Ошибка времени фильм 2014 отзывы

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The story often takes implausible leaps, filling in plot-holes with lazy writing in order to construct ridiculous scenarios, and ultimately an empty and pointless ending. Although there is of course a twist which is sort of interesting, but it comes late and by that time you might be over it.

The idea of a camera taking pictures of the future is good, but they didn’t capitalize on the idea or take it anywhere interesting.

You can’t help but roll your eyes at much of the movie. Your patience will be tested by the choices the characters make, and the direction the story goes.

The premise that they must act out at all costs, what’s in the ‘future photo’ is the first plot blunder. It’s such a loose and vague idea that their lives are in danger if they don’t do exactly what’s in the photo, that you’ll feel like throwing your shoe at the screen.

«Fiction» isn’t a free ride. Things should be believable in the context of the world the characters are in. This is where so many low budget independent films fail. The writers too inexperienced, or unable to tie everything together with plausible yet entertaining ideas.

For example, the writers wanted a threatening bookie to cause a few problems for our main characters. So they have one of the characters make ridiculous decisions to bring that character into the mix. They could have simply used the lottery numbers instead, and made more money without raising suspicion.

The cinematography is pretty good. Editing is fine.

It’s not ‘awful’ but the writing and concepts never get out of second gear. The story is stuck in «film school» mode and will appeal only to those looking for the bare minimum in entertainment.

No not the beloved Goosebumps book/TV episode, Only my description of this film.

Too vague? Allow me to explain further with a story.

Title: Back To The Future: Part Poo

So like this one time, me and my friends found this like camera, it could like take pictures that were 24 hours into the future yeah? So like we were all «ooo this could have endless benefits and better our lives for good».

OK so like we were thinking of like ideas on how this would help us.

«shall we find out the winning lottery numbers»?

No, lets do nothing

«shall we find out the winning lottery numbers today»?

Nah lets just make illegal gambling bets with a shady, dangerous bookie.

«Hey i have an idea, shall we play the lottery»?

Psssh, lets sit around with our thumbs up our backsides and wait for all of this to go horribly wrong.

So thats what we did. If only one of us had the idea to wait and see what the winning lottery numbers were then we would have saved ourselves a whole lot of bother.

Fin.

So there, spoilers. Not enough? Well i have more. The concept itself is what intrigued me as i am a fan of the Say Cheese And Die book from my childhood so i just had to see this. Alas-unlike its name, Time did not lapse for me, in-fact it froze solid. I can forgive the semi-Acting from all of the cast and i can even forgive the fact that in this reality -everybody walks around with guns, even dear old lady-scientists and gunning people down for no reason AT ALL is just «something that happens». But what i CAN’T FORGIVE. Like AT ALL, Is the weird, «moral»? «Story»? «Tale»? That this films ends on. It finishes off with a weird way of portraying (relatively) sane women are willing to go to all lengths -INCLUDING MURDERING THEIR BOYFRIEND- in order to just feel that little bit more loved in their relationship.

But hey, Maybe we men just don’t get it eh.

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.

.

I caught this film at the Seattle International Film Festival a couple weeks back. Film makers, as well as the cast were there, answered questions, pleasant experience over all.

So here it is…

We got 3 close friends, various character types, all sharing an apartment together. One of which is the property manager. Things happen regarding one of their tenants, provoking concern, and leading the manager to go check on this individual. Upon doing so, a massive contraption is discovered in this tenants apartment, radiating an ominous green light, with photos of the three main characters tacked about the wall.

Upon brief research, they soon learn this to be a camera that takes pictures 24 hours in advance. Oh, and the camera is pointed directly at their living room. And with it being so massive and complex, they can’t exactly bring it where ever they want. So it’s in this living room, where they leave clues for their past selves.

Obviously (like most would), they use this invention for person gain. One of the three has more of a selfish intent, while the other two sort of superficially resist for a brief moment.

It’s from there that this close-quarters-adventure begins. Things get out of hand, characters change, we get a few laughs, jumps and an unforeseen reveal in the third act (you probably won’t see it coming).

I personally thought the film to be brief, clean cut, tightly written and straight to the point. It’s also in my opinion, highly marketable. The direction was concise, production was smart, and casting was thoughtful. Nothing about it felt pretentious in the least, and I’m thankful for that. I got a few minor nit picks, but I’m a critical prick, so don’t be surprised. What makes the film good, far out weighs any minor short comings.

See it.

Story: Time Lapse starts by meeting struggling artist Finn (O’Leary) as he can’t find his inspiration for his next piece of work. We see how he works as a building manager to keep money together, we meet his girlfriend Callie (Panabaker) and his roommate Jasper (Finn). The friends investigate a resident who seems to have gone missing and discover a camera taking photos of their living room. Upon discovering that the camera takes a photo of the next day, the group try to figure out what is going on and discuss what they could use to their advantage. While they continue to make money from the camera suspicious starts to grow on them. Ivan (Spisak) Jasper’s bookie learns of the camera and soon ends up forcing them to continue getting the photos results so he can benefit from them. The friends grow distant as they continue to question why they end up in the situations in the photos. Time Lapse gives us a time travel films that gives us plenty of questions, with each photo putting the group into a situation they can’t explain. This gives us as viewers the question what would we do if we saw ourselves in a photo that hasn’t happened in a position we could explain. Where the story get let down is in the generic characters that do the trademark time travel mistakes. We have the greedy monetary, the one who sees things improving for them personally and the one who gather inspiration even though they question the morale side. As many time travel films do they test the character development even when the science behind it all never gets fully explained. Time Lapse is a very interesting story that keeps you guessing without really pushing you to any limits. (7/10)

Actor Review

Danielle Panabaker: Callie aspiring author who wants to continue working on her work and see the camera as a way to make money and focus on her work. Callie turns out to be planning to gain more attention from her boyfriend with the photos. Danielle gives a good performance and shines when the final twist is revealed. (7/10)

Matt O’Leary: Finn young artist who has been struggling with his work but after the camera shows him his next picture he agrees to join in the work. The reluctant member of the friends who gains motivation from what he sees in the photos. Matt gives a good performance. (7/10)

George Finn: Jasper gambler who gets the three into trouble by making too much money after the camera reveals the results of the races. The member who gets caught up in his gambling addiction and becomes obsessed about photos, leading to his friends to be put in danger. George gives a good performance. (7/10)

Support Cast: Time Lapse only uses a few supporting characters who each offer something to what happens, be it explaining what is happening and what could go wrong with it.

Director Review: Bradley King – Bradley does a great job directing a time travel film that really makes you think. (7/10)

Sci-Fi: Time Lapse uses the theory of time travel to push a story where the characters get pushed into action they couldn’t. (7/10) Thriller: Time Lapse doesn’t fit the full thriller side a story uses but keeps you wondering what will happen next. (7/10) Settings: Time Lapse only uses one setting being a residential home where the three friends live together showing that they have become trapped in the world where they can’t escape a future they think they can’t change. (9/10) Suggestion: Time Lapse is a film that should be tried by all fans of the time travel genre because it really shows you don’t need too much to get everything you need in a film. (Try it)

Best Part: Time Lapse best part is the theory behind the camera. Worst Part: Time Lapse weak point in never really explaining the science behind the camera.

Believability: No (0/10) Chances of Tears: No (0/10) Chances of Sequel: No Post Credits Scene: No

Oscar Chances: No Runtime: 1 Hour 44 Minutes

Overall: Great Time Travel Film

Check out more reviews on http://moviesreview101.com/

Time lapse is another B movie that ventures into time and seeing into the future. Because it can be quite a complicated subject it is difficult to get right and in my opinion they failed big time with this one. The nonsensical story revolves around three young people who find a dead neighbour and his machine that takes photographs of pictures 24 hours before the scene happens . Johnny Jackson lookalike ( George Finn) stars alongside Matt O’Leary and Danielle Panabaker , all three play annoying characters and i realised halfway through i couldn’t care less what happened to them. This was released straight to DVD for a very good reason. It’s rubbish.

3 out of 10

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

Before the actual review I have to mention how outraged I am that the movie has such a high rating. Did someone engage trolls or other manipulative services? It is impossible that there are so many good reviews for this movie.

Spoiler Ahead The time paradox Polaroid machine is an unwitting literary tool to justify a boring menage a trois plot. A good movie that disregards a certain logic of time-travel is Looper. But Time Lapse is not a good movie. I mean come on, why would someone who can tell the future attempt to make money from a bookkeeper betting on races? Of course it goes wrong. And that is where I actually stopped watching the movie. The low quality of the acting may have not been entirely the actors fault but they definitely failed to create tension. A plot does not have to be creative (see Avatar—great movie) but it needs to be free of flaws. Most of these flaws are due to bad writing.

This film is mow on Sky, so we watched it last night, this is an excellently produced movie. The acting is first rate, Danielle Panabaker is particularly good as she develops from the sweet girl into something a lot darker, the growing claustrophobia is built splendidly, good script, tight plot and wonderfully filmed. I noticed some numpty gave it a 1 and wrote «if you have a short attention span» yes this film is one of those films which engages your brain, maybe the poster should get back to watching Transformer movies.

The plot is simple three flat mates who already have a tension between them, two of them boyfriend and girlfriend discover a device in the apartment opposite which takes pictures of the future. The device is pointing straight through their window. So what do you do with such a device? This is not a sci-fi movie more a movie which uncovers the not so pleasant side of humans. Watch this movie, apparently this is the directors first movie, I will watch out for any of his future films

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!

Time Lapse (2014)

A fun, and sometimes clever, idea about photographs from a neighbor’s machine/camera that show the future one day in advance. It sounds great and in a way it has great potential, but the plot is quite linear (when it actually makes sense—the end is full of holes). And so the progression is good but unsatisfying.

What complicates liking the movie is the cast, which borders on amateur. Oh, they are trying hard, but between the strained dialog and their delivery, the effect is an indie film (e.g. low budget) with an elevated student profile. If even one of the actors had gravitas, or humor, or something creepy, it would be easier to hook us.

Production values are minimal (and cleverly so—they saved a lot of money by planning very very carefully and having scenes, from the future and the present, mesh perfectly by being, of course, identical. The use of real (or real looking, with boxes shown) Polaroids is a nice touch, including the 30 second waiting for the image to form.

But this is all plot and more plot, and it made it this far based on its cleverness. But not clever enough, and far too simple to give it suspense or actual drama.

On the first page of the IMDb reviews, people are showering it with praise with bullshit such as it being «intelligent, smart and coherent» which makes me wonder if they even know what these terms mean.

First of all directing your «future» self to do things so that a camera today can reap the fruits of your label seems a bit too paradoxical, but okay fine, I will accept it, I’m open-minded enough.

But then everything just goes from retarded to worse. Why would you need a crooked bookmaker to place your bets to begin with? It’s not like that would be the only way to make tons of money.

How can the painter not have inspiration, but his future self does? It makes no sense, but whatever, I’ll again open my mind and accept it.

And after what’s-his-name kills the bookmaker and his goon, that girl acts completely ridiculous towards her boyfriend, I really despise lack of logic or just general stupidity.

Then in the end «what’s-his-name» learned from «what’s-her-name» that altering the time-line doesn’t incur death. You think? Really? Like maybe use the frigging internet to look up theories on alternate or parallel time-lines before you start acting like a retard and lock your supposed friend up in the basement.

Supposed friend breaks free and manages to bluff «what’s-his-name» into handing over his gun to the girl. Later on he manages to turn the tables around again and hits the gun out of his hands and never bothers to look behind him that hey maybe the girl heard their struggle and might be looking for a way to take matters into her own hand.

And that right there was the point I just thought, quit it, this movie strives on stupidity. I should have turned it off earlier, but hey I had nothing else to do.

I don’t care for the low budget concept. The only thing low budget is the lacking amount of logic in this movie. Ugh.