User reviews

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.

Time lapse is a very well-made and entertaining little movie, something that should satisfy the average science fiction/thriller fan. The three leads all perform at a high level. Matt O'Leary as a young artist is appropriately fragile, Danielle Panabaker is not the 'good girl' you might assume from her appearance and George Finn conveys real menace in his portrayal as their friend, sinister from the middle point on.

Settings are simple but effective and the atmosphere is well held together by the staging and the clean production. There won't be any awards for set decoration but it works and isn't a distraction to the story. Unlike many low budget efforts it doesn't have that 'cheap scenery' feeling at all.

The lean script has enough science in it to work, but not too much to make it muddled. You aren't going to cheat on your next physics project by borrowing from this movie but you won't be offended by the theory in play. The good news about the story is that it works and by the end of the experience you will feel entertained with intelligent and clever writing. Your brain will be teased by this film.

There are several dark moments in the movie that show some real Hitchcock influence, though a film maker worker in this milieu is wise to borrow from the master. In addition, from time to time the score swells into a legitimate (though very minor) homage to Bernard Hermann. Again, a very good idea. The windup is complete and clean, revelations during the body of the film become evidence that tickle with satisfaction as it ends.

Low budget, but you aren't going to feel like you are watching some derivative film school project. This is a good movie with young actors creating their own characters. I think almost all viewers will find it artistically fresh. This is the first work I have seen from this director and after seeing Time Lapse I will look for his name for future entertainment, along with the names of his young stars.

When you find a film like this with unknown actors, a director you don't recognize and subject matter that could easily become boring you are forgiven if you don't fully commit to a full viewing when the streaming or broadcast starts. Personally, I gave it 15 minutes to prove itself when I began and was quickly stuck on it until the end. You should allow it to be the only content showing at the moment for you and your co-viewers, this is one to pay attention to in order to really enjoy. But, I think enjoyment is nearly a done deal.

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)

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

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.

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 Shallow Grave (1994). Although the first twenty minutes are rather encouraging, the last thirty ones are disappointing and almost appalling.

Directed by Bradley King, Time Lapse is the story of jealousy, time travel and the degradation of relationships through power and greed.

The story centers on an apartment complex where roommates Callie, Finn and Jasper (played by Danielle Panabaker, Matt O'Leary and George Finn respectively) discover that their neighbor has died. The twist and central conflict that arises from this discovery is that the neighbor was a scientist that invented a camera that is able to take a picture 24 hours into the future – and it's conveniently and frighteningly pointed at their living room.

How will they react to such a life-changing discovery? What possible negatives could come from being able to see the future? These are the conflicts Time Lapse deals with and just how the outcomes ultimately test the loyalty and relationships between our three main characters.

The film examines their motivations for using the camera, the slavery they build for themselves through it, and the ultimately we find that the real villain of the story is simply Time. Time as a weapon, paradoxes as the consequences, who could ask for anything more?

I was so encapsulated by this film that I'm sure I looked ridiculous to my fellow theater patrons. I love time-travel movies simply because they, like all good sci-fi, are just vehicles to examine human drama. What if you could use time to your advantage, say…to make a whole lot of money? Biff did it in Back to the Future II. They did it in Primer. Looper even made use of time travel as a means to an end and JGL even made his weight in gold and silver in the process.

The thing that really stood out for me in this film was the fact that it manages to keep track of its internal logic, which as most of you know is no easy task for a time-travel movie. If you've seen Primer, which this movie reminded me a lot of, I'm pretty sure you need a freaking diagram to keep track of how that all works. In Time Lapse we at least have physical representations in the form of Polaroid pictures that the machine spits out to keep developing the plot and creating the increased paranoia and tension between the roommates.

This film like all the other ones at the festival has that indie film vibe to it, but I can definitely see why it was the Festival Centerpiece at Other World's Austin this year. It's disturbing, suspenseful and exactly what you'd expect from a Hitchcockian sci-fi thriller. The performances are great, the minimalist sci-fi is great, and it's refreshing to have a good time-travel movie since it's been a long wait for a train don't come the past few years (Excluding Looper of course).

Read the full review and others like it on the Drive-in Zeppelin Website

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.

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.

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 !

The premise is all wrong. Three huge problems. Bookies, sports bets, pushing fate and zero reasons whatsoever for doing so. Absolutely anyone with anything resembling coherent thought would simply take a pic of themselves holding winning powerball numbers. Four separate states waiting for strong 9 figure payoffs. Drama and danger is cool and all but anyone that stupid deserves to get offed.

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.

This is most definitely a very low budget film. You could classified as a sci-fi movie but it really isn't.

The premise seems simple, but it is like the writer couldn't decide which way to go and the script became confusing.

The 3 main characters are as stupid as a can of Spam!

If I wanted to summarized in a sentence with a moral in it I would say: Assumption is the mother of all fu**-ups.

You need to keep your self calm throughout the movie not to throw something at the screen, with the decisions these young people are making.

The 3 main characters might be a bunch of idiots but the 3 main actors actually make a really good job bringing up to life a so-so script.

As I'm reading the movie won several awards in some local festivals. In my opinion is the acting of George Finn especially and Danielle Panabaker to thank for those.

Overall: Do not expect to be amazed by the premise. Ain't that much to go for. But it does have some thrilling moments (triggered by the stupidity of the characters) that you might find entertaining.

.

Callie (Danielle Panabaker), Finn (Matt O'Leary), and Jasper (George Finn) are three people who are sharing a place together (with the former two being girlfriend and boyfriend). When Callie goes to check on their neighbour Mr Bezzerides after he hasn't been seen for a few days, she discovers that he has a giant camera that takes pictures 24 hours in advance. Initially, they exploit potential money making opportunities that such a device will give them, but our trio discover that knowing what's round the next corner may not always be a good thing....

Although it's a little bit goofy and jokey at the start the film soon settles down and becomes a fairly effective thriller. The simple hook with this film is wanting to know what lies ahead for our trio and how, in this case they prepare for the 'expected' rather than the 'unexpected'. For the bulk of the story that's all there really is to this film, but the screenplay is constructed in such a way that once the mystery begins you'll find yourself fully involved in the proceedings. This is all helped by the fact that there are lots of loose ends left untied throughout the film and there are various other strands of the story that may leave you puzzled whilst watching the film. Thankfully it's not a lazy film and it does tie everything up nicely at the end.

Things take a further turn when Jasper's bookmaker becomes involved in proceedings when he becomes enraged at Jasper's sudden good fortune at gambling. Whilst arguably this element probably wasn't necessarily needed, I did welcome it as it did help to keep things reasonably tense and suspenseful - even though the resolution to this aspect of the story was rather predictable and clichéd.

The film becomes a little bit sloppy and chaotic towards the end - although this is also where you'll find some nice twists and surprises so there's both good and bad here. The performances from a relatively unknown cast are reasonable (although there is one cast member that's in this film who is well-known, but there's no way you'll recognise him!!!).

For me, Time Lapse isn't the best thriller ever made and it's hardly edge of your seat stuff. However, I have to admit that once it got going I did enjoy this film even though it was a little sloppy in one or two areas.

Sci-fi topics about time and alternative realities provoke thoughts about determinism and free will. Same goes for movies that use those topics, no matter how bad they are. If it's +1, The Adjustment Bureau, The Matrix, Primer, Looper, Source Code, Predestination, Donnie Darko, Waking Life or Abre los ojos, they always seem to have an effect on my thinking about those subjects. Time Lapse is no different. Some reading on the net about this film taught me about the bootstrap paradox and Novikov's self-consistency principle. Exactly the kind of ideas I love to read and learn about after watching a film like Time Lapse. Although the acting wasn't that good (at all, actually) and it wasn't a visually daring or striking film, I found joy in discussing some metaphysics afterwards. Isn't the ability of provoking such thoughts an accomplishment to be taken into account when rating a film like this? I certainly think so. Entertaining stuff, probably too obvious and lame for science-geeks, but some philosophy majors and genre aficionado's will have fun with this.

The filmmakers do a great job of setting tone, style and rules of their world before allowing the r characters to do the heavy lifting. Time travel movies are often bogged down by too much exposition. I may not understand the world in which this film is set but I related to the characters 100%. I decided to leave a review after finding out the only known actor in the cast was cut out of the film because the scenes they were in didn't support the story during the edit. To me that speaks to how important the story was to the filmmakers. I can almost guarantee a big budget film would not do the same so that they could use any and all stars to market with. Bravo to the independent filmmakers who are telling stories because they are passionate about them.

Firstly, however bad this film is, it is not nearly as bad as some of the fake positive reviews which the PR team have spread all over IMDb. If the production team had invested the same effort in creating a good film that they have in falsifying a positive public response, maybe it would have been vaguely watchable.

The film itself (as others have pointed out) was conceptually thieved from a Twilight Zone episode. Stretch it out over two hours, throw in a bit of Dawson's Creek and some cardboard cutout bad guys.. and you pretty much have this drivel.

The acting isn't especially poor - apart from the female lead - but the plot is dire, the script is flat, the pacing is terrible. I won't go into the litany of glaring plot holes or logical dissonances, because by far the biggest question in my mind at the end of this rubbish was 'who must Bradley King and BP Cooper be related to?'. The movie is so bad it has nepotism written all over it.

Don't bother with this and don't believe the transparently false positive reviews.

I recently screened Time Lapse and was pleasantly surprised by many aspects, including performance, direction, cinematography, and overall story. The wonderful performances of the three lead characters, Callie, Finn, and Jasper kept me invested in the story from beginning to end. Without giving away any of the story, witnessing both the slow and sudden transformations of each character were both entertaining and jarring as a viewer.

In addition to the realistic portrayals on screen, I found the look and feel of the film to be particularly noteworthy. The director, and team, did a fine job in creating both tension and apprehension throughout the film by way of his shot selections as well as his set, sound, and art design choices; each which lent to the steady decline of the characters and their spiraling environment. Furthermore, the cinematography fantastically added to the suspenseful pace and mood in which the story unfolds by realistically portraying a normal everyday world made up of friendship and love that quickly transforms into one made up of antagonism, manipulation, and greed.

Time Lapse is 104 minutes of suspenseful and thrilling entertainment. It is also a film you'll want to watch again. I know I will!

In this film, a group of three young people who live together (a couple and a single friend who lives in the house) discover that the old man who lives in the house in front of theirs, disappeared a few days ago and no one knows about him. When they investigated, they discovered a large camera in the middle of the room, and a collection of photos of their living room, taken by that mysterious machine that, to their surprise, takes pictures the day before they can happen. Reluctant to interfere in the future, they decided to imitate the photos, ensuring that nothing bad happened to them and fearing that the inventor had fallen, victim to any attempt to alter the future. But everything will get complicated when they start using the machine to earn extra money.

The movie is quite good, and the story works on top of an intelligent and well-written script, which guarantees us an hour and a half of good cinema, although it is not completely free from predictability or cliché situations (such as the situation of love betrayal among the friends). For a film with low budget and high creativity, the result is quite positive.

The reduced cast is expertly led by the trio Matt O'Leary, Danielle Panabaker and George Finn. The three actors seem to have a good rapport for the cameras, or that translates into a more harmonious and efficient work together. The film still has other actors, such as Amin Joseph or Jason Spisak, but only the three central actors that sustain the entire plot.

On a technical level, the film is quite limited due to its setting, but what was done is very good, and care was taken in the technical execution of the film. The photography is quite good, and all the visual and special effects work was equally effective.