View Full Version : Primer is a great sci fi experimental movie
fireyhope
05-18-2005, 08:00 PM
Primer runs around 87 minutes long and was made with a budget of 7k. The cinematogrophy is considerably very good for an amature film maker. Primer won the Sundance Grand Jury Prize 2004 .The story is about 2 engineers who accidentally stumble upon making a Time Travel machine. the movie is not very linear leaving you very confused and i'm sure that anybody who watches the movie for a 1st time will be extremely confused. The 2 engineers Abe and Aaron eventually find a way to back in time to go help there future selves. But the plot is much more complicated then that they try to find ways to get everything they want and i think they do suceed in some ways but i really do need to watch the movie again since it was so confusing. but i do think in some ways they left the movie open so that you can think about your own philisophy about the movie. This is definately a movie you would want to watch with friends who like to talk about movies and what it means.
8/10
http://primermovie.com/
vision_afar
05-18-2005, 08:08 PM
I'd love to see this but it's not out here yet.
fireyhope
05-18-2005, 08:09 PM
I'd love to see this but it's not out here yet.
it's out on DVD
Sorry if i posted in the wrong Thread
vision_afar
05-18-2005, 08:41 PM
Like I said, not here yet.
It's not really experiemtnal, Shane had a pretty concrete idea of what he was trying to do with the film, the structure of the story, and how to present the information. It was one of the most precise films I've ever seen. ****ing amazing too.
fireyhope
05-18-2005, 08:57 PM
It's not really experiemtnal, Shane had a pretty concrete idea of what he was trying to do with the film, the structure of the story, and how to present the information. It was one of the most precise films I've ever seen. ****ing amazing too.
even though it's a concrete idea i still think it's an experimental film because i've never seen a movie like this. The way how he presents the story is quite confusing too and i don't know too many movies that do that and alsohe story is interesting at times but is also flawed in some ways. The movie is in fact flawed because the movie is too confusing for some people to watch but over all i would have to say is that the movie was not precise as a matter in fact the movie doesn't explain itself too well either.
rosncranz
05-18-2005, 11:39 PM
it is experimental, dont start arguing semantics jack. its by an ammature filmaker in which i gaurantee he had to do some experimenting. its not a traditional sci-fi film which could be considered experimental. the actors are no namers so that could be considered experimental...
anyway, yeah it was fun. there is a thread about the movie already in the movies coming soon forum, but not a review thread. you might want to check it out though, you will get some other interesting oppinions.
it is experimental, dont start arguing semantics jack. its by an ammature filmaker in which i gaurantee he had to do some experimenting. its not a traditional sci-fi film which could be considered experimental. the actors are no namers so that could be considered experimental...
anyway, yeah it was fun. there is a thread about the movie already in the movies coming soon forum, but not a review thread. you might want to check it out though, you will get some other interesting oppinions.
Yes master rosncranz, I will not dabble in silly semantics no more. I know! Let's rate our most anticipated summer movies! And then argue about which one will make more money!
...I think technically speaking, as far as his budget goes, yes he did expermenting, all film does. But when I think "experimental film" I think of something that tries a lot of ideas and doesn't always have a clear direction. To me, this movie was structured down to every nook and cranny, with so much more confidence than most "amateur" directors bring to the table, or at least it created that allusion. It usues non-traditional editing tricks, sure, but at it's core it's pretty traditional science fiction. Consequences of technology on human fate? It explores that in a new way, but it is pretty classic example of one of the things a lot of science fiction works around.
Look it's cool if you disagree, but don't tell me that I shouldn't even have a right to argue something. You can argue too, or you can not reply, but to simply write me off...real classy man.
Fanible
05-22-2005, 05:32 PM
I have yet to completely understand the movie. It's the most intelligent, thought driven film I've ever seen, to be honest.
ip_guru
05-22-2005, 05:48 PM
I guess I'm in the minority here. I found it interesting, and sure, I'll watch it again. But, I think it is hardly the 10/10 that the CS! review gave it.
rosncranz
05-23-2005, 10:31 PM
Yes master rosncranz, I will not dabble in silly semantics no more. I know! Let's rate our most anticipated summer movies! And then argue about which one will make more money!
Look it's cool if you disagree, but don't tell me that I shouldn't even have a right to argue something. You can argue too, or you can not reply, but to simply write me off...real classy man.
chill out man, all i said is you are rediculously arguing semantics. i never "wrote you off" you were just being wierd.
anyway. i was not telling you what tp say or do. i hope there are no hard fealings, it just seemed wierd and pointless to argue about whether or not it was experimental/
i was not telling you what tp say or do.
dont start arguing semantics jack
;)
rosncranz
05-25-2005, 11:16 AM
edit
fireyhope
05-26-2005, 12:01 AM
Yes master rosncranz, I will not dabble in silly semantics no more. I know! Let's rate our most anticipated summer movies! And then argue about which one will make more money!
...I think technically speaking, as far as his budget goes, yes he did expermenting, all film does. But when I think "experimental film" I think of something that tries a lot of ideas and doesn't always have a clear direction. To me, this movie was structured down to every nook and cranny, with so much more confidence than most "amateur" directors bring to the table, or at least it created that allusion. It usues non-traditional editing tricks, sure, but at it's core it's pretty traditional science fiction. Consequences of technology on human fate? It explores that in a new way, but it is pretty classic example of one of the things a lot of science fiction works around.
Look it's cool if you disagree, but don't tell me that I shouldn't even have a right to argue something. You can argue too, or you can not reply, but to simply write me off...real classy man.
the movie didn't have a clear directing. did you realize that the movie didn't make sense to alot of people. and it uses non traditional editing tricks. the core of it was traditional but it was also experimenting with the original source.
ip_guru
05-26-2005, 12:34 PM
OK, I've watched it again, and my opinion of it has continued to go down.
This to me, is a product of Internet hype.
The dialogue and the characters are dull, boring, and uninteresting. The premise of the story is interesting, but time travel has been explored in so many films, the fact that they are doing so is not new territory.
The take on time travel is interesting, and it is the one redeeming positive aspect of the movie.
EDIT: by the way, I cannot believe that a person writing reviews for CS! (whom you would assume knows movies) gave this a 10/10.
fireyhope
05-26-2005, 12:41 PM
OK, I've watched it again, and my opinion of it has continued to go down.
This to me, is a product of Internet hype.
The dialogue and the characters are dull, boring, and uninteresting. The premise of the story is interesting, but time travel has been explored in so many films, the fact that they are doing so is not new territory.
The take on time travel is interesting, and it is the one redeeming positive aspect of the movie.
EDIT: by the way, I cannot believe that a person writing reviews for CS! (whom you would assume knows movies) gave this a 10/10.
whats CS?!
anyways i still beleive that it is somewhat uncharted territory because they explained it in alot of different ways.
ip_guru
05-26-2005, 12:44 PM
whats CS?!
anyways i still beleive that it is somewhat uncharted territory because they explained it in alot of different ways.
CS! is this site.. :-)
sshuttari
05-26-2005, 01:37 PM
OK, I've watched it again, and my opinion of it has continued to go down.
This to me, is a product of Internet hype.
The dialogue and the characters are dull, boring, and uninteresting. The premise of the story is interesting, but time travel has been explored in so many films, the fact that they are doing so is not new territory.
The take on time travel is interesting, and it is the one redeeming positive aspect of the movie.
EDIT: by the way, I cannot believe that a person writing reviews for CS! (whom you would assume knows movies) gave this a 10/10.
you dont think it deserves a 10/10?
ip_guru
05-26-2005, 02:15 PM
you dont think it deserves a 10/10?
Hehe, not even close. 10/10 means perfect, a flawless movie - at least it does to me.
The story must be perfect, the characters must be perfect, the acting must be perfect, the cinematography must be perfect, the lighting must be perfect, the audio must be perfect, the score/soundtrack must be perfect, and so on.... Not even one of those categories are perfect in this film.
They deserve all the credit in the world for getting their movie made, and getting the release, and they should reap as many benefits as they can from this. I'd do the same if I had the same opportunity.
EvilDeadNDN
05-26-2005, 02:44 PM
I focused more on the production style. I loved the lighting, camera, and everything else. dull story, interesting take on time.
with a budget of 7 grand. hot damn. (minus the 28 grand to convert to 35mm) it was just a great indy.
ip_guru
05-26-2005, 02:57 PM
I focused more on the production style. I loved the lighting, camera, and everything else. dull story, interesting take on time.
with a budget of 7 grand. hot damn. (minus the 28 grand to convert to 35mm) it was just a great indy.
Why is it a great indy? Not trying to argue, but curious, why? And, to the camera work, what scene or sequence was so outstanding? Those are the things I was specifically watching for, but I saw nothing other than the fountain scene that was even memorable.
EvilDeadNDN
05-26-2005, 03:15 PM
I just thought form a production standpoint it was great to watch. I know none of it was really death defyingly amazing but they style had my attention. his use of his meager budget was awesome in itself. I just liked the "feel" of it. I mean, I got lost int he story too and whatnot but I just for what resources he had and how he did it it just made me appreciate it more I suppose. also maybe cause Im really struggling to make an indy flick of my own and it was just inspiring ya know? *shakes head* I dont know. not a powerful movie, but just nicely put together I thought.
ip_guru
05-26-2005, 03:50 PM
... also maybe cause Im really struggling to make an indy flick of my own and it was just inspiring ya know? *shakes head* I dont know. not a powerful movie, but just nicely put together I thought.
To this I agree. It was a nice production, and it is very inspiring to see what he has done, all the way up to the DVD release. I just consider all that quite different from the actual movie. :)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.