11 Minutes Ago

Years after watching this gem of entertainment i find myself recommending this movie to colleagues. I'm surrounded by innovative technologist that gather for team building discussions. When i reveal that i prefer sci fi, specifically, time travel, i recommend this movie. The final seconds are brilliant.

I love the way i feel when my intelligence is entertained.

The simplicity of conjectures to conclusions moved my focus from laissez-faire to transfixed. I was entertained by the story's ability to induce "Just enough" anxiety and scientific-chaos to keep me quizzical.

You might find it interesting that I only watched the film once in the 2008 timeframe, and haven't seen it a second time. That's over 15 years of me, sharing this movie title. Memorable film.

I just saw this last night at Worldfest Houston (www.worldfest.org). It was an interesting premise and put together like no other movie I have ever seen. It is definitely a quality independent film and proves once again that you don't need a studio or a huge budget to make a good flick. The writer/director and many of the actors were at the showing and did an extended Q&A after the feature. He said they rehearsed extensively and shot the film in 17 hours. They shot eight 11-minute long scenes with 4 cameras and the actors used lines or actions as cues throughout. The actors likened the production to their previous stage experience. Check it out if you get the opportunity!

If you choose to see this film, remember it is a micro-budget film shot in a single day. I commend it for what it achieves, but some people who are not used to low-budget films will not like it. It something of a found-footage film, but for such a type of film, it is unique, and it not only avoids most of the pitfalls of the genre, but also stands out as one of a handful of few non-horror found-footage films, and likely the only found footage romance film in existence(if there's another, as a fan of found footage, I have not seen it). As a whole, it succeeds well, and uses its budget well, it is definitely a hidden gem, but not for everyone as you can see by the reviews here.

It is always sad to me when good movies are woefully underviewed, and equally under reviewed and underrated. Yes, distribution has a lot to do with it, and only word-of-mouth can help movies that have little distribution and no publicity. Movies such as "11 Minutes Ago" deserve more recognition, 12yrs later and this fi;m has a lowly 378 ratings on IMDB. That is mind boggling to me, but this movie isn't necessarily going to appeal to the masses, still, it should appeal to anyone who likes good time travel films, and those require thinking.

This is another of a series of very low budget films I've reviewed, that on the whole, is extremely well-done. No, it isn't a perfect film by any stretch, while the acting is good for a low-budget, it won't win any awards, but on the whole, the acting works. It is a romantic film, time travel and romance tend to be a good pairing, and romance adds immediacy to this situation. I won't ruin anything else in regards to the plot.

This is a cute movie, and it does quite well with the time-travel aspects, far better than most films. The script it quite solid, and I find it odd that some people on here are complaining about the script, the script is the single largest strength in this entire film. Most of the events in this film feel realistic, given the context, we are dealing with a time-traveler here, it's not going to be totally realistic. Watching the wedding guest and all the stuff going on with them behind the scenes and the drama is a lot of fun to watch. Watching Pac as he unravels what is going on, since he himself, does not really know, is only part of the fun.

The acting, as already stated, is well-done for a found footage film, but it does have a few problems all found footage films have, and that is, sometimes people seem a bit awkward in front of the camera, then again, I've noticed that people who are not filmed regularly, are awkward on camera, so I'm not certain this is "bad" acting per se as most people posit of the genre. However, this will certainly bother some.

It is nice to see good lighting in a found footage style film, it is very refreshing, and it makes sense because it is a not a dark wedding reception, but a well-lit one. The venue of the house is very well used, and even though it is in a single location, it is never dull to watch as the house is large enough to allow variance of scenery. People are also moving around a lot because is a reception, and this helps a lot with a single location, this in fact was very clever.

The direction is good, this is again a found footage style film, and that is what I base the direction on. The lighting is good, whereas so many found footage films are dimly lit. It would have been nice if the director went on to other projects, but he has only ever since directed a few episodes of a TV show, and has done some acting in films such as "Occulus". If he ever reads this, I hope he knows there are people who enjoyed his film and want to see more from him.

I don't think this film is at all resembling Momento, even if it has a plot device similarity, it is different enough it distinguishes itself, and the plot itself is NOTHING like Momento. Movies take threads of other films all of them time. Think of GroundHog Day and how the repeating day plot has since been used it many films and TV shows. Although, 11:59 actually came out before Groundhog Day, but that really doesn't matter, Groundhog Day just popularised the trope. All this to say, similarities to other films should not detract your enjoyment of this, I found this to be a very unique and engrossing time travel film.

This film has a lot to offer if you enjoy unique low-budget films, especially if you enjoy romance and/or science fiction.

God Bless ~Amy

This is a movie for people who are tired of typical gimmick filled Hollywood drivel filled with overblown egos. Well written and excellently acted. Don't drink too much soda during this film because you don't want to miss any of the subtle details that make this film really work. It is a romantic movie, without the clichés of a chick-flick. This is a sure hit for the romantically challenged. It is hard to imagine that this was filmed all in one day. I would compare it to the year 2000 hit Memento starring Guy Pierce without the violence. 11 Minutes Ago really shows that big ideas often trump big budgets. Don't miss the opportunity to see it.

There's certainly no shortage of low budget time travel thrillers, as films like Primer and Timecrimes have swept the indie sci-fi scene and continued to produced on a fairly regular basis. Ripping a hole in the space-time continuum used to require a souped up DeLorean, but now anyone with a camera and a sturdy screenplay can manifest a respectable character study that's propelled by the always fascinating temporal displacement. Bob Gebert's 11 Minutes Ago is a recent example of how this tendency to create the poor man's time travel yarn persists among those eager to break into the business; unfortunately, though, it's not as crisply written (or directed) as either of the previously mentioned films.

The story follows a guy named Pack (Ian Michaels) who's managed to create a device that allows him to travel back in time. Pack hales from 48 years in the future, and his purpose in visiting the early 21st century is to collect air samples. He's doing this—here comes the environmental punch line—to try and prevent an air contamination epidemic that has drastically reduced birthrates and threatened the perpetuation of mankind as a species. Pack's machine has its limitations, though. He can only stay in the past for 11 minutes at a time, and he has to be in the dark in order to "tumble" (that's what the act of time traveling is called) forward to his year of origin. Why he absolutely has to be in the dark is never explained, but the reason is quite obvious: as already clarified, 11 Minutes Ago is working on a very limited budget. Adding nifty effects a la Back to the Future or The Terminator is out of the question, and it's safe to say that throwing in spectacular CGI sequences would serve only as an odd contrast to the purposefully amateur nature of the footage we're provided with. But I digress. As Pack works to complete his mission, he must navigate the perils of a low budget wedding reception (is there a theme at work here?) and a camera crew who's decided to document his shenanigans instead of the nuptial proceedings. One would think that he'd be concerned about creating paradoxes, so on and so forth, but no; this guy doesn't mind disclosing some fairly sensitive information about the future, and he's a ladies man to boot. His infatuation with a bridesmaid named Cynthia (Christina Mauro) causes him to revisit the same two hour time span over and over again in order to try and woo her. Talk about deja vu.

While there are some smart moments in 11 Minutes Ago, it ultimately feels like a short story that was wedged into a particularly dry issue of Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine as filler. Brief allusions to the future act as teasers, and the chemistry between Pack and Cynthia is akin to a faltering EKG, hitting high and low points at sporadic intervals. It never really achieves any degree of credibility, as it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the notion that these two have fallen in love after only briefly flirting. It's true that after each sojourn to the past Pack must spend 3 months preparing for his next 11 minute session with Cynthia, and as the story progresses his range of emotions suggest that he's had ample time to consider his feelings and has become genuinely smitten with her. Still, he manages to dish out some of the worst pillow talk since Attack of the Clones, and Cynthia's acceptance of this mushy mumbling is a real test of a viewer's patience.

The movie throws in the obligatory item (here, a playing card) or reference that will, of course, be explained later in the film. This has been done to suggest that it's a brainy sci-fi offering, but many of these revelations, which occur late in the movie, feel flat and contrived. It seems that Bob Gebert and company wanted to create something that might pass as a decidedly more calm, maybe even introverted cousin to 12 Monkeys, and one could argue that the lack of tangible effects in Terry Gilliam's piece is proof that flashy effects aren't necessary to get the job done. 12 Monkeys, however, does have one thing that 11 Minutes Ago doesn't—a memorable story that causes the audience to feel like they have a stake in what's happening on screen. Sadly, that sense of urgency is missing here, and this is what causes the whole thing to implode in on itself in a singularity of blinding intensity.

Many people would say that all you need is love; I'd argue that you need one heck of a compelling story, too.