If I had this machine I'd travel back in time 77 minutes and watch something else
By BH101
(35 reviews)
from Cambridge
, 23 Nov 2006
This MIGHT just be a great film if..
...if I had several weeks to spare in which I could watch it over and over again, while making notes, studying the subtitles, listening to the director's commentary, and researching various explanations of the interweaving narratives on the internet.
...and if I could be bothered. Which I really can't. Even then, there's no guarantee the fractured pieces would actually cohere to form a decent story. So, if you're a generous sort of person, then you could give this film the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is a masterpiece, albeit one that's beyond your comprehension, elusive, just out of sight. Hmm, I wonder how many people have felt their intellect threatened by this film, and nervously lauded it as brilliant, in case they were mocked for failing to grasp its complex genius. Yeah well, if you're in any doubt as to whether *it's* clever or *you're* stupid, go and look up the explanation of the various 'timelines' on Wikipedia. Then come back and say that ah yes, of course, you understood all that. To summarise: there are various incarnations of two characters - who speak in the same mumbling monotone (this is not a film which is strong on 'character') - floating around at various different points of time, none of which is ever clearly identified to the viewer, time-travelling repeatedly back to encounter alternate versions of themselves and re-engineer their futures.
Possibly I'm just lazy, but I quite like the idea of a film being 90 to 120 minutes of entertainment of an evening - something I can pop on the DVD player, sit back and enjoy. A film which requires strenuous effort to a) hear the dialog b) make any sense of the narrative is not really my idea of fun. That's not to say I don't often enjoy films that might be thought-provoking, challenging, perhaps even difficult to understand, but Primer goes way beyond this into territory firmly labelled 'impenetrable' and 'unfathomable'. It just wasn't good enough to justify the time it would take to patiently unravel its complexities. On paper, it's a brilliant concept, but it needed more work on the script to bring the story into focus. Fuzzy clouds of probability are all very well in theoretical physics, but they don't make for a successful movie.
- Was this review helpful to you?
-
(121) Yes |
-
No (40)