Primer

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.....

"Primer" starts out innocently like a "Start-up.com" docu-drama and the first part covers some of those same financial, friendship and entrepreneurial issues as computer geek engineers work out of of one of the partner's garage to perfect an invention.

But gradually, in this antiseptic atmosphere of white shirts, electrical experiments and tweaking mechanics, every human emotion, virtually as every seven deadly sin, except sloth, and beyond, starting with greed, takes them over.

Without any explanation to the audience, we gradually figure out that we're seeing a cleverer, low budget "Paycheck" or what "Ground Hog Day" played for laughs and an original "Outer Limits" episode did for irony (I didn't see "The Butterfly Effect" to see how it also dealt with time changes).

Rather this is an attempt to seriously examine the philosophical issues of chaos theory and how inventions can't be divorced from human frailties, both mental and physical.

Shane Carruth, as the lead actor/writer/director/producer is a true auteur--and could therefore give his nerd a wife and kid-- but perhaps an outside editor could have helped make the permutations a bit clearer as I didn't quite follow the intersections with outside characters. I followed enough to get caught up in the anxiety and suspense of each iteration.

It was amusing that I was the only woman in the audience.

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.

Pros-

1. Charged with heavy scientific theories(half of which i don't understand) not dumbed down for the audience. Serves it's homegrown realism.

2. High production value for a microbudget project. Shots feel calculated and cinematically composed. Once it kicks the sense of paranoia is always there. The dialogues are pretty naturalistic and creates the atmosphere of being accompanied by scientists(not seen that often). It feels homemade rather than cheap and that helps maintaining its low-key presentation.

3. For a genre known for silly pseudo-science and not giving much thought about paradoxes it faces, this film started the trend of 'science based' time travel movies.

Cons-

1. Too much theoretical talks for exposition in the first act. Nearly lost me there.

2. Convoluted plot, partially saved by the narration.

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..