You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Primer's in my top 5 favorite sci-fi films of all time for what it's worth. Never seen a film NAIL the way engineers talk, think, and approach problem-solving. I've lived the opening scenes about trying to get investors for their company, and it's apparent that Carruth has as well. Beyond that, I love the fact that the movie has the balls to have 75% of it happen off-screen, just showing you slices of slightly different timelines.
It's 45 minutes long. It's on Netflix, Amazon Instant, YouTube, and Vimeo. Go watch it now.
And then - if you haven't already - watch Keaton's The General.
You've seen fireworks already. Watch the goddam General instead.
Primer is an interesting time travel film to me primarily because it's about time travel. Most of the films that have time travel in them are using it as a means to an end. Back to the Future is a movie about a kid trying to fix the past because he accidentally traveled back in time. Time Cop is a movie about a cop that chases bad guys down if they go back in time in an attempt to escape or alter time. Looper, Star Trek 4, Terminator, Bill & Ted, 12 Monkeys...
Primer is a movie where a couple of kids figure out a limited way to travel through time. In those other movies, the bulk of the story and the things the characters are focusing on have nothing to do with travelling through time. Fixing things, catching criminals, saving someone, etc. It's a means to an end. Primer is about time travel. Two smart & ambitious friends + time machine(s) = Primer. I don't think it's an amazing film, but I have a soft spot for it because it tries very hard to stay as grounded and focused as possible, and it's one of the few time travel movies I'm aware of that takes it that seriously.
Totally disagree. Primer absolutely uses time travel as a means to an end. Like Zarban said, it's a film about a friendship that deteriorates due to jealousy and greed. The invention could have been basically anything. The film's downfall is that it focuses far too much on the scientific aspect and too little on the character relationships. It's a big missed opportunity in that way.
From most recent to less...
Reel Steel. Surprisingly fun and entertaining. Solid movie.
Django Unchained. Just excellent.
Full Mettal Jacket. Is it explainable or is it just mindless military porn? Idk
Lincoln. Very Good.
The Frighteners. MJF talks to ghost. Doesn't make much scenes, but good times.
Paranorman. Enjoyable but forgettable.
Cowboys and Aliens. Its fine I don't have a problem with it.
We're kind of into spoiler territory about Primer already, so just in case...
A key moment is when they discover someone else knows about the machines - one of the two main characters had to have told that third person, but neither of the current incarnations did it. It must have been an alternate version of one of them in a time loop they can't get back to now... so they'll never know which of them it was, or why. According to Carruth's commentary, that's when they realize they can't even trust themselves anymore.
Primer's not perfect - though for me a lot of the negatives are due to the ultra-low budget, rather than a lack of ideas in the movie itself. Several key points could have been made clearer with just one more shot or two, but it just wasn't an option the way Carruth made the movie.
But even with its flaws - damn, Primer is a hell of an achievement. Especially for a first time filmmaker.
You're right, but time travel is clearly the reason for making the movie. Most of those other films aren't about time travel, it's just an excuse to have one or more characters go back and time so your high concept story can happen. What if a black guy was in camelot? What if there were cops that went through time? What if the future is totally fucked and they send prisoners back in time to try to fix things? Primer does this as well, but the time travel aspect was clearly the reason the film was even written. It wasn't an excuse to get Marty McFly back to 1955. It's not something you do at the beginning and then the end of the movie, it's a constant thing that drives the film.
It's not just two friends who start fucking each other over. The relationship deteriorates because of the time travel aspect. If they were just two dudes fucking each other over, they'd just have a scene where one finds out, they have a big fight and then they become enemies, or maybe they make up, or maybe one kills the other, etc. They're fucking each other with time travel, tho, and that gives everything this paranoid aspect where you're talking to a guy, but the same guy is in a meeting across town, or he starts following you even though he didn't follow you. It's central to the plot. It's not a gimmick, it's the reason the film exists, and it's the reason their relationship breaks down the way it does.
Or does it? It's been a while since I've seen it, and it's not exactly the easiest film to follow, but I got a sense that by the end they weren't really enemies, they were just not working together anymore. Their relationship was different, but they were never really trying to be hostile toward each other, it just seemed that way because the 'old' versions of themselves couldn't figure out what the 'new' versions of themselves were trying to accomplish. It makes me want to rewatch it again...
Okay, but that's kind of my problem with the movie right there. You don't make a movie just to show off some cool idea about made-up technology. Just write a blog post if that's all you've got. Primer's story is basically a paper-thin excuse to show off his neat time machine concept. I wish the movie was really about these two friends and what causes them to have a falling out, but at the end of the day that's hardly in there.
+1
I saw The Heat, and actually had a pretty good time. It's loud and stupid sometimes, but the other times it's whip smart and very funny. Another one where you could miss it, but it's not a waste of an afternoon.
I've been going through the archives of The Adam Savage Project on Tested, and Adam has this incredible enthusiasm and adoration of Blade Runner that is absolutely addicting, and comes up often. So it inspired me to watch it again.
I'd seen before obviously, the last time maybe a year and a half, 2 years, somewhere around there, a while at least. And I'm not sure if it was Adam or just the maturing I've done in the last 2 years, probably both, but Blade Runner was like this whole new experience this time, it was bizarre. It was like I was watching something I had seen before in a dream but had never actually seen. I knew the story and knew what was happening but it was all brand new.
Every frame in that movie is absolutely stunning. Like jaw droppingly mind blowingly stunning. It's incredible, and hearing Adam describe the actual process for some of those shots just makes it even more incredible.
IDK, I've just never experienced that before. It was cool.
I've been going through the archives of The Adam Savage Project on Tested, and Adam has this incredible enthusiasm and adoration of Blade Runner that is absolutely addicting, and comes up often. So it inspired me to watch it again.
I'd seen before obviously, the last time maybe a year and a half, 2 years, somewhere around there, a while at least. And I'm not sure if it was Adam or just the maturing I've done in the last 2 years, probably both, but Blade Runner was like this whole new experience this time, it was bizarre. It was like I was watching something I had seen before in a dream but had never actually seen. I knew the story and knew what was happening but it was all brand new.
Every frame in that movie is absolutely stunning. Like jaw droppingly mind blowingly stunning. It's incredible, and hearing Adam describe the actual process for some of those shots just makes it even more incredible.
IDK, I've just never experienced that before. It was cool.
I was able to view the Final Cut in full HD, and my god it certainly is beautiful. The restoration job they did is outstanding. They definitely created one of the most immersive and textured fictional worlds ever captured on film.
Man Of Steel - 4/10
MoS? PoS.
Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai - 7/10
Very interesting character study. The film moves extremely slowly, but if you fall into the slow pace and it holds your attention, it is a wellmade, meditative film.
Olympus Has Fallen - 5/10
Good filmmaker trying to work around one of the worst scripts I've seen recently. Some really poor ADR dialogue, and obvious CGI to the point where you can call it almost as soon as a shot starts. Still, when people shut up and actually do things, the film holds your attention thanks to well staged camerawork and editing. Can probably be skipped though. Watch Seagals Under Siege again, better use of time.
Tombstone - 7/10
Great characters and acting, Val Kilmer steals most scenes he is in. Ultimately this film feels slightly more like it documents the stories of the real characters in the film, and it doesn't really dive deep into one particular character, or relationship, instead the ensemble cast all get some attention. Thus it might not have the best emotional impact, whilst still being a very well shot, acted and directed film.
Detention - 5/10
Scott Pilgrim meets Scream. Very creative editing, camerawork and visuals. Ultimately the film has too many ideas thrown in to feel like a cohesive story. It can also become a bit grating after a while. Still worth a look for the visuals and cinematography/camerawork alone.
Europa Report - 5/10
Suffers some of the problems of Apollo 18. This tries to be more of a character study and dealing with the emotional pressures of spending 2 years in a small spaceship heading to the moon of Jupiter, but it just didn't work for me. Where Apollo 18 felt overly dramatic and "synthetic", Europa Report instead comes across as just a bit dull. It feels like a documentary, yet the point of watching a documentary is learning about a real thing. Missing that aspect, there isn't much left. I felt this was quite closely related to Sunshine in characters and dynamics.
Last edited by TechNoir (2013-07-05 10:36:10)
Europa Report - 5/10
I was really looking forward to that one. Damn... I blame Teague, he jinxed it.
Last edited by redxavier (2013-07-05 10:55:35)
TechNoir wrote:Europa Report - 5/10
I was really looking forward to that one. Damn... I blame Teague, he jinxed it.
I certainly would see it, you may find it compelling. It is well acted and quite naturalistic. Sharlto Copley is in it, so that basically makes it a must-see. 
Good. God.
This was one batshit crazy film. Timur Bekmambetov's zany sensibilities worked well for Day Watch, but they completely implode with this movie. Crazy Russian angels and demons are one thing; a stoic American vampire hunter is quite another.
It couldn't decide whether it was funny or serious. In fact, I'd say it took itself way too seriously. I think the audience was intended to laugh at the absurdity of it all. And I did. But not in a good way, most of the time. It was like an anime that would zoom along at roller coaster pace and then stop dead in its tracks for half-baked history lessons.
And I hated the vampires.
Good. God.
This was one batshit crazy film. Timur Bekmambetov's zany sensibilities worked well for Day Watch, but they completely implode with this movie. Crazy Russian angels and demons are one thing; a stoic American vampire hunter is quite another.
It couldn't decide whether it was funny or serious. In fact, I'd say it took itself way too seriously. I think the audience was intended to laugh at the absurdity of it all. And I did. But not in a good way, most of the time. It was like an anime that would zoom along at roller coaster pace and then stop dead in its tracks for half-baked history lessons.
And I hated the vampires.
You are a better man than I (me?). I never even got through it all. I really wish I could so I could give it a rating on imdb and add it to my database, but sometimes I just can't muster enough enthusiasm. This was one of those.
My stepmother asked me to watch this and explain why it's terrible. That shouldn't be hard.
I was surprised by it, because the reviews made it sound dull, threadbare, and poorly acted. But I found that the low budget was used very effectively, and the acting was terrific. It ain't easy to make dull, lifeless, selfish, ideology-spewing characters likeable, after all. The movie IS dull, certainly. It's all about how the head of a railroad and a head of a steel company get together to sort out how they can keep their companies from going under or being ruined by the government.
Both the economics and the politics are hilariously illogical. Ayn Rand was born and educated in Russia and lived a very difficult young life before illegally immigrating to the United States. She clearly was mixing up Soviet politics with American. In her mind, businessmen who cozy up to politicians do the bidding of the politicians. And the politicians want to limit business because... you know... they want people to be equal or something. It's all very mushy and full of fantasy and misunderstanding of how the world works.
Oh, and Quark was in it, spewing anti-capitalist nonsense about how a better steel alloy is dangerous to society because it makes one company better than another.
Last edited by Zarban (2013-07-06 14:39:44)
Haven't seen the movie and am not likely to anytime soon - but I was surprised to find out it was directed by John Putch. I remember him as a staple player in just about every sitcom in the '70's, including a season as Valerie Bertinelli's boyfriend on One Day At A Time. He's also the son of the recently departed Jean Stapleton.
What I really want to know is if he made the movie because he believes in the ideology - or if it was just a gig. And if it's the latter, how does someone direct a movie with a morality you don't personally subscribe to? I mean, if I got offered a Christian-themed feature, I suppose I could turn in a serviceable job. But I'd feel weird as hell about it.
Ehhh, depends on how entertaining the bullshit ideology is.
I'd make the coolest scientology propoganda sci-fi war movie EVER
I watched Part I. It's almost unbelievable how inept it is. Here's some sample dialogue:
"Why ask useless questions? How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?"
"Know what I like about you, Wesley? You're a one-word man." "True."
"I look forward to working with you." "And I look forward to working directly with you." "Goodbye." "Bye."
"You have no feelings. I don't think you've ever felt a thing." "No, Jim. I guess I've never felt anything at all."
"In order to save my family's business *longest pause ever* I'm gonna have to abandon it."
And not only that, but the heroes in this movie say some things that are usually only spoken by movie villains. At one point, the male lead says, "If you double-cross me in any way, I will destroy you." The fuck?
Well, stumbled upon this movie on TV and will have to get to see it again.
I am generally a fan of psychological thrillers with a twist and this one definitely delivers. If you can't tell from the poster, it's Liam Nesson, who I am a fan of by reputation alone, and Diane Kruger, who is wonderful actress and works very well since the film takes place in Germany.
It starts off as a man and wife on a trip to Berlin for a scientific conference. The man gets in a car accident, and is in a coma for a couple of days. Waking up, he tries to find his wife, only to find another man claiming to be him. With no ID or anything else, no one believes him and so he sets off to figure it out. Along the way, he tries to find the cabbie from the accident who actually pulled him from the car.
The great part is that it twists several time, and when you think you have figured out, it twists again. Highly recommend it.
^^ Seconded. Unknown is a hugely under-rated thriller from last year. It's one of those rare thrillers where I completely did not guess the twists but they also completely make sense in retrospect and when you re-watch it. Also is very well directed, there's an excellent mid-movie car-chase, and an awesome 1 on 1 dialogue scene between 2 veteran actors. I think I might actually prefer it to Taken personally.
Am I the only one that can't load images linked from imdb?
I thought 'Unknown' was rubbish, it looked like a cheap rip off of Bourne except more expensive. I figured out the twist as sooned
I don't really Liam Neeson now all he seems to do is get angry at people.
That poster didn't work for me before, either. Thanks, Fireproof.
Didn't work for me either, so it wasn't just you, BDA.
Haven't seen the movie and am not likely to anytime soon - but I was surprised to find out it was directed by John Putch.
That's part 2, yeah. Part one was directed by Paul Johannson, who did a lot of TV acting, particularly One Tree Hill. Part 2 has a whole different cast also. I don't think there's a single carry over. Weird.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
