Cuatro amigos emprendedores se pelean por atribuirse la autoría de su último invento.Cuatro amigos emprendedores se pelean por atribuirse la autoría de su último invento.Cuatro amigos emprendedores se pelean por atribuirse la autoría de su último invento.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Premios
- 3 premios ganados y 7 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
You're going to watch this movie for the first time... and you won't understand it. It's that simple. Honestly, I don't think it's possible to grasp Primer in a single viewing, especially if you're going in with just the basics. And that's not a flaw - it's part of the design.
Once it's over, you're left with two possible paths.
The first option is to watch it again. And again. As many times as it takes until you start piecing the puzzle together on your own. This is the purest - and most challenging - way to approach the film: no spoilers, no external explanations, just your intuition, memory, and attention to detail. Trust me, two viewings won't be enough.
The second option is to look for explanations. That's the one I chose. The video that helped me the most was "PRIMER (2004) - ILLUSTRATED EXPLANATION" by LondonCityGirl. Thanks to that, I was able to understand a big part of what was going on. Still, I kept digging, reading, and watching other analyses to catch more nuances. Primer is packed with visual clues, subtle gestures, and lines of dialogue that seem insignificant but carry a lot of weight.
My first viewing was total confusion. And if I ever felt like something made sense, I was probably wrong.
The second time was completely different. I started noticing connections, details I had completely missed before. But even then, I realized something crucial: even if you understand the fundamentals of the story, a lot still remains open to interpretation. And I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't looked up any explanations, I'd have been just as lost as I was the first time.
My favorite scene is a specific one - an unexpected chase down the street - where the shift in tone, the music, the tension, and the atmosphere all come together so perfectly that I felt completely immersed in the film.
Once it's over, you're left with two possible paths.
The first option is to watch it again. And again. As many times as it takes until you start piecing the puzzle together on your own. This is the purest - and most challenging - way to approach the film: no spoilers, no external explanations, just your intuition, memory, and attention to detail. Trust me, two viewings won't be enough.
The second option is to look for explanations. That's the one I chose. The video that helped me the most was "PRIMER (2004) - ILLUSTRATED EXPLANATION" by LondonCityGirl. Thanks to that, I was able to understand a big part of what was going on. Still, I kept digging, reading, and watching other analyses to catch more nuances. Primer is packed with visual clues, subtle gestures, and lines of dialogue that seem insignificant but carry a lot of weight.
My first viewing was total confusion. And if I ever felt like something made sense, I was probably wrong.
The second time was completely different. I started noticing connections, details I had completely missed before. But even then, I realized something crucial: even if you understand the fundamentals of the story, a lot still remains open to interpretation. And I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't looked up any explanations, I'd have been just as lost as I was the first time.
My favorite scene is a specific one - an unexpected chase down the street - where the shift in tone, the music, the tension, and the atmosphere all come together so perfectly that I felt completely immersed in the film.
It's not easy to follow. The production values aren't perfect. There's not an obvious 'good guy' or 'bad guy.' But was this movie any good? Oh hell yes.
This movie has been compared to "2001" because of the sci-fi angle. But while the movie has one sci-fi element in it (the device), the movie isn't even about that. It's about these two guys, and how it affects them individually, and their relationship with one another.
I found this movie to be fairly challenging, but worth the ride. I was up for hours discussing this movie with friends, and if that's not what you like to do with your movies, then this one probably isn't for you. But if you like something that tweaks your brain, that you can watch repeated times, that you can really chew on... then here comes "Primer," like a ghost in the night.
It's too early to tell where this movie will reside in cinematic history-- revered, forgotten, or somewhere in between-- but it's already won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance (where it beat out 'Garden State'), and just won't go away. It moves along, it's clever, it held my attention. Even "Pi" didn't do that, and if you're a film nerd, that's saying something.
If you're not a film nerd, approach this one with more caution. Remember, Shane Carruth had no idea even how to make a movie when he started making this one, but the end result is something far more fascinating than your typical film-school snob could ever put together. This is wholly original, and took me someplace I have never been. And that alone makes the "2001" comparison start to look more and more accurate.....
This movie has been compared to "2001" because of the sci-fi angle. But while the movie has one sci-fi element in it (the device), the movie isn't even about that. It's about these two guys, and how it affects them individually, and their relationship with one another.
I found this movie to be fairly challenging, but worth the ride. I was up for hours discussing this movie with friends, and if that's not what you like to do with your movies, then this one probably isn't for you. But if you like something that tweaks your brain, that you can watch repeated times, that you can really chew on... then here comes "Primer," like a ghost in the night.
It's too early to tell where this movie will reside in cinematic history-- revered, forgotten, or somewhere in between-- but it's already won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance (where it beat out 'Garden State'), and just won't go away. It moves along, it's clever, it held my attention. Even "Pi" didn't do that, and if you're a film nerd, that's saying something.
If you're not a film nerd, approach this one with more caution. Remember, Shane Carruth had no idea even how to make a movie when he started making this one, but the end result is something far more fascinating than your typical film-school snob could ever put together. This is wholly original, and took me someplace I have never been. And that alone makes the "2001" comparison start to look more and more accurate.....
If you've heard that "Primer" is a complicated, dense, and difficult film, you heard correctly. This is not simple entertainment, not even complex entertainment, this is a film that demands true focus and attention, and only then is truly rewarding. I can imagine countless bored people who watched and listened to the movie but didn't REALLY pay attention to it, didn't think with it. You simply cannot expect to like "Primer" if you aren't prepared to be an active participant IN the film.
The film is remarkably good visually, especially when budget is considered. Carruth clearly has a lot of talent. The cinematography is excellent, the shot composition is flawless, the strength of the visual storytelling astounding. Carruth's script is the best thing about the movie, and really isn't flawed at all. The dialogue flows naturally and the ideas are absolutely fascinating and captivating, and even the humor is effective. This movie does not use 'technobabble', it uses genuine scientific concepts as a basis for its events, and certainly some degree of knowledge of physics is needed for a proper understanding of the film.
I have seen "Primer" four times and I still don't completely understand it (or, at least I couldn't explain it too well to someone else), even after reading dozens of explanations. It's an incredibly rich and detailed film, and it's one that not only rewards but actually requires multiple viewings. This will and has already put many, many people off watching the film, but it only increases its greatness in my opinion. It is simply incredible how much these guys came up with using so little. Carruth's vision was unique and complete, and he made possibly the greatest debut film ever made, and with a 2:1 shooting ratio (the ratio between the total duration of its footage shot and that which results from its final cut) at that. If that doesn't prove that Carruth knew what he was doing what does? One of the most inventive, original, and unique movies ever made.
10/10
The film is remarkably good visually, especially when budget is considered. Carruth clearly has a lot of talent. The cinematography is excellent, the shot composition is flawless, the strength of the visual storytelling astounding. Carruth's script is the best thing about the movie, and really isn't flawed at all. The dialogue flows naturally and the ideas are absolutely fascinating and captivating, and even the humor is effective. This movie does not use 'technobabble', it uses genuine scientific concepts as a basis for its events, and certainly some degree of knowledge of physics is needed for a proper understanding of the film.
I have seen "Primer" four times and I still don't completely understand it (or, at least I couldn't explain it too well to someone else), even after reading dozens of explanations. It's an incredibly rich and detailed film, and it's one that not only rewards but actually requires multiple viewings. This will and has already put many, many people off watching the film, but it only increases its greatness in my opinion. It is simply incredible how much these guys came up with using so little. Carruth's vision was unique and complete, and he made possibly the greatest debut film ever made, and with a 2:1 shooting ratio (the ratio between the total duration of its footage shot and that which results from its final cut) at that. If that doesn't prove that Carruth knew what he was doing what does? One of the most inventive, original, and unique movies ever made.
10/10
Four friends/fledgling entrepreneurs, knowing that there is something bigger and more innovative than the different error-checking devices they have built, wrestle over their new invention.
What can you do with $7000? Apparently, with a good script and a cast / crew that does not exceed their expectations or potential, quite a bit. This film is on par with very early Cronenberg (such as "Stereo"), and it seems to already be a modern science fiction classic.
We get some great quotes, too. "I'm hungry. I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." Where else could that line ever make sense? I also love the question of how do cell phones work? Most time travel films, even if they go to the future, neglect cell phones. This one asks a valid question: which one would ring if two existed in the same time? Hmmm..
What can you do with $7000? Apparently, with a good script and a cast / crew that does not exceed their expectations or potential, quite a bit. This film is on par with very early Cronenberg (such as "Stereo"), and it seems to already be a modern science fiction classic.
We get some great quotes, too. "I'm hungry. I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." Where else could that line ever make sense? I also love the question of how do cell phones work? Most time travel films, even if they go to the future, neglect cell phones. This one asks a valid question: which one would ring if two existed in the same time? Hmmm..
A group of young scientists work at a frantic pace to invent they are not quite sure what, but their efforts start demonstrating interesting side effects. From their work in a small cottage industry of error checking devices they are forced to confront the fact that they have discovered something too valuable to market. As they explore the potential of their machine, they are caught in a frantic loop to second guess themselves.
Science fiction in the cinema has largely been dominated by the visual impact, and so this is a welcome (for some) return to the world of ideas. This is not an easy-rise entertainment film but one where you have to concentrate to keep up, working out the logical implications of what's happening. If made on the scale of Men in Black or the Matrix it would descend to the level of spoof as it is we follow the two main characters knowing that their actions are having momentous effects on the world around them and on themselves. Instead of flashy graphics, we are left to keep the ramifications of the story in mind as the characters themselves grapple with what they know is happening but can't even let themselves look at directly.
Science fiction in the cinema has largely been dominated by the visual impact, and so this is a welcome (for some) return to the world of ideas. This is not an easy-rise entertainment film but one where you have to concentrate to keep up, working out the logical implications of what's happening. If made on the scale of Men in Black or the Matrix it would descend to the level of spoof as it is we follow the two main characters knowing that their actions are having momentous effects on the world around them and on themselves. Instead of flashy graphics, we are left to keep the ramifications of the story in mind as the characters themselves grapple with what they know is happening but can't even let themselves look at directly.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe budget for the entire film was around $7000. Most of the money was spent on film stock.
- ErroresDuring numerous takes the director, Shane Carruth, mutters "cut" under his breath. According to the DVD commentary, this is due to their extremely low budget which did not allow them to "waste" film. Carruth notes that a total of 80 minutes of usable footage was shot; the final film is 78 minutes.
- Créditos curiososThanks to Scott Douglass for having the faith to invest in the final stages of marketing and post production
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Primer?Con tecnología de Alexa
- A NOTE REGARDING SPOILERS
- What is the conventional understanding of what occurs in the film?
- Where did the title come from?
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 7,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 424,760
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 28,162
- 10 oct 2004
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 545,436
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 17 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta