Now You See Me

[Awesome Box]

What are people's thoughts on this film? Shot on 35mm with Anamorphic Lenses, and TWO Directors of Photography. A little unusual, but I think the fact it was shot on film gives some of the magic back to the final product. Thoughts?

 

[David Jimerson]

Now You See Me

Surprised there's not more comment on this.

One of the best movies I've seen in the past couple of years. Tight script, well-produced. Very unconventional casting gelled brilliantly.

A bunch of DVX100Bs doing things they couldn't possibly do.

 

[Awesome Box]

Indeed David. I went in knowing very little about the film only having seen the trailer once and was pleasantly surprised by the great script and exceptional casting. The cinematography was also top notch and I commend Mitchell and Larry for a job well done.

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, I say unconventional casting, except for one -- Morgan Freeman, who plays the kind of self-important douche he's really good at playing.

 

[Tokpaler]

One of the better films I've seen in a while! I loved how they used vfx as more of a design rather than part or integral to the plot/script. Agreed on casting, loved seeing jesse eisenberg and woody harrelson in the same film again, it just works!

I'm surprised as well that not too many people are talking about this

 

[hscully]

Jeez... I dunno guys. I saw it last night and thought it was just OK. I thought that it was kind of shallow and didn't get it's point of view or what the theme was. There was that scene with Michael Caine standing on stage as the big check drops in value... it was painful to watch this great actor with so very very little to do.

Also, the camera work was all over the place. In the beginning I thought I was going to get seasick with the camera flying in circles around a character, fast cut to another flying the other direction around another character, walk and talk at break neck speeds woof! I found that movement and the editing, especially in the beginning to be gratuitous and distracting. Then they switch to quiet hand held for the interrogations... what? I don't know. It was well produced but I don't think it was a great movie at all. The characters were shallow and the action did little to reveal very much about them. It was just hard to get into it with them. I found it too clever by half.

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't think it was ever intended to be a character piece.

 

[Chris Adler]

Very disappointing with his movie. Paper thin story, paper thin characters, and if the movie is about great illusionists why not see some real illusions, not stupid over the top CGI that could never actually happen. Oh, and what's with the stupid confession on the bench at the end?

 

[Denis Haineault]

I was very curious to see this movie, but man was I disappointed story-wise. Visually, I thought it looked quite good however.

The story established that this was not real magic (Gandalf kind), but instead, tricks, illusions and sleight of hand (like in the real world). There was just too much implausibility associated to the "magic" in this movie, and so I just couldn't buy into the story.

*spoiler*

Although this happens quite a few times, I'll just use one example:

During the interrogation scene, Jesse Eisenberg's character does a stage magician's trick to quickly remove the handcuffs and get them onto the interrogating officer. I suspect that the handcuffs he had on were real handcuffs, and not tricked ones. One might argue that he was blessed with big wrists which might allow for this trick to work, but I don't buy it. A much better example is the key hidden in the can of Pepsi. The fact that they show him touch the can (which allowed him apparently to insert the key) doesn't buy any credibility...it in fact just reinforces the implausibility.

The phrase I use often is "plausibility within the context of the story". If you cheat that, then you don't have much...which is what this movie had.

 

[hscully]

I don't think it was ever intended to be a character piece.

I know, and that's cool but a caper movie should at least have some reason other than the caper itself for us to follow along. We only find out at the very end who has been behind it but we never really get a hook to care about him. I understand why you don't want to tip it but good movies can "fortell" without tipping. Then the viewer says.. ahh! I knew it all along, when in fact they didn't. It's very satisfying because they were afforded a hunch about it. Was there ever a hunch that he was that guy?

s "plausibility within the context of the story"

Yes. I agree. This is what is important. I'm happy to go on any fantastic ride if the context holds up. I often refer to this as a piece being "internally consistent."

 

[David Jimerson]

I was very curious to see this movie, but man was I disappointed story-wise. Visually, I thought it looked quite good however.

The story established that this was not real magic (Gandalf kind), but instead, tricks, illusions and sleight of hand (like in the real world). There was just too much implausibility associated to the "magic" in this movie, and so I just couldn't buy into the story.

*spoiler*

Although this happens quite a few times, I'll just use one example:

During the interrogation scene, Jesse Eisenberg's character does a stage magician's trick to quickly remove the handcuffs and get them onto the interrogating officer. I suspect that the handcuffs he had on were real handcuffs, and not tricked ones. One might argue that he was blessed with big wrists which might allow for this trick to work, but I don't buy it. A much better example is the key hidden in the can of Pepsi. The fact that they show him touch the can (which allowed him apparently to insert the key) doesn't buy any credibility...it in fact just reinforces the implausibility.

The phrase I use often is "plausibility within the context of the story". If you cheat that, then you don't have much...which is what this movie had.

If you watch carefully, the handcuffs are already loose, suggesting he had already loosened them before the trick. Anyway, any decent escape artist can defeat standard handcuffs pretty easily.

Now, floating around in the bubble, I grant you.

 

[Denis Haineault]

If you watch carefully, the handcuffs are already loose, suggesting he had already loosened them before the trick. Anyway, any decent escape artist can defeat standard handcuffs pretty easily.

Now, floating around in the bubble, I grant you.

I'll take your word for it, as I don't plan on watching this movie again. The example I gave was the one I remembered most. I do remember feeling that way throughout the movie though.

Magicians use tricks and deception to fool their audience, and this can be very entertaining when well executed. Movies do essentially the same thing. This movie did not do that well. I truly expected to enjoy this movie before going in, but I didn't buy it for a second.

But anyway...it's just a movie.