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
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.
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.
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.....
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- How long is Primer?Powered by Alexa
- A NOTE REGARDING SPOILERS
- What is the conventional understanding of what occurs in the film?
- Where did the title come from?
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
- Runtime1 hour 17 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content