NOTE IMDb
6,5/10
52 k
MA NOTE
Trois amis découvrent une mystérieuse machine qui prend des photos vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre, et conspirent pour l'utiliser à des fins personnelles, jusqu'à ce que des images inqu... Tout lireTrois amis découvrent une mystérieuse machine qui prend des photos vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre, et conspirent pour l'utiliser à des fins personnelles, jusqu'à ce que des images inquiétantes et dangereuses commencent à se développer.Trois amis découvrent une mystérieuse machine qui prend des photos vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre, et conspirent pour l'utiliser à des fins personnelles, jusqu'à ce que des images inquiétantes et dangereuses commencent à se développer.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 22 victoires et 5 nominations au total
John Rhys-Davies
- Mr. Bezzerides
- (scènes coupées)
- (générique uniquement)
Dayci Brookshire
- Sharon
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
Time lapse is an independent film about a group of friends who discover a camera that can take pictures of the future. It's a nice concept and is executed very well.
This is only a small budget film with few special effects, instead it relies on a sharp script, good acting and an interesting story. It doesn't take long to set the scene and is always interesting. As things go from bad to worse for the three friends there are a number of tense scenes and some surprising plot turns.
As the film is set in one location it really requires strong performances from the cast and thankfully all three leads excellent as are all the supporting cast.
This is a clever, impressive and very entertaining film which really shows what can be done with a limited budget. This film deserves a much higher profile and I would expect it's current rating of 6.9 from 437 votes to increase over time.
Highly recommended.
This is only a small budget film with few special effects, instead it relies on a sharp script, good acting and an interesting story. It doesn't take long to set the scene and is always interesting. As things go from bad to worse for the three friends there are a number of tense scenes and some surprising plot turns.
As the film is set in one location it really requires strong performances from the cast and thankfully all three leads excellent as are all the supporting cast.
This is a clever, impressive and very entertaining film which really shows what can be done with a limited budget. This film deserves a much higher profile and I would expect it's current rating of 6.9 from 437 votes to increase over time.
Highly recommended.
Or maybe neither, depending on your view or perspective on the matter or characters that is. But you can't deny, that this movie (clue is in the title), is well thought of. You might not agree with all the twists and turns this takes, but it does so convincingly. Can you see a couple of things coming before our main characters spot them (no pun intended)? Of course you can. Still fun to watch though.
Which all comes down to a neat direction (for a low budget movie that is) and the stellar cast, that really do their best to convey a really "far out" idea. If you like Science Fiction Thrillers, that do use their head a little bit, you could do worse (a lot worse)
Which all comes down to a neat direction (for a low budget movie that is) and the stellar cast, that really do their best to convey a really "far out" idea. If you like Science Fiction Thrillers, that do use their head a little bit, you could do worse (a lot worse)
Even though the scope of such an idea asks us to venture beyond the setting of one area and perhaps expand to other parts of the town or even the world, the film-makers did well with the chosen set of spaces. Likely because of the harmonious casting and well knit story. A fine thriller.
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
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
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe filmmakers entirely self-financed the movie, writing the script to fit the confines of their limited budget.
- GaffesWhen Jasper installs a chain lock onto the front door, he installs it backwards, making it effectively useless.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 520: Inside Out (2015)
- Bandes originalesSpider
Written by Gary Conor McFarlane and Adam Edward Browne
Performed by The Autumn Owls
Courtesy of North Star Media, LLC
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Time Lapse?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Timelapse
- Lieux de tournage
- Los Angeles, Californie, États-Unis(discussed on DVD in Special Features)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 19 572 $US
- Durée
- 1h 44min(104 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant