In some shots yes, in some shots, no. Certainly the night scene by the fountain, in which the stock is pushed so far that the grain becomes really unbearable, would have been better off shot on video with a better light package than shot on film with virtually no light at all.

OK, I'm coming way late to this thread, but I finally just saw this movie. I thought it was really impressive how much they accomplished with so little resources. I was really intrigued by the movie, and it never lost my attention, but I don't know why it had to be so cryptic. If Robert could explain the whole damn thing in one page, I think the filmmakers could have made it a little clearer. It kind of seems like they were trying to make it more thought provoking by keeping people guessing. Still, I really liked it. Robert, I can't believe you figured all that out after just one viewing. Tip 'o the hat to you. Anyone notice the crew list? It consisted of like seven people.

Hey Marco!

I'm similiarly ambivalent about Primer. On one hand, anyone who can make an feature without outside support and get a theatrical release for it deserves the adulation of independent filmmakers and aspiring ones. On the other hand, what is the value if having your film seen by a larger audience if your film only challenges its watchers' puzzling abilities, but does not move them, inspire them, or challenge their prejudices or their conceptions of themselves?

Did any of us have that experience with Primer?

I gave up on it after 45 minutes. It wasn't the quality of the movie that killed me, as much as it was the plot... or the dragging out of it. I didn't watch long enough to see a plot.

But congrats on the Film Fests and the release.

I rather enjoyed it. Saw it at Cinevegas, own it on DVD now. ::shrug::

I did watch more of Primer, than I did Open Water. I had better hopes for Primer though, but I also have a short attention span... oooh! Something shiney!

I walked out of Primer with a headache like I've never had before. I think part of it was that I was more interested in the filmmaking and didn't catch some of the plot, and the other part of it was that it was just so damn confusing!

I have to say, it was a good movie, and although I would have almost preferred the sterile and clean look of video, the film was good enough. I just think that the plot was a bit too much, and it wasn't even remotely easy to follow.

I thought Primer was overall pretty interesting. I did find it sometimes difficult to follow, poorly lit, photography was nothing dynamic, and it could have been edited a little tighter.
Not a bad project but certainly not a prize winner. It's worth the rental.

wow, some of you guys are pretty tough! he he

im glad the sundance crowd was more open-minded, otherwise i probably wouldnt have ever heard of this little gem of an indie. i dont think you can expect technical greatness in the kind of situations this film (and others in its class) was made in. its all about story #1 and it saddens me that some people were bored by it.

i think sometimes people concentrate a bit too much on the technical aspects and not on the material itself. there hasnt been a good sci fi story like this for years and although we all like to think that we are tired of the disaster pictures and romcom's and that all the flash isnt worth spit if theres not a good plot, I get the feeling that's not really so true.

I will admit the techno talk in the first 5 minutes is pretty brutal, but I didnt have any issues after that. But maybe it's just me, I don't usually like my movies spoonfed to me. I'm a sucker for a good "thinker" picture. I have seen Primer 3 times now and I definitely still don't have it all figured out, but that intrigues me, it doesn't bore me at all.

my 2 cents.

John, I don't think it's a good idea to assume people are too dumb to have liked a film on this forum. If you look through all of the film review threads on DVInfo you'll find quite a range of tastes and opinions.

"i dont think you can expect technical greatness in the kind of situations this film (and others in its class) was made in. its all about story #1 and it saddens me that some people were bored by it."

It was not the technical/quality that lost me. I have watched countless movies, and a lot of them weren't even as well shot, lit, or had the sound recording that primer did. Most of those sucked. Some were really rather good. What I couldn't get into, was the story/plot. If it were paced a bit quicker, it might have held my attention. I thought Primer was ok, but I just lost interest.

Keith, I never said anyone was dumb, sorry if I came off like that. Guess I got a bit defensive since I like the movie and the potential it shows for indie/low budget (whatever you want to label it as) cinema... It's easy to lose interest in a 2-4 hour movie, but for a 70-some minute film means its gotta be pretty bad.

I was merely talking about people's tastes and I was a bit surprised how the conversation was going towards the technical side with some of the posts.

As a movie Primer isnt for everyone, I will agree with that. I just think probably a lot of us here in the forum are on the same level as this Shane guy who wrote, directed, edited, and starred in it. I know I am. So I think we should all kind of look at it for it's achievements, notoriety to the little guys, and use it as an inspiration to the work we are all trying to do. Instead of trying to say he didn't have a great light kit or something.

No offense all! Promise!

Yeah, I'm sorry if my post came off as me being bored and hating the film. In fact I really did love the film, all it's quirks and twists kept me thinking, but I did think it could definetly be toned down to the point where it still is confusing, but it makes some logical sesne.

It still is a great feat of production (I really was inspired by their homebuilt rigs), and it still is a very cool plot, but it could have used some more refinement, at least in my opinion.

www.primermovie.com's forum may help work out a few of the kinks (shane posts on there himself pretty regularly). If anybody is remotely interested in clearing any of it up I suggest that site, although you may get more questions than answers :-) But I think the movie makes more sense after repeat viewings...

John, I like smart films also and given most of my current access to filmmaking resources, to me smart always wins out over glitz. For that reason I wanted to like "Primer" but ended up liking the concept and production more than the execution. "Primer" as a production is certainly a valuable measure for indie filmmakers who want to make a mark with limited resources, but in the end it has to be evaluated by the same standards of storytelling as a multimillion dollar production.