PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
6,5/10
52 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Tres amigos descubren una máquina misteriosa que toma fotografías a veinticuatro horas en el futuro y conspiran para usarla en beneficio personal, hasta que comienzan a verse imágenes inquie... Leer todoTres amigos descubren una máquina misteriosa que toma fotografías a veinticuatro horas en el futuro y conspiran para usarla en beneficio personal, hasta que comienzan a verse imágenes inquietantes y peligrosas.Tres amigos descubren una máquina misteriosa que toma fotografías a veinticuatro horas en el futuro y conspiran para usarla en beneficio personal, hasta que comienzan a verse imágenes inquietantes y peligrosas.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Premios
- 22 premios y 5 nominaciones en total
John Rhys-Davies
- Mr. Bezzerides
- (escenas eliminadas)
- (crédito solo)
Dayci Brookshire
- Sharon
- (sin acreditar)
Reseñas destacadas
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.
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 !
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
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.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThe filmmakers entirely self-financed the movie, writing the script to fit the confines of their limited budget.
- PifiasWhen Jasper installs a chain lock onto the front door, he installs it backwards, making it effectively useless.
- ConexionesReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 520: Inside Out (2015)
- Banda sonoraSpider
Written by Gary Conor McFarlane and Adam Edward Browne
Performed by The Autumn Owls
Courtesy of North Star Media, LLC
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Time Lapse?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- Lapso de tiempo
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Los Ángeles, California, Estados Unidos(discussed on DVD in Special Features)
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 19.572 US$
- Duración1 hora 44 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
