Prime (2005)

Really Surprised!

Better Late Then Never

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

"Prime" is a film that has been successful in Brazil back when released, and I remember seeing it when I was much younger. The storyline invented for this flick is very creative and original; there are very good scenes written over this psychoanalyst and patient relationship, due to the embarrassing moments the professional gets into. The character of Meryl Streep is just GREAT, as always... Is she always given good characters or does she turn them great? Anyway, Lisa Metzger happens to be a sincere psychologist, who carries the soul of a mother. Bryan Greenberg does a great in job in portraying David, thanks to his spontaneous way of acting. Photography and overall directing aren't anything marvelous, and so isn't the soundtrack, but the performances and the embarrassing- hilarious plot are what turn "Prime" into a delightful and entertaining picture to be seen. However, it could've still been better, if we didn't have those situations that only happen in Hollywood movies, like meeting the one you just broke up with in the market in a 8 million population city. Oh, and for some reason, it felt occasionally overlong to me, albeit being only 105 minutes long, the only reason why I don't give it a better rating.

It was watchable... just about. It isn't a really bad film, but it has practically no storyline, and it drags on WAY too long. Also the ending is rather terrible. I think it had a lot of potential to be a good film with the scenario that it revolves around... but the script and storyline was far too restricting and nothing happened throughout the whole film really. On top of this it made me feel like yelling at the characters for being annoying. I found that I just thought the film was a bit stupid and the characters were irritating. The cast was good, Uma Thurman and Meryl Streep both acted well as usual... but their talents were kinda wasted on this. All in all... it's pretty terrible to be honest.

Hollywood is quite comfortable with the idea of romances between older men and younger women, probably because the average studio executive is an ageing man with the financial muscle to pull a glamorous young trophy wife. We can all think of innumerable films in which a beautiful young starlet is cast as the love interest of a man old enough to be her father (or, in some cases, grandfather). Hollywood, on the other hand, is decidedly uncomfortable with the idea of romances between older women and younger men, generally treating such romances as bizarre and anomalous. The best-known film on this theme is "The Graduate", and even there Benjamin ends up not with Mrs Robinson but with her daughter."Prime" is, in all respects but one, a romantic comedy. The normal mathematical formula for a rom-com is A+B-C=D, where A represents "boy loves girl", B represents "girl loves boy" and C represents some obstacle to their love which needs to be removed in order to achieve happy ending D. The lovers in this case are Rafi (it's short for Raphaelle), a recently divorced Manhattan career woman, and David, a talented painter. There are two potential obstacles to their love, a difference in religion (he is Jewish, she a Gentile) and a difference in age (he is 23, she 37).The main plot device in the film is that Rafi shares all her secrets, including her relationship with David, with her psychotherapist Lisa, who (quite unknown to Rafi) just happens to be David's mother. Lisa seems to be the sort of laid-back therapist who, rather than subjecting her patients to deep Freudian analysis, simply advises them to do whatever they feel happiest doing, and encourages Rafi to continue with her affair, even when she discovers that Rafi's lover is in fact her own son. (The ethical dilemmas posed by this arrangement are rather glossed over). Lisa is less happy, however, when she realises that her son's relationship is serious and not (as she had initially assumed) a mere fling.Although Meryl Streep can be very good in comedy, she is surprisingly weak in this film. (She was to be much better in "The Devil Wears Pravda", another comedy set in New York, the following year). The scenes between Lisa and Rafi seem less like a psychotherapy sessions than like cosy chats between two friends, and in her scenes with David Lisa comes uncomfortably close to the stereotype of the neurotic, over-protective Jewish mother. Uma Thurman and Bryan Greenberg are rather better as the two lovers, although I never got any real sense of the supposed age gap between them, even though this is an important plot point. In 2005 Greenberg was 27 and Thurman a young-looking 35. Although Sandra Bullock, the film-makers' original choice for the role of Rafi, has never been my favourite actress, she might have been more convincing as the older woman. (She would have been 41 in 2005, fourteen years older than Greenberg as opposed to Thurman's eight).Of the two obstacles mentioned above, one (the difference in religion) can be overcome. "Gentile" does not always equal "Christian", and Rafi, who has been brought up without any religious faith, is quite happy to convert to Judaism. The difference in age, however, is another matter. In the world inhabited by Hollywood scriptwriters the 14-year age difference between a 23-year-old woman and a 37- year-old man (or, for that matter, between a 37-year-old woman and a 51-year-old man) would not be an issue at all. When, however, we are dealing with a 37-year-old woman and a 23-year-old man, the same age gap becomes an insuperable obstacle.This is why I described the film as a romantic comedy in all respects but one; it lacks the traditional happy ending. After various ups and downs, Rafi breaks with David, although this is presented less as a heartless rejection than as a noble sacrifice on her part. The assumption seems to be that Rafi knows better than David himself where his true interests lie, that no man in his early twenties really wants to become a husband and father, and that by rejecting him she sacrifices her own happiness to save him from this terrible fate.I must say that I did not like the ending at all. The film has been described as an exploration of the possibility that love is not enough to make a relationship work, but it never really answers the question of what else might be needed. There is no real reason why the relationship between Rafi and David could not have worked; her rejection of him struck me as being both patronising and unconsciously cruel. By following the normal conventions of the romantic comedy the film leads the viewer to expect the standard happy ending for, and then suddenly substitutes an unhappy one, and does so, I think, in order to make a thoroughly reactionary point along the lines of "stick with your own kind", or "don't defy convention". There is always something depressing about a film which preaches a sermon in praise of conformity or conventionality. 5/10

I normally don't enjoy "rom coms" all that much so are finding myself loving this one (from a 30 yo male!), but would consider this a drama - not a comedy.I can't really understand some of the negative reviewers comments for this. Most of them state that "it's not really believable that these problems exist in todays world" (referring to problems of age/religious differences of two people in a relationship) or that they concentrate on small details without seeing the message the film delivers. However it is believable that a virus breaks out and turns everyone in the world to zombies leaving a few survivors to hack and slash their way to salvation without looking at the small details of how this could be stopped. I think this speaks volumes about some reviewers tastes.This film sets up a premise just as others do. That's what films do, they set up a premise and then play out what the writers believe what would happen subsequently, through the eyes of a director. And this movie does this with exceptional writing, direction and editing with a superb bunch of actors. Uma Thurman comes into her own on this one and her interaction with Merryl Streep is palpable as is the chemistry she has with the male lead.The premise is a 37 yo recent divorcée that starts a relationship with a 23 yo man who happens to be her therapists son. That is not so unbelievable is it? There are religious differences between the couple that have to be dealt with by everyone involved which occurs in a real and believable way. The movie goes on to examine a dilemma faced by many couples - can love conquer all? Is love enough in todays world where people have so many commitments and expectations on them from society, their family and peers? The movie explores these issues with accuracy and feeling.There are some small issues with the movie that could have been cleared up, hence the lack of full marks. The sidekick with the pie throwing issue is one (wouldn't he have been arrested/got beaten up by now??), the stereotypical gay friends (though they were very well acted roles) and the amazing paintings by the male lead come to mind (showing a maturity well beyond most 23 year olds). This however is a stunning examination of modern relationships that will remain in memory for years to come. 8.5/10