Primer

MrStuffins

I got this movie so long ago, but i never got around to watching it.

So i decided to stay in bed this morning as i have flu and had a movie-thon!

And one of those movies was, Primer.

I must say, it was incredible. Although i really felt i hadn't watched it yet by the end, i think i'm going to have to watch it 3 or 4 more times to really get my head around it.

When i read the end credits, it seemed like there had been just 5 -6 people working on the movie. They actually thanked one of the actor's mothers for providing food. When i read up on it, it was made for $7000 and was written/produced/Directed and everything else'd by one of the starts Shane Carruth.

An amazing achievment IMHO.

Now i realise anyone who has seen it already knows all this so sorry for going on, but what did you guys think of it?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/

Silverfish

It is, no word of a lie, the best movie I have ever watched.

Brilliant in it's simplicity, no need for crazy budgets and incredible special effects, just a good idea, well implemented, well acted, and confusing

MrStuffins

Silverfish wrote: »

It is, no word of a lie, the best movie I have ever watched.

Brilliant in it's simplicity, no need for crazy budgets and incredible special effects, just a good idea, well implemented, well acted, and confusing

VERY confusing. The movie was 80 mins long or something, but i kept having to rewind and it took me about 3-4 hours to watch.

And i think i'll watch it again tonight. Great movie.

cats.pyjamas

Love that film, left me with an eerie unsettling feeling, I'm surprised it's not as well known

SoupyNorman

cats.pyjamas wrote: »

Love that film, left me with an eerie unsettling feeling, I'm surprised it's not as well known

It's not well known due to the fact that Michael 'explosions' Bay didnt direct it or Jerry 'I have no taste' Bruckheimer didnt produce it.

It is a super gem of a movie, and it pisses me off no end when you have people saying 'I got it first time...blarg blarg'

jaykhunter

I was recommended the movie, and I thought it was alright. I wasn't really hooked by the character. All was uncluttered until the end of the movie, which really lends itself to "go rewatch it a few times" but I didn't enjoy the movie enough to do that. So I looked it up on the internet.

Please don't hype it up too much, the writing and storyline isn't the greatest!

Fysh

jaykhunter wrote: »

I was recommended the movie, and I thought it was alright. I wasn't really hooked by the character. All was uncluttered until the end of the movie, which really lends itself to "go rewatch it a few times" but I didn't enjoy the movie enough to do that. So I looked it up on the internet.

Please don't hype it up too much, the writing and storyline isn't the greatest!

I can't help but suspect that you're just not the target audience for this film.

If you enjoy "hard" science-fiction (as opposed to space-opera or fantasy with sci-fi props) this film will be a very rewarding watch.

It's not an action film. It doesn't use generic character archetypes. It's not about "big moments". It's about exploring an idea and its implications by using a narrative in which characters experience those implications, and I've yet to speak to someone who enjoys hard sci-fi who hasn't enjoyed it.

Skinfull

I really liked this movie. Didnt feel the need to rewatch it (sorry SoupyNorman!) but I didnt find it confusing. Great wee flick but not the best movie ever.

jaykhunter

Fysh wrote: »

I can't help but suspect that you're just not the target audience for this film.

If you enjoy "hard" science-fiction (as opposed to space-opera or fantasy with sci-fi props) this film will be a very rewarding watch.

It's not an action film. It doesn't use generic character archetypes. It's not about "big moments". It's about exploring an idea and its implications by using a narrative in which characters experience those implications, and I've yet to speak to someone who enjoys hard sci-fi who hasn't enjoyed it.

It's a fair point. The 'excellence' of the movie is lost on me. I appreciate that they didn't dumb down the technical language and I love time-travel but I just don't see the awesomeness in the movie. I didn't think the characters were very strong, just regular guys. But that's probably the point! I imagine that I'd love this type of film; the budget, ideas, progression and cult-status all sound like things I'd love. Yeah, maybe it's just a case that it doesn't have what I consider great in a movie, but it ticks all the boxes for other people. Shame, rather!

Can you list other "hard sci-fi" movies that you think are great?

Tomohawk

"Pi" is pretty hard-scifi too from 1998.

MrStuffins

Tomohawk wrote: »

"Pi" is pretty hard-scifi too from 1998.

The first movie that came to my head was Pi.

L31mr0d

jaykhunter wrote: »

Please don't hype it up too much, the writing and storyline isn't the greatest!

I agree. It reminded me of an M. Night film in that the whole plot hinges on the reveal in the last act. Unlike Fight Club (which used a similar device) the acting and story wasn't solid enough in the preceding acts to compensate for this.

It's been overly hyped I think. It's the poster boy flick for people to say they've seen and understood and wear it as a badge of their intelligence. As a movie it's not that good, the acting is passable and the dialogue is laboured. It's more of a curiosity than anything, mainly due to the limited budget.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

it pisses me off no end when you have people saying 'I got it first time...blarg blarg'

What exactly couldn't you get from your first viewing of it? I don't disagree that multiple viewings will change your perception of the scenes early on, but, like fight club, a second viewing isn't required to understand the plot.

On a related note, seen this short film recently and it reminded me of Primer:

http://www.vimeo.com/2381662

MrStuffins

L31mr0d wrote: »

I agree. It reminded me of an M. Night film in that the whole plot hinges on the reveal in the last act. Unlike Fight Club (which used a similar device) the acting and story wasn't solid enough in the preceding acts to compensate for this.

It's been overly hyped I think. It's the poster boy flick for people to say they've seen and understood and wear it as a badge of their intelligence. As a movie it's not that good, the acting is passable and the dialogue is laboured. It's more of a curiosity than anything, mainly due to the limited budget.



What exactly couldn't you get from your first viewing of it? I don't disagree that multiple viewings will change your perception of the scenes early on, but, like fight club, a second viewing isn't required to understand the plot.

On a related note, seen this short film recently and it reminded me of Primer:

http://www.vimeo.com/2381662

Magic Eight Ball

Primer will.. A, blow your mind or B, drive you out of it.
Total bafflement is rarely so much fun :pac:

Kiith

L31mr0d wrote: »

http://www.vimeo.com/2381662

What the ****

L31mr0d

MrStuffins wrote: »

My issue is that lauding this film as somehow comparable to Einsteins Riddle or something is false. I understood it, but I don't think I'm somehow special for this.

I'm into "hard science" films (if there's even enough of them to be a genre) But if I wanted to watch a show postulating about time travel I'd watch a documentary. Primer is a film and, as such, doesn't rest solely on it's premise and crux. The acting wasn't good, nor the dialogue (in fact the bad writing is what confused me more than the plot)

Don't get me wrong, it's a tour de force of what can be done with an idea and a limited budget. But it's not some magna carta of film, that few will understand and fully appreciate it's greatness.

Earthhorse

Silverfish wrote: »

It is, no word of a lie, the best movie I have ever watched.

Brilliant in it's simplicity, no need for crazy budgets and incredible special effects, just a good idea, well implemented, well acted, and confusing

MrStuffins wrote: »

VERY confusing. The movie was 80 mins long or something, but i kept having to rewind and it took me about 3-4 hours to watch.

First time I watched it with a friend his DVD player actually skipped one of the chapters, think it was the second to last, leaving us utterly baffled. So we decided to play it again with the director's commentary running to see if we could understand what was happening and were both :eek: when we say the new scene.

L31mr0d wrote: »

The acting wasn't good, nor the dialogue (in fact the bad writing is what confused me more than the plot)

Been a while since I saw it but I remember both being excellent.

Richard Dower

Based on this thread....i just watched it, utterly baffled!....someone gimme the plot?, the fungus growing part i got, but did they travel forward or back in time?

_Roz_

I've only seen this movie once - and I kept up for a good portion of the movie, but I need to watch it a couple more times to keep up.

Great movie though, I had forgotten about it til just now.

_Roz_

Richard Dower wrote: »

Based on this thread....i just watched it, utterly baffled!....someone gimme the plot?, the fungus growing part i got, but did they travel forward or back in time?

They travelled backwards every time. I just watched it again, so:

General idea:

The machine is created, Abe secretly builds the failsafe and starts it up, then builds his own box and tests it. Shows it to Aaron.

Aaron discovers the failsafe (because he sees the warehouse manifesto with two storage spaces under Abe's name) and uses it, bringing another box back with him to replace the original failsafe. This means Aaron is always in control, as he failsafed to the earliest point.

Then the movie begins, and we think it's the first time through, but it isn't. This Aaron is at least Aaron3 (Aaron failsafed twice). This becomes apparent through things like the earpiece, which he is using to recite events, his quick math regarding the watch in the garage, and his nod to the correct storage unit when Abe takes him there for the first time, but tries the wrong door. It cannot be Aaron2, due to Abe's linear perspective governing the movie (this is confirmed by Shane Carruth) and the fact that according to that perspective, Aaron2 left immediately after the conflict of all three Aarons in his house (drugged Aaron(1), Hoodied Aaron(2) and Sweatshirt Aaron(3).) Aaron2 is the movie's narrator, and you will notice that once he leaves, his narration about the party etc. becomes speculative.

For the rest of the movie up to the Granger incident, you are dealing with the original Abe, and Aaron 3. Abe failsafes, erasing Aaron3 back as far as Monday morning when it all began, but Aaron 3 is still intact because was already in the timeline prior to Abe's return, and is a permenant fixture in the timeline. (His original is stuck in an attic, and he is acting out the days to keep them the same.) Abe drugs his original also. Aaron3 realises here that Abe has failsafed from a point in the future and explains everything. The biggest plothole here is, none of the Aarons actually experienced the Granger event because Abe failsafed back to Monday - this is just one of the big unexplaineds. (There are theories about both dudes failsafing back AFTER the Granger event, but it's unlikely. Personally I like that theory, but it apparently doesn't work.)

Abe and Aaron complete the party mission and seperate. There are three Aarons and two Abes - one Aaron goes off and starts building what seems like a massive time machine, one disappears (the narrator) and the third is the original drugged one. One Abe is the drugged one who matches Aaron's drugged one - neither has discovered time travel yet. The other Abe remains in the area to watch them and discourage them from time travelling - though the narrator has made a phone call to someone (his narration being the call) and the general consensus is that he is informing the original drugged Aaron about time travel.

I explained that horribly but it's 3am so deal with it.

Slugs

Not nearly as confusing as the plot, but you were getting there

The only reason I rewatched it is to take it all in again, and also to notice the little changes between the characters. While it was by absolutely no means the indie movie to beat all indie movies, it was a very interesting concept, and very well executed. Of course there were a huge amount of problems. Actors could have been better, and the script was a little off putting, but the sincerity in the actors, and the fact that they didn't treat you like an idiot, rather they explained the concept and you either got it or you didn't. As well as that, Aaron and Abe weren't looking to stop major events, or have a huge effect on the world, they were just ordinary guys who wanted to become rich, and for their families to become the do the best they could, which as anyone who's seen it, knows how it plays out. I think the fact that this is done by ordinary guys, in a very ordinary fashion, with no CGI effects (although the commentary will show you the effects used) is testament to just how much you can do with 7k and a decent idea.

_Roz_

Slugs wrote: »

Not nearly as confusing as the plot, but you were getting there

I did it chronologically to cause as little confusion as possible, and left out unnecessary details like the ordering of events in the movie (the apparent 'original' party which by the end has been re-done, the whole Granger thing in general (why/how/recursive degredation etc) and all the little comments the whole way through that end up retrospectively showing Aaron's true identity ("there's rats in the attic" etc.).

Care to otherwise add to the confusion?

Slugs

Lol, You bring the beers, I'll organise the fireside, cause this is going to be a long night... :P

_Roz_

No I'm serious. I know the plot, so you can refer to any incident without needing to explain it. What did I miss, other than detail backing up what I said basically, and the two events I said I ommitted (Granger and the party)?

youcancallmeal

Spolier ---> Primer Timeline

Anyone who says they completely understood every little nuance of this film first time round is either lying or wrote the script/screenplay :pac:

_Roz_

youcancallme>al wrote: »

Spolier ---> Primer Timeline

Anyone who says they completely understood every little nuance of this film first time round is either lying or wrote the script/screenplay :pac:

Agreed. I got totally lost the first time about 45 minutes in, and the second time (last night) I had read up on it, then spent 5 hours looking over arguments.

I've read the timeline you linked and there's one issue with it -

it claims that Aaron3 is indeed a post-Granger failsafe, but according to one argument (which seems to be mostly correct) he couldn't have failsafed back to the same time as Abe, as Aaron would have failsafed to the earlier point and Abe's linear perspective would be thrown out of whack (because Aaron had been failsafing multiple times, but the reason we can see Abe's linear perspective at all is because Aaron does not failsafe during the course of the first 45 minutes of the movie - at that point he has already done all his failsafing e.g he is the hero at the party etc.) We know Abe's perspective to be the 'true' timeline, as Shane Carruth has said it is. Not to mention that if Aaron three is created after the first bench scene but before the second one, there is no Aaron who could be on the bench in the original scene (the second had left town by that point and the original was drugged in the attic. If it was the original, he would not have made all the little indicators which Carruth also points out occur at the start of the movie which suggest he knows what he's doing long before Abe shows him anything.)

Personally, I want to believe Aaron 3 also failsafed back with Abe after the Granger incident, as it ties up my own support for it (the entire layout of the kitchen scene where the third Aaron is also wearing exactly the same clothing as the night of the Granger incident. The only thing I can't explain is why he doesn't have nearly four days growth of facial hair, but then neither does Abe, so maybe that was a continuity error or they shaved.) But, there is also the bench dilemma. So Aaron3 had to be the one there all along, and he did not failsafe after the Granger event.

Mizu_Ger

I finally go around to watching this at the weekend.

I was following it well enough to my satisfaction until the Granger/Party thing started to come into view. Then I lost it.

The one question I have is what was Carruth's reason for making the film? Was it to create a hugely complex plot that would get people talking about and rewatching the film? The only quotes I've found from Carruth himself (so far) refer to the film being a realistic portrayal of an invention and discovery:

the time machine is a an accidental discovery and not the intended invention. It's a bland looking machine with no flashing light etc and the inventors initially use it to just make money

.

Is the plot a sideline to all this. Is it supposed to make sense with the information we see in the film?

Tree Scape

NO clue whatsoever as to what happened in that film!

clever user name

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

I was following it well enough to my satisfaction until the Granger/Party thing started to come into view. Then I lost it.

This!! By the end I hadn't a clue what so going on. Mad film altogether. Might actually watch it again and see how I get on. I had no clue what it was about before I watched it (bar some sort of time travel movie), so probably didn't give it the attention it needed.

Earthhorse

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

The one question I have is what was Carruth's reason for making the film? Was it to create a hugely complex plot that would get people talking about and rewatching the film? The only quotes I've found from Carruth himself (so far) refer to the film being a realistic portrayal of an invention and discovery:

the time machine is a an accidental discovery and not the intended invention. It's a bland looking machine with no flashing light etc and the inventors initially use it to just make money

.

Is the plot a sideline to all this. Is it supposed to make sense with the information we see in the film?

Not sure I get your final question; is what supposed to make sense with the information we see in the film? The plot?

I think people focus too much on plot sometimes which can make films like this harder to dissect. As the film progresses and becomes more complex and confusing this is really a reflection of how it would be were something like this to really happen and how the characters are probably feeling too. I don't think you're meant to "follow" the plot i.e. to know exactly where we are at any given point in time once things start getting messy. That's not the idea; it isn't a puzzle to solve even though it's puzzling.

As he says the film is the portrayal of an invention and discovery and the fallout between the friends and partners afterwards. That's one way to look at it anyway and just my opinion.

e_e

Watched it a few years ago on Netflix with another window open, of course it didn't work at all for me. :pac:

But I rented it from the library a few weeks back and really got into it, so much so that I watched it twice in the same week. Amazing film!

Think he did even better with Upstream Color though, as well as being another very cerebral watch it also had a beating heart and some real beauty to it. For my money one of the best films of the past few years.

Mizu_Ger

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not sure I get your final question; is what supposed to make sense with the information we see in the film? The plot?

Yeah, I'm referring to the plot.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think people focus too much on plot sometimes which can make films like this harder to dissect. As the film progresses and becomes more complex and confusing this is really a reflection of how it would be were something like this to really happen and how the characters are probably feeling too. I don't think you're meant to "follow" the plot i.e. to know exactly where we are at any given point in time once things start getting messy. That's not the idea; it isn't a puzzle to solve even though it's puzzling.

As he says the film is the portrayal of an invention and discovery and the fallout between the friends and partners afterwards. That's one way to look at it anyway and just my opinion.

Upstream Color is more about the sense of it all than the actual plotline too. It's nice to figure out what was actually going on and get it straight in my head, but I don't think it's the point of the film.

I'll still have to watch it again though!

Skerries

if you loved this film then I recommend the following films

Coherence and Time Crimes
these are two more hard Sci-Fi films that will keep you satisfied

eldamo

years ago two mates and I excitedly downloaded this on the old fashioned internet

hours later we sat down, turned it on and were rewarded with Prime Starring Uma Thurman and Meryl Streep,

Not happy campers!

Mr Freeze

Great film, I think I watched it last year.

I got quite confused near the end of it too, when they saw the fella in the car. I think that was the point where I got lost.

I definitely need to watch it again.