decide to watch.

Firstly it looks kind of like a cheap made for TV movie. Some of the camera shots are creative and well thought out but the whole thing just oozes film-making on a budget, and some people might find that hard to get past.

The style reminded me of the remake they did of The Outer Limits in the 90s, rather than a film from 2014. Also, much like the aforementioned series the incidental music is horribly generic and uninspired (but thankfully used pretty sparsely.) The acting is mediocre from the three leads. Some people will find this grating, so prepare yourself. They won't be winning any Academy Awards anytime soon for their performances, trust me.

So why should you definitely watch this movie? Because despite the clunky dialogue and wooden acting the plot is entertaining, unfolds brilliantly and is executed just about as perfectly as a plot can be executed in a movie. It is a wonderfully self-contained story that builds to a satisfying denouement and keeps you guessing and totally gripped along the way.

If you go into this movie expecting every aspect to be amazing, you're probably going to be disappointed. Instead bear in mind the criticisms above and trust that despite these weaknesses it is an uncommonly enjoyable watch and well worth an hour and forty minutes of your time.

Well, not *unusually* stupid.

Why doesn't Jasper put up winning lottery numbers instead of race results? Thus, avoiding dealing with the bookie and his henchman? Because he doesn't.

They come up with this reasoning that they have to do what's in the photo of the future, else they'll die or something, which is rather dubious.

But it doesn't matter what their reasoning is. These people are experiencing a self consistent time stream. They don't actually change anything at all. They have no free will. They are automatons. All their thoughts, reasoning, actions are written in stone.

-

I like it a lot and find it repeatedly engrossing. I've probably watched it at least ten times and am always sucked right into it.

I think the acting is great, even Ivan, the bookie. He's pretty funny, and it seems not everybody is sold on him, but he works for me. He DOES come across like he's acting, but that's because the character is acting like he thinks a bookie should act.

And for a low budget movie, the bulk of which occurs in one apartment, it looks great. I don't think it ever feels stale due to that, and that's no small feat.

My only complaint from that department is when they discover the camera (a nice prop). The three leads look over at it, and it cuts to an insert of the camera, which is obviously an insert since the characters should have been visible.

Small budget , reasonably decent ... I watched it with interest , even though , most of the actions of the protagonists don't make too much sense ... Anyhow , passable one time watch !

C'mon, you know this one.

The first rule of fight club is Never Talk About Fight Club.

Whats the first rule of Indie films? OK, times up.

The first rule of Indie films is ... Indies don't HAVE to be bad, people JUST MAKE THEM THAT WAY.

This indie opus seems to be the brainchild of Bradley King, who wrote and directed. His IMDb resume suggests mainly short subjects and TIME LAPSE looks like the attempt to break to the next level.

Let's start with the premise, the logline.

The other reviewers have already covered it.

Really clever. Way above average. While the "future cam" thing has been done before -- I remember this from a comic book in the 60s, actually -- the whole story is well thought out.

And the intro in particular, the setup, is very well done.

But ... the real issue ... is this a feature? Is this a full-length feature with ebbs and flows, ups and downs, that a viewer can connect with? Remember that for the producer/director/writer (on the other side of the camera from the viewer) the ultimate goal of an indie is produce a film at the lowest possible expense. Which means minimal actors, usually young or unknown, minimal sets, minimal special effects, and pretty much minimal everything.

And that is the issue here. This is a full length film, yes, but it hooked me, the viewer, for only about 15 minutes before I realized that the core premise was going to be stretched, and stretched, and stretched, with the same cast and same sets, and same "what if" circular dialog, until something broke.

In this case it was me.