AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,5/10
52 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Três amigos descobrem uma máquina misteriosa que tira fotos vinte e quatro horas no futuro e conspiram para usá-la para ganho pessoal, até que imagens perturbadoras e perigosas comecem a apa... Ler tudoTrês amigos descobrem uma máquina misteriosa que tira fotos vinte e quatro horas no futuro e conspiram para usá-la para ganho pessoal, até que imagens perturbadoras e perigosas comecem a aparecer.Três amigos descobrem uma máquina misteriosa que tira fotos vinte e quatro horas no futuro e conspiram para usá-la para ganho pessoal, até que imagens perturbadoras e perigosas comecem a aparecer.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 22 vitórias e 5 indicações no total
John Rhys-Davies
- Mr. Bezzerides
- (cenas deletadas)
- (apenas creditado)
Mark C. Hanson
- Dog Race Announcer
- (narração)
Dayci Brookshire
- Sharon
- (não creditado)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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
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 !
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.
When you're the scriptwriter of a movie dealing with time travel, the easiest and cheapest way is to write a script built with protagonists as moronic as pathetic. Let's name them Callie, Finn and Jasper. Then, the plot twists will follow one after the other, at a frenetic pace, until Callie, Finn and Jasper ineluctably lost control like Juliet, David and Alex in Cova Rasa (1994). Although the first twenty minutes are rather encouraging, the last thirty ones are disappointing and almost appalling.
A still camera that can peek ahead of time; is indeed a captivating idea, to begin with. On one hand, I feel obliged to show appreciation for the writer who has come up with such a tantalizing vision, on the other hand, I believe, the movie, on the whole, failed to give such a great concept a rightful shape & structure! It kinda falls short of attaining its full potential.
And the main reason was the clueless facade of a write-up that didn't seem to have any idea whatsoever on how to deal with such a tricky subject. Although it started on an encouraging note, putting together justifiable moments in the process that were loaded with palpable tension and suspense but then after a certain period of time, everything began to fall apart.
What started as a pretty straightforward Sci-fi, slowly turned into a familiar drama comprising of friendships, love, cheating; all the stuff that was nonessential, and uncalled for. Why would somebody resort to such paltry dramas where you've got one of the most intriguing concepts at your disposal, You have had a freaking time. Traveling camera for god sake. If only they were more pragmatic with their preferences, things could have turned out differently and that would have been in its favor as well.
And the main reason was the clueless facade of a write-up that didn't seem to have any idea whatsoever on how to deal with such a tricky subject. Although it started on an encouraging note, putting together justifiable moments in the process that were loaded with palpable tension and suspense but then after a certain period of time, everything began to fall apart.
What started as a pretty straightforward Sci-fi, slowly turned into a familiar drama comprising of friendships, love, cheating; all the stuff that was nonessential, and uncalled for. Why would somebody resort to such paltry dramas where you've got one of the most intriguing concepts at your disposal, You have had a freaking time. Traveling camera for god sake. If only they were more pragmatic with their preferences, things could have turned out differently and that would have been in its favor as well.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe filmmakers entirely self-financed the movie, writing the script to fit the confines of their limited budget.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen Jasper installs a chain lock onto the front door, he installs it backwards, making it effectively useless.
- ConexõesReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 520: Inside Out (2015)
- Trilhas sonorasSpider
Written by Gary Conor McFarlane and Adam Edward Browne
Performed by The Autumn Owls
Courtesy of North Star Media, LLC
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Time Lapse?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Centrais de atendimento oficiais
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Lapso de tiempo
- Locações de filme
- Los Angeles, Califórnia, EUA(discussed on DVD in Special Features)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 19.572
- Tempo de duração1 hora 44 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente