Opiniones de usuarios

So I watched this on a late night TV broadcast some time ago. Surely it must have also been the right moment in life, or something, but it felt like a revelation. I remember I was grasping onto a feeling that I understood an important thing about life, time, decisions... Now it is all fuzzy. I did rewatched it, in a different context and felt like the major thing about it was... gone. So I guess you either love it, or just wonder what the blip you are looking at. You decide.

A low budget time travel thriller which partially feels Hal Hartley-esque due to some of the dialogue, score and a fairly meaty role for Hartley regular James Urbaniak, it starts very strongly but starts to flounder around the half way point. One of the actors the film centres around is unfortunately quite poor, and though Urbaniak's on form he can't save it from disappointing as it never delivers on the initial promise shown, and the ending is bland, all meaning that while I'd initially enjoyed it I ultimately felt pretty frustrated by it.

I'd wrestled with a bad print of "The Sticky Fingers of Time" before, but having finally sunk my teeth into the restored version today, that original feeling? It's still there, only amplified. This film has the spirit of 90s DIY filmmaking-audaciously witty and mind-bending, it defies every expectation, proving that ingenuity trumps budget every time. In a dimension where narratives ripple and timelines intertwine, Hilary Brougher's 1997 gem, "The Sticky Fingers of Time," bursts forth from its new restoration. This isn't just a film; it felt like a Lynch's delicious disorientation, Marie-Claude Treilhou's intimate gaze, Hal Hartley's quirky cadence, and FJ Ossang's fearless spirit, all brewed into a potent, sapphic sci-fi elixir. This newly restored gem plunges us into a deliciously disorienting narrative where time itself is a viscous, multi-limbed entity. Forget your typical linear jaunts; here, time has five sticky fingers: past, present, future, what could have been, and what might yet be.

Coming to the plot, it begins in the smoky, black-and-white grit of 1950s NYC, where Tucker Harding, a hard-boiled fiction writer with a cigarette perpetually perched between her toes, is crafting a novel about time's five mischievous digits: past, present, future, what-ifs, and what-may-bes. Unbeknownst to her, a close encounter with an H-bomb test has turned her into a "time freak." One minute she's sipping coffee, the next she's tumbling into the vibrant, color-drenched chaos of 1990s Brooklyn, leaving behind a sticky, luminous residue - the film's deliciously unsettling visual metaphor for time travel. Then enters Drew, a wonderfully messy, possibly suicidal writer, whose life is as tangled. She's just stumbled upon an old paperback of Tucker's "The Sticky Fingers of Death" in a dusty bookstore, only to find a chilling newspaper clipping tucked inside: Tucker, dead on the pavement decades ago. So, naturally, when Tucker herself saunters in, a bewildered specter from the past, things get interesting. Tucker, the accidental "non-linear chick," quickly learns the sticky truth of time travel: it leaves a glistening, almost erotic goo oozing from your eyes. I really liked the arrival of Ofelia, a mesmerizing femme fatale whose secrets unspool like a serpentine tail. My god, how I wanted more glimpses of that tail! Her presence was pure 90s indie cool, a perfect homage to those pulpy thrillers I adore. She just fit.

The real beauty here is how casually brilliant it is, as characters navigate their temporal woes with a relatable, almost mundane charm, the obvious shoestring budget evident but never detracting. And the soundtrack! When the iconic Mill Brothers' "Sixty Seconds Got Together" popped up, it was such a playful, perfectly anachronistic nod. It just worked, adding to the fun and unusual vibe.

Overall, "The Sticky Fingers of Time" is a genuine effort and a must-watch low-budget oddity for those who are interested. Remember, it's a world where time is a pie, and you can eat the slices in any order, but only once.

I came across this title when searching the extensive collections of sci-fi time travel films. I dare say that I was not initially impressed with the things I found, but the actual blurb won me over. I found this on DVD for £4.99 retail which was a bargain.

The film begins with what can be described as "sesame street Colouring". The camera was obviously low budget, so the colours all appear murky and bleed into each other. This would have been where I would have stopped watching which would have been a real mistake.

The premise of the film quickly takes hold, and you learn about the characters in a very alternative fashion. The film is separated into sections that have very little connectivity until the storyline takes hold. This is where the film comes into its own.

The film is part colour part black and white, giving the indication of which time period you are in. This is a really simple way of doing this but it is so effective. The slices of the film really come into place at the end and you realise what a masterpiece of direction this actually is. This really would have been excellent with a big screen budget if that could have been done without dumbing down the plot (probably not with the state of films today).

Give this film a chance, it is so cheap to buy, just slightly more than renting Navy Seals which would be a waste of good money. If you give the first 20 minutes a chance you should enjoy it. (don't get drunk before, you might miss out on the plot).

7/10 (10/10 storyline, 9/10 entertainment value, 5/10 production value). TWELVE MONKEYS WITHOUT THE MONEY BUT MORE PLOT.

Started out fairly interesting, but at about 15 minutes into the film, a case of the low-budgets kicked in and killed the movie. I have nothing against low budgets, mind you, but you must have an interesting story, or characters you can care about in order to get really involved in a film. "El Mariachi" is a good example of what you can do with an ultra-low budget and still make a film that engages the audience.

Woeful acting and editing took me completely out of this film and made me acutely aware that I was watching a low-budget piece of garbage. A silly, nonsensical, "since-it's-science-fiction-I-can-say-whatever-stupid-mumbo-jumbo-I-want-an d-you-have-to-accept-it" story line was the capper on this crapper.

This is a horrible little movie with perhaps the worst acting since the old "Plan 9".

The cinematography looks like something a film student would do after taking that one class and deciding they were going to invent their own style. Looks more like what a 12 year old does when making a backyard fan film. The actual story is about a 20 minute short turned into an interminable "feature" length.

The characters don't connect. The first kiss on screen looks so scripted and robotic as to be laughable. You could see how the writer/director had to maneuver the actors around until the kiss could be set up. The director doesn't understand how to motivate the actors and let it flow. Instead, it appears each actor read their parts right before filming and are just going through script direction.

Dentist and assistant come across as really bad porn actors.

"This guy" is nothing but a jarring reminder you are watching a really bad film.

In the end, the conceits of the film and writing kill the story.

I can't say enough good things about this movie. Clever, well-acted, well-written, and constructed with an intricacy and a clarity that just blows me away. This movie is just plain solidly good.

Having said that, I'm amused by the critics I've read who make comments re this film to the effect of "Finally, a sci-fi movie directed exclusively at women!" I'm all for sci-fi directed at women. But let me tell you, as a hetero male sci-fi geek, I have no problem at all settling down to watch a story about time-traveling lesbians. Are you kidding? What is perhaps a bit more unusual in sci-fi is the portrayal of realistic, three-dimensional female characters, and the very natural, and, I'll say it, feminine way that they deal with the bizarre events that befall them. Particularly in genre movies, faux-feminist "strong women" are often depicted as essentially men in female bodies. The central characters in this film are strong people (well, one of them becomes strong) and it has nothing to do with gender inversion, or reversal, or some sort of overthrow of the male paradigm. Or, if that stuff is in there, it's buried deep enough that I didn't feel beat over the head with it.

The world would be a better place if the marketing machine was put to use convincing people to see movies like this instead of, to take some recent examples, Pearl Harbor and Planet of the Apes. The Sticky Fingers of Time made me feel better about being alive. I want the poster. Bravo.

I saw this film two or three years ago at one of the San Francisco film festivals. I loved it. I told everyone about it, and have had to wait this long time before I found it on DVD.

It is expertly written and directed, a phenomenal film. It cloaks any budget constraints in a black-n white film noir look and feel, very convincing, all time periods feel authentic (good costume work - also good set designs). The time travel elements are well told, especially for such a complex underlying concept. There's nothing condescending or overbearing the way you found in Matrix (no endless monologues explaining everything). Rather, it's concise in it's storytelling, told visually and thematically and through action. Really nice, a fun romp through time, very catchy.

All actors were well above what I've come to expect, even - or maybe especially - from Hollywood. No one really let the ball fall. I recommend this to anyone who loves film noir or science fiction - thriller stories.

I'd highly recommend this for noir fans--a great twist on the genre, with its additions of time-travel and backwards-to-forwards plotline and lesbianism. The first scene, naturally, makes you say, "How'd that happen?" and the rest of the story is how you saw what you saw in the first minute. Shows "12 Monkeys" what it could have been if it had had any guts at all.

This movie was absolutely superb. My friends and I saw it two nights in a row; I'd gladly see it again, but it was only in my area for a weekend. If Hilary Brougher can make this movie with $250,000, I can't wait to see what she'll make with more. The story is beautifully crafted, suspenseful, and totally original. The actors were excellent, especially the ones who played Isaac, Tucker and Drew. There were some understatedly hilarious lines that perfectly balanced the frightening/bizarre storyline, and everything came together beautifully--and unexpectedly--at the end. This is the kind of movie I want to make! As the local arthouse theater that showed this put it, "Although we're not positive, we're heralding this film as a first of its genre: a pre- and post-apocalyptic time-travel/atomic-bomb-mutation/lesbian chic/suspense dramedy." Whatever you call it, it's great.

Time has five fingers One is for the past One is for the present And three is the future And four is for what could have been And five for yet could be

Writer Tucker (Terumi Matthews) in Alice in Wonderland style unwittingly follows her mysterious beau from 1953 to 1997 and is involved in an attempt to change the past.

We are introduced to several story threads and personalities. As we try to keep up with this non-linear story. Can the past and future be changed or does what we do Stick?

The film has that independent sight, sound, and feel; Shot on special color and black and white film. The use of "super 16" film and the second unit using 8 mm gives this film an otherworldly look. They manage not to shake it as in Blair Witch.

One thing I like in the book that they created "The sticky fingers of time" It plays a part in keeping the continuity of the story and right up to the last has significance.