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
A film for the days when science fiction was about wrestling with ideas . . .
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.
No Maps for These Territories
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.....
what a unique experience
Confusing
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.
"Here's what's going to happen."
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.
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.
- Quotes
Aaron: You know that story, about how NASA spent millions of dollars developing this pen that writes in Zero G? Did you ever read that?
Abe: Yeah.
Aaron: You know how the Russians solved the problem?
Abe: Yeah, they used a pencil.
Aaron: Right. A normal wooden pencil. It just seems like Philip takes the NASA route almost every time.
- 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




