Primer
- 2004
- Tous publics
- 1h 17m
Four friends/fledgling entrepreneurs, knowing that there's something bigger and more innovative than the different error-checking devices they've built, wrestle over their new invention.Four friends/fledgling entrepreneurs, knowing that there's something bigger and more innovative than the different error-checking devices they've built, wrestle over their new invention.Four friends/fledgling entrepreneurs, knowing that there's something bigger and more innovative than the different error-checking devices they've built, wrestle over their new invention.
- Awards
- 3 wins & 7 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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'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.
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.
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.....
Yesterday I watched "Project Almanac" which was also about time travel. The discussion board was full of threads about the temporal paradoxes created in the movie. One thread mentioned movies that did a good job with the time travel theory and "Primer" was mentioned, so here I am.
I don't consider myself a dumb or inattentive person; I typically don't need plots spelled out for me and I understood the premise, however, somewhere mid-movie they lost me. Characters were mentioned whom I hadn't heard before and nor did I know their relationship to the main characters. Then it got to the point where I didn't know what time frame they were in or who I was looking at because every time the two main characters went back there would be a double of them. It all just got too confusing; to the point I actually watched it twice to see if I missed something. Even with watching it twice I couldn't quite figure it all out. Their dialog was too ambiguous and the jump cuts from scene to scene left me behind.
What's amazing is that the movie had a narrator--and it was needed--but he added very little to helping comprehend this movie. Time travel movies are naturally confusing because of the paradoxes and conundrums in them, the last thing I need is ambiguity on top of confusion.
I don't consider myself a dumb or inattentive person; I typically don't need plots spelled out for me and I understood the premise, however, somewhere mid-movie they lost me. Characters were mentioned whom I hadn't heard before and nor did I know their relationship to the main characters. Then it got to the point where I didn't know what time frame they were in or who I was looking at because every time the two main characters went back there would be a double of them. It all just got too confusing; to the point I actually watched it twice to see if I missed something. Even with watching it twice I couldn't quite figure it all out. Their dialog was too ambiguous and the jump cuts from scene to scene left me behind.
What's amazing is that the movie had a narrator--and it was needed--but he added very little to helping comprehend this movie. Time travel movies are naturally confusing because of the paradoxes and conundrums in them, the last thing I need is ambiguity on top of confusion.
Did you know
- TriviaThe budget for the entire film was around $7000. Most of the money was spent on film stock.
- GoofsDuring 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.
- Crazy creditsThanks to Scott Douglass for having the faith to invest in the final stages of marketing and post production
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $7,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $424,760
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $28,162
- Oct 10, 2004
- Gross worldwide
- $545,436
- Runtime
- 1h 17m(77 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content