Primer(in Hollywood Movies) Primer (2004) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Primer on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: 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. Runtime: 77 mins Release Date: 08 Oct 2004
No spoilers. I just saw this and thought it was great. It beats Hollywood films because it portrays science in a believable way. The acting was also good and very believable. Shane Carruth did a fine job as writer, director, and actor. I give it an A+.Film Quality: The lighting and focus weren't always perfect but neither are most big budget films. I loved that you could at least hear everything they were saying in this film unlike most big Hollywood flicks where they ruin it with orchestra music and background noise I have no idea what Tom Cruise said at the end of Collateral and I <more>
doubt anyone else does either. Primer does an excellent job with film quality, especially considering their small budget. I found this film very watchable. Story and Plot Quality: The story and plot are also good, but it does get a little convoluted by the end so I was somewhat lost when I left the theater. I think I understood all but the last 15 minutes. Personally, I think the director purposely made the end hard to follow so people might go see it again. I think a simple 2 minute narrative would have filled in all the gaps. A few segues transition scenes also could have been a little clearer. I find that I'm still figuring things out many hours later. Perhaps it was bad editing, but more likely a directors trick to make you think and possibly see it again. I would have done a few things different with editing, which is my biggest gripe here.Who should see it: It isn't really a movie for the family. Take an enlightened friend or perhaps a date if that person has an open mind. The first half of the movie is there just to give background and make you believe that they could build such a machine. Children and old people aren't going to like this one because it doesn't have a lot of whiz-bang type stuff in it No eye candy for the mentally challenged or immature. Special effects are scarce, but really aren't needed in this intellectual thriller. Rating: I rated this movie 10/10, but I was considering it's genre also. A budget scifi with lots of intellectual intrigue. If your looking for childish, comical, Hollywood whiz-bang type crap then go rent "Back To The Future" instead. I think Primer will sort out the men from the boys here!
Confusing but it makes perfect sense (by jncressman)
Partial explanation Only for those who have seen the movie.The movie is shown completely linearly from Abe's perspective. Abe's the blond one. I'm sure most people can follow the move up until the scene in the garage where Philip and Robert explain to Abe that Rachell's ex boy friend showed up at the Robert's party with a shot gun.Things get strange at this point because Aaron and Abe are now planning to stop the ex boy friend, an event that from regular time has already happened but we are viewing the movie from Abe's perspective and he hasn't gone to the party <more>
yet. Also at the time of the garage scene Abe doesn't yet know that Aaron used the failsafe machine to change the events at the party.When Abe shows up at the fail safe machine it isn't the one he left running but the one that Arron had taken back in time inside the first fail safe machine. When Abe goes back in time he meets Arron who already knows what Abe was going to say because he's also gone back in time.Abe knocks his past self out with the NO2 while Arron drugs his own breakfast milk.At this point they are changing their own past. They don't play the stock market so they aren't rich at the end of the movie.Aaron's been recording all the conversations that he hears through the ear piece so he's ready the second time that Abe comes to explain that they have built a time machine, only the second time Abe has also come back in time.We will never know what would have happened at the party if Aaron and Abe hadn't used the time machine to change the events at the party because those events never happen. We do know that Abe tells Rachel's father the venture capitalist about the time machine and he uses it. That's why he has a couple days worth of beard growth.Aaron goes though the days several times and even meets himself and gets in a fight with himself.Now all you have to do is watch it another 3 times to confirm what I just wrote.
Never before have I felt so compelled to re-watch a movie within 48 hours of initial viewing. This mindf$%# of a movie demands exactly that. If you are up for a challenge, I recommend you view this film... research it a little not too much ... watch it again, and then go read the forums at primermovie.com - but importantly, do not go there before watching it at least twice in my opinion. It's amazing what can be done with only $7,000 - in comparison to what others do with $200,000,000. This is science-fiction at its purest and I really hope it gets a wider release and receives the <more>
attention it deserves. Contagiously brilliant, and as close to perfect as a film of it's ilk can get. 10/10
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 <more>
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.....
Here's the gist of it: as another review has said, 'the script is riddled with problems, about 60% of the movie is out of focus, the audio is muffled and garbled, and continuity problems abound'. All these things are true. Yet despite all appearances, this does not amount to a bad movie. It just makes Primer a exquisitely different movie, and furthermore, a movie that works.The reason to love it is that it's utterly defiant of the expectations of the traditional movie experience. It can't resort to a beautiful cast, shiny special effects, gorgeous scenery. Indeed, the cast <more>
is wooden in its acting, which turns out to work because that's how normal scientists and engineers and people in general are, flawed communicators. The settings are drab, out of focus, rushed and cheap, which turns out to work because that's what being efficient with your resources means for an inventor. It doesn't matter if the makers of Primer were forced into this style by their budget as opposed to consciously 'pulling off' this look and feel . All that matters is that in the end, it turns out to work beautifully with the plot and the story. What this means is that it has nothing to go on except its wits. And wits it does have. This is not to say that it's coherent you will be confused by the fact that the plot doesn't nicely clean up after itself. There is no nice take-home message, no all-knowing schemework. But it is an intellectually respectable, honest attempt at dealing with the paradoxes of time travel. I've never seen any major flick that throws up its hands in the complexity of it all and just admits there's only so far you can look into things most movies you'll see gloss over the issues with some bad science, or worse, simply don't ask the questions.It's entertainment that's intellectually honest and respectable, and that's a tremendously rare thing.9/10
I think we have a new genre here. This may be the only film where one of the time machines used in the film may be necessary in order for the viewer to go back and re-watch the film and come close to understanding what's going on. 'Merchanising as integral to film viewing'. I can hear George Lucas sniffing round the possibilities already.For every viewer, there is going to come a point in 'Primer' where you are just going to lose track of what's going on and enter a realm of utter confusion. For some it may start early in the overlapping, engineer speak of the garage <more>
based development cycle. If you survive that, then there's the explanation of how the time machine works to get through. Finally, causality and paradoxes get involved with a couple of essential plot points that are breezed over in a couple of seconds to dumbfound anyone still left standing. This is no bad thing. The first time I saw this I spent the last half an hour basking in a warm, comfortable fuzziness when I just didn't know what was going on, but enjoyed the film all the same. The thing is that the characters in the film are trying to work it all out themselves and are equally as confused. At least we're not suffering from bleeding ears and an inability to write. Well most of us anyway.This may be the first time travel movie I've truly liked. All the others I've seen come up with definitive answers to explain the paradoxes or like 'Twelve Monkeys' have perfectly closed loops where everything makes sense in the end. Worse still is to have a plot that hinges on time travel in order to work , but that really don't make sense a la 'Terminator 2'. 'Primer' adopts the experimental approach to exploring to time travel. As Abe says, it's probably totally unsafe, but let's do it regardless. It doesn't have to explain everything. A lack of understanding can be a good thing.Burying beneath the plot, the characters are well drawn. They start off as white shirted engineers in a garage trying to find the idea that'll get them rich. Controlled, but scheming. All intellect, creativity and safety. Their invention allows them and us to release the darker side of their personalities. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what would a time machine do? The reveal of the time machine is particularly wonderful. It's the stretched out middle of the film where the joy of discovery is played out step by step for one character and to the audience at the same time. And it's real too. Alongside that joy, is a wonderful mundanity. Who would have thought that the first thing to travel in time would be a Weeble? Yes, this film has low production values and the cast list is very similar to that for the crew. The sound is muffled and some of the low lighting sections are very poorly filmed. I think that adds to the experience. It lends it a documentary air that increases the authenticity. Although this is the result of inexperience and a lack of cash, I wish more filmmakers would be brave enough to experiment with lo-fi production to enhance the film watching experience.This is a film that will be discussed to death both for the plot and for the film itself. It's bound to end up finding a place in articles on the history of science fiction film. It might even be a watershed; a move away from the sci-fi blockbuster to the sci-fi of ideas again. I can only hope. Go see it three times at least.
A film for the days when science fiction was about wrestling with ideas . . . (by Chris_Docker)
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 <more>
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.
Worth watching, worth seeing, it doesn't please all (by siderite)
Yes, there is a chance that you will NOT like this movie. That's because it is not a movie made for the majority of paying cinema goers, but it is a movie made for the sake of movie making. It is an ORIGINAL movie, so if you want something that you are used to see and expect beginning and ending in a specific way don't go watching this one.Now, about the movie: it is low budget, but the money was well spent. The plot is confusing, but good, and it does need you to watch the last 30 minutes again in order to be understood. The acting is good, even if the roles are nothing demanding. <more>
The idea is very interesting and makes you think "outside the box" : You will see what I mean after you watch the movie.I won't waste your time telling you what it is about, just watch it and if you don't like it, at least you will have gained another perspective on movie making. For me this is a keeper: burn, CD, burn!
One great river of narrative is something that started with the detective story.It is a rich engagement, one in which the reader and writer engage in a battle of wits. Its power comes from the way it involves the reader in the story. The engagement is tight. The more the reader invests, the more they are *in* the narrative, with the traditional form being that the reader discovers things at the same time a detective does.There are very clearly understood rules of this game. The book or movie must "play fair." Clues need not be obvious, but they need to be there. Also, at the end <more>
there needs to be a solution, and everything needs to add up.It can be hard, very hard. "Irreversible" was very hard. "Memento" was moderately hard. "Eyes, Wide Shut" was hard. All these had their mysteries in discovering what the story was, instead of the simpler case of solving a mystery within the story.Now here, we have something similar. Simpler in a way all the difficulties come from time travel overlaps. In mathematics, it is common to denote a second instance of something as that thing primed, then double primed and so on. The notation is an apostrophe. So we know that the problem will be one of multiple instances of characters.But this doesn't play fair. +Okay. I went back to the beginning and did the thing again. The second time in viewing it all makes more sense because you know what to look for. Some of the things that don't seem like clues can be turned into clues given what you know from the future. It works. I am happy.+No wait! If you go back a third time, it is all ruined because all the things you could discover have been ruined by the second rerun. Now you just encounter the amateurish production values and weak storytelling. I hate the second viewer for ruining this for me. I should have just skipped the second viewing and gone to the third.+Ignore the paragraph above. What matters is the second viewing. All subsequent viewings and there could be dozens already that are unknown don't count because the second one goes all the way back to the first detective story and changed the rules. Now we don't have to play fair.+Okay. Final judgment. After 21 viewings I can say for sure that there is no mystery at all. This is what the original script for "Cube 2," was intended to be, but it got swapped in an argon- filled cube, by a guy named Granger.... In true revisiting fashion, this comment was deleted after nine months because of some complaint. So it itself now makes a reappearance, changed by the experience of returning to the outside before re-entering.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.