Quattro amici/imprenditori alle prime armi, sapendo che c'è qualcosa di più grande e innovativo dei vari dispositivi di controllo degli errori che hanno costruito, si contendono la loro nuov... Leggi tuttoQuattro amici/imprenditori alle prime armi, sapendo che c'è qualcosa di più grande e innovativo dei vari dispositivi di controllo degli errori che hanno costruito, si contendono la loro nuova invenzione.Quattro amici/imprenditori alle prime armi, sapendo che c'è qualcosa di più grande e innovativo dei vari dispositivi di controllo degli errori che hanno costruito, si contendono la loro nuova invenzione.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 3 vittorie e 7 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
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..
I don't know how to feel about this movie. I do know it takes more than one viewing to catch it all. I enjoyed it, overall. There were twists even I didn't expect, and I'm one of those people who never gets caught by twists. The movie was well-acted. It seemed as if the things they did could actually happen. Watch it closely the first time, then watch it again to see how much you missed. If you get it all the first time, congratulations. If it takes more than one viewing, join the club. It's definitely a must-see, even though I only gave it a 6. It makes you think. It makes you REALLY think. I bought it sight-unseen for my husband for his birthday. I've watched it more than he has. So, "thumbs up", but be prepared for a bumpy ride.
You remember the first time you saw The Matrix (please, not the awful sequels) and you could barely keep up with what was going on, trying to piece together the pieces of what you were being told into a coherent story?
This movie was exactly like that. The first half or so is fairly linear (despite the frenzied Altman-esque style of everyone talking on top of each other), but then it gets WEIRD and it just absolutely blew me away. This film won a major Sundance award, and normally that means I won't like it (especially the normally pandering audience award winners) but this movie, and first-time filmmaker Shane Carruth, deserves absolutely everything it gets. I am just blown away.
Did you like Pi? If so, go see this one.
By the way, the attention to detail in the beginning is great. Often in thrillers with technical content, if you have a technical education you have consciously ignore all the stupid movie crud that they pull to make it into a good story. But this movie pulls off an incredibly believable technical story, with only a few distracting gaffs. That is, the tech jargon is good enough that you don't get distracted and can focus on the story line.
Final comment: Yes, it is very hard to follow the story line in this movie.
Obviously I'm not going to spoil it, but I think the following fact will help when the movie gets kind of hairy towards the end: Aaron is the dark-haired guy, Abe is the blond-haired guy.
This movie now has distribution and you should keep an eye out for it in the fall.
This movie was exactly like that. The first half or so is fairly linear (despite the frenzied Altman-esque style of everyone talking on top of each other), but then it gets WEIRD and it just absolutely blew me away. This film won a major Sundance award, and normally that means I won't like it (especially the normally pandering audience award winners) but this movie, and first-time filmmaker Shane Carruth, deserves absolutely everything it gets. I am just blown away.
Did you like Pi? If so, go see this one.
By the way, the attention to detail in the beginning is great. Often in thrillers with technical content, if you have a technical education you have consciously ignore all the stupid movie crud that they pull to make it into a good story. But this movie pulls off an incredibly believable technical story, with only a few distracting gaffs. That is, the tech jargon is good enough that you don't get distracted and can focus on the story line.
Final comment: Yes, it is very hard to follow the story line in this movie.
Obviously I'm not going to spoil it, but I think the following fact will help when the movie gets kind of hairy towards the end: Aaron is the dark-haired guy, Abe is the blond-haired guy.
This movie now has distribution and you should keep an eye out for it in the fall.
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.
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.....
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe budget for the entire film was around $7000. Most of the money was spent on film stock.
- BlooperDuring 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.
- Curiosità sui creditiThanks to Scott Douglass for having the faith to invest in the final stages of marketing and post production
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 7000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 424.760 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 28.162 USD
- 10 ott 2004
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 545.436 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 17 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti