I am a big fan of the time travel concept and movies, that is why giving it three stars. Otherwise, I had to see the wikipedia page of this movie to find out what the plot actually was! Of course, I found out, the plot was good, but I couldn't follow it while watching it, and I have followed the plots of all time travel movies I have watched. I can forgive the producer, director and actors because it was a very low budget film, but please don't make such crap again.

BOTTOM LINE FIRST: Very good time-paradox film, but not for everyone.THE GOOD: Looks better than the $9000 or so budget! Swift dialogue keeps you interested and packs a ton of information, even if ersatz. Regressive paradoxes are illuminated as having moral, ethical, and physical impact, facets not explored enough in other such films.THE SORTA BAD: Characters tend to one-dimensional, ironically, even with Woody Allen-esque home-setting plot devices. Many thin subplots essentially self-consciously placed to keep things "realistic." Resolutions of conflicts are sketchy or non-existent, and the final resolution lacks the emotional punch necessary to put the exclamation point on.ALL IN ALL: Talky drama will not appeal to everyone, and confusing story is somewhat frustrating, BUT it's original, pleasing enough to the eye, and you can't fault the filmmaker for his messages. NOTE: "Primer" has to do with being the top dog of the chain, the blockchain if you will.

The basic premise of Primer has the potential to be exceptional, as I admire and respect sci-fi movies based on actual science. I actually viewed this movie a second time, not realizing I had seen it quite some time ago. My reaction both times: it sucked the joy out of watching this movie both times.The problem, IMHO, is the writing. Again, the basic story line is sound, but the writers fill the script with techno-babble and hip entrepreneur-speak designed to add credibility to overly highbrow dialogue, and so came across as pretentious and superficial. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, as I was raised in the education system of the Kennedy Cold War era, with its emphasis on math and science, but I could not honestly discern whether the science portrayed was accurate or even real. Here, the writers drop the ball in failing to make a connection that an ordinary viewer would understand. As they dumped more and more scientific terms and processes into the film, I began to care about the characters less and less. Then there's the plot. I'm not sure why the two lesser characters of the original foursome were included, as they didn't move the story along and were completely incidental to the film. It this way, they were merely red herrings. Also, what's with the guy with the shotgun showing up to the party? I couldn't understand why that plot device was introduced, other than the writers deciding they needed to add dramatic effect to a movie dry with scientific lingo. I believe part of the problem is the limited budget this movie must have had. Imagine what this movie could have been in the hands of a James Cameron, Ridley Scott or David Cronenberg. Here's hoping that a big budget remake is a seed in one of their minds.

I like: -the complex story -the unique atmosphere which I think is created through: -the refreshing acting, cinematography and music which feels very homemade but since the movie is about a homemade experimental time machine it perfectly works I didn't like: -that the movie guides you through until the last 20 minutes of the movie which then feels kinda try-hard-making-sure-the-audience doesn't-understand-what's-going-on -the end credits (just little point, but boy that was ugly) -that I felt there was a potential that this would be personal story, as well as time machine story, but it was just the latter So I think this movie is very good, but if you think about how awesome it could be (with the addition of more emotions and character development) it feels kinda sad (for me) that it is "just" this.