Thoughts & Review: Primetime (2026)

It’s been a while, sorry for that!

FYI: this has spoilers for Primetime by Lance Oppenheim. 

I’ve been thinking about Primetime (2026) and listening to the general reception of the movie, and also of Oppenheim’s documentary You Can See Everything (2026) — of which I have unfortunately not been able to see because I’m no longer in the states. I have to admit I shouldn’t have been surprised by the lack of understanding the kind of movie people were walking into. I could tell, when I saw the posters and who was in it, that this movie isn’t necessarily supposed to be a finger pointed at the predators/pedophiles. I’d like to think that people would know unless Robert Pattinson is in a large hollywood production, the movie is going to be in some way unusual and unconventional but, perhaps his reputation is too new to the mainstream audience. 

Since I’ve watched it I’ve been trying to navigate my opinions of the movie because I instinctually loved it when I came out of the theatre. With movies that I get obsessed with it is more often than not that they’re a bit on the shitty unconventional side and because of that, I was worried Primetime fell under that category. And that isn’t a bad thing by any means! I just want to give a fair assessment to my friends beyond my own love for movies that are more difficult to love/may not be technically impressive (e.g. Stardust Brothers, and Adventures of Kosuke Kindaichi). 

[The Legend of the Stardust Brothers (1985) by Makoto Tezuka]

[The Adventures of Kosuke Kindaichi (1979) by Nobuhiko Obayashi]

After letting it settle for a few weeks, I have to admit it is definitely one of my favorite movies made by modern Hollywood directors in a while. I mourned the loss of the Safdie Brothers when one of them decided to pursue his passion of acting and the other brother continued, it just wasn’t the same after that. I didn’t think that a documentary director of all possible people would take up the helm of the moody character studies that deal with moral ambiguity. I don’t think its a particularly popular kind of filmmaking, let alone accessible to people who go for entertainment rather than think-pieces and obviously Lance is not a 1 for 1 replacement, he brings in his expertise that I think enhanced the movie and endeared me to it. I don’t watch many documentaries admittedly, but it became clear when I watched some of it again (a physical rip, because it isn’t digitally available yet). I admire the blend of styles because it works so well, I think it is just enough of it to create something of its own thing that I hope more filmmakers in the future will look to as a guiding light. However, I have heard that Lance’s documentaries are more cinematic than usual. It could very well be his style of movies and if that's the case, I suppose I will be happy with one man doing something I'd like to see in modern films rather than have imitations that are subpar.

If there was one stand out thing about the film, it is the dedication to the image and how the film looked. I loved the look, honestly obsessed with the saturation, color palette and wispy, cloudy look to the film. It was intimate and dreamy, which is annoyingly still the ‘modern’ look in cinema and the neons are also a bit overdone, but their use here was so satisfying and what I call ‘chewy’. I'd really need to sit down and comb over the film once it comes out digitally because the colors were on another level here. I tend to fall in love with the visuals faster than the story so, when the movie cold opened with the murmuring and fuzzy wash of pink, I couldn't hold back my excitement. Pink is a bit underutilized but for good reason as it feels a bit out of place in our current environment of stark whites, blues and lack of color in design overall. I read that Lance used various cameras and even scanned in the film to add more texture, which makes sense because these kinds of textures aren't ones we've seen in a while in media. I think its a shame that equipment pertaining to films are hardly preserved so we often have gaps in knowledge on how we did things even 10 years ago, god its an endless list of things we genuinely no longer have access to because of how fast innovation moves in films. This movie definitely would lose all impact if it was shot and post-edited in the style of the early 2000s look, there's something authenticity cannot be replaced by. 

[Sorry about this frame, I'm aware its everywhere. There's limited high-res screencaps available.]

Beyond the 'chewy' visuals, I think the overall package of Primetime could fall into this category because there’s so much to actually consume and genuinely think about and process, it becomes very sensory to a viewer. So, it isn’t just the visuals that have that quality but every aspect of what makes a movie well, a fucking movie. The next thing I can think that was impactful was the sound effects that regrettably will not be as good as an at home watch unless you have a competent sound system. People who didn't remember or grow up with cathode-ray tvs may not understand the staticy undertone that persisted in Primetime, it gave the effect of watching it on an old school television. It was such a nice physical sensation in the head and molars for me from what I can remember but, it could also be an asmr reaction that I'm remembering from back then. The music too is so nice that I ended up immediately seeking out the soundtrack only one day after I watched it. It is modern enough that it doesn't feel dated and yet, almost jazzy and sensual that enhanced the movie. I think some soundtracks mock the characters inside it, and honestly, it reminds me of the not so subtle anxiety that Good Time and Uncut Gems manufactured with the soundtrack and editing of their movies.

Interestingly enough, I saw a reviewer say the film gave her such intense anxiety that she couldn't watch the movie ever again. Which was shocking to me because I didn't find the film very anxiety inducing besides the end where they set the scene of the suicide but even that was adrenaline and not quite anxiety. I admittedly only know of Chris Hansen's disgraced years and failure in Onision's investigations & the resurgence of pedophilia investigations on youtube. Young enough to not have known the show on the air and old enough to know of it existing + exposure to Chris Hansen as a 'positive' media figure. (Yay socialization of children, you know? And that's with my family being rather luddite.) So, when it happened I actually didn't know the outcome. She seemed to know it, and that's what was so interesting. I didn't consider it would be anxiety inducing because while you are seeing a man spiral, I argue that it wasn't at all in his perspective as much as we are watching Chris Hansen (the character) start to lose his sense of self and grounding in the world.

It was more scary for me and I'm a huge baby about horror movies, it was only within the last few years that I am able to watch horror films without a problem to the extent they don't generally effect me. Except for things like the early Ju-On movies, that shit was scary. I hadn't watched trailers for the film nor did I fully read what it was about. All I knew was that Robert Pattinson played Chris Hansen and it looked like my type of visual movie with the rich, dreamy colors, that I really didn't need any more. I trust Pattinson's taste in movies when it comes to new on the scene directors, or in Mickey 17's case I have to admit that it was the director that drew it to me rather than Pattinson. I have my loyalties and unfortunately while I love Pattinson he is on the lower end of the totem pole. My loyalty rests in the hands of certain Korean directors and cinematographers, they make movies like no one else these days.

To get back to the topic, I think the ambiguity (that arguably wasn’t so ambiguous to the point of scandal that it is generally now) in Primetime was such an addictive kind of feature of the movie, an interrogation of humanity in a way that I’m not sure general audiences were comfortable with. I, admittedly, was a bit disappointed about that because this movie brings up interesting assertions and ideas beyond the base material of Chris Hansen. It's now overplayed that people have seen the connection between 9/11 and the surveillance state that was ramping up at this time. But, it was so interesting the subtleties that this film was bringing in for some reason or another. I would really benefit from a third watch where I can sink into it. But, the fact that I am so compelled to rewatch it over and over again is a good sign that I really enjoyed the movie.

But, the main question that I received from the film was how far can you (as an average person, or media) go before things that are meant to be 'good' turn out to become harmful. Is everyone who is bad, necessarily inhumane? What monster are we chasing after that turns us into monsters as a result? Where is the line between good intentions and evil actions?

Who do you become to the people around you in the face of promised success?

8.5/10