VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,5/10
51.615
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Tre amici scoprono una macchina misteriosa che scatta foto ventiquattro ore nel futuro e cospirano per usarla per guadagno personale, finché non iniziano a svilupparsi immagini inquietanti e... Leggi tuttoTre amici scoprono una macchina misteriosa che scatta foto ventiquattro ore nel futuro e cospirano per usarla per guadagno personale, finché non iniziano a svilupparsi immagini inquietanti e pericolose.Tre amici scoprono una macchina misteriosa che scatta foto ventiquattro ore nel futuro e cospirano per usarla per guadagno personale, finché non iniziano a svilupparsi immagini inquietanti e pericolose.
- Premi
- 22 vittorie e 5 candidature totali
John Rhys-Davies
- Mr. Bezzerides
- (scene tagliate)
- (solo nei titoli)
Dayci Brookshire
- Sharon
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe filmmakers entirely self-financed the movie, writing the script to fit the confines of their limited budget.
- BlooperWhen Jasper installs a chain lock onto the front door, he installs it backwards, making it effectively useless.
- ConnessioniReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 520: Inside Out (2015)
- Colonne sonoreSpider
Written by Gary Conor McFarlane and Adam Edward Browne
Performed by The Autumn Owls
Courtesy of North Star Media, LLC
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Time Lapse?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Lapso de tiempo
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Los Angeles, California, Stati Uniti(discussed on DVD in Special Features)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 19.572 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 44 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti