A GREAT movie (don't be fooled by the hate)
-
chrisbedford — 11 years ago(January 04, 2015 06:47 AM)
their hate come from christianity, the movie is calling their god a a magician and has freemasonic symbolism
OH FOR F*(^%S SAKE NO NOT THAT CRAP AGAIN
That is complete rubbish. NOWHERE in this movie is there even a REFERENCE to the occult, metaphysics, freemasonry (really? wtf does that have to do with ANYTHING?) or even ESP.
At some point somebody (I think Morgan Freeman's character Thaddeus) says, "it's magic" in reference to how a trick is done, but it's an obvious irony. No I can only think yusef-ghanima that you are repeating something you heard from someone else, or you watched another movie, because that comment is not founded in reality at all. -
yusef-ghanima — 11 years ago(January 05, 2015 03:22 AM)
it was clear that morgan was making fun of jesus as a deceiver magician in changing water to wine. the whole movie is about a secret society the eye, symbol of masonists on pyramid on one dollar bill, are you blind!
-
gerbilsrcute — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 11:35 AM)
I enjoyed the movie (and also happen to be Catholic) also happened to like The Davinci Codeboth the book and the movie.
I think a lot of people are too sensitive to some things. It is a work of fiction and no matter what people say whether a movie is good or bad is a matter of OPINION and personal taste not FACT. The FACT is the 'worst' movie of all time will have someone who likes it and the 'best' movie of all time will have someone who hates/dislikes it. But a lot of people on these boards seem to confuse opinion and fact.
I personally plan to see the sequal when it comes out.
They have to stay. Or else we haven't learned a thing. - Abraham Bernstein -
Henkwich_88 — 10 years ago(December 18, 2015 08:40 AM)
There are most definitely bad movies, movies where the acting, the camerawork and so on and so on are so horrendously poorly done that you cannot call it anything else than bad. I'm sure there could be some person out there who would enjoy a movie like that, but that does not change the fact that the movie is bad.
If a movie has above 5 stars on IMDb though and people are going beep in the forum yelling about how it is the worst thing to ever hit their retinas it's in all likelihood not a bad movie in my experience - they just didn't like it and couldn't stand the thought of not telling as many people as possible.
Haven't seen the movie yet - Going to do so asap hehe
I know less than all but more than many who know less -
LINDALAUGHS — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 07:59 PM)
I am watching it now and enjoying it. Really, except for Mark Ruffalo's acting, its been pretty good. You have to suspend belief anytime you sit down to watch a movie, and this one is no different. I will watch the sequels next. Love Morgan Freeman in this!
-
markfilipak — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 06:37 PM)
SPOILERS
knighty74 wrote:
The film is a series of tricks, tricks that are very obviously meant to deceive. So basically every trick tries to make the viewer believe something else is happening. Oh no he sawed that girl in half - oh it was a trick!
I hesitate to put words in your mouth, but may I suggest that most tricks are okay, but
If a film tricks some of its characters, that's entirely different than when a film tricks its viewers. If we-the-viewers are tricked along with the characters, that's fine, but if only we are shown something, and that something is not shown to any character, then the purpose of that something can only be to trick we-the-viewers and only we-the-viewers. I suggest that in that case, we-the-viewers can justifiably feel manipulated. I think it's to this feeling that people allude when they say that a film is "too clever for it's own good".
Example: Between the time that Etienne is "teleported" and the time we see him inside the vault, we-the-viewers are shown a Parisian street scene with the caption "Paris at the same moment". We know that the MGM Grand audience doesn't see this because that caption would make no sense to them. It is there solely to trick we-the-viewers into thinking that the film is magical reality (perhaps like
Pan's Labyrinth
) and that Etienne has actually been teleported. Since that's absurd and we know it isn't magical reality, we-the-viewers are left thinking "WTF"?
I'm sure that some folks will say that it's part of the deception (or part of the fun) and that anyone who is offended needs to lighten up. Well, I suggest that such thinking is bogus because shining the light (so to speak) on we-the-viewers makes
us
the subject of the film instead of the characters in the film, which breaks the magic and takes us right out of the film.
Your mileage may vary, and I'd love to read more comment on this subject (which I think divides the great directors from the trash directors).
Peace.
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
-
chrisbedford — 11 years ago(January 04, 2015 07:04 AM)
SPOILER ALERT
Yeah it's OK. I'd give it a 7, maybe. Didn't think it was "great", exactly, but certainly not a festering pile of dogs#!t either.
Reasons I was disappointed:- too much glossing over details. Some tricks were obviously "David Copperfield" effects, i.e. they were achieved only with camera techniques, such as during the final performance when the remaining 3 "horsemen" are walking away they manage to teleport from one floor to another not once but twice, in the blink of an eye; and when Rhodes reveals himself to Thaddeus Bradley and then magically moves through the bars of an FBI prison. Yeah right.
- too much typical TV cop jumping to conclusions, on the part of the "good cops" as well as the "bad cops". Clichd and eyeroll-inducing.
- some more typical TV cop stuff, like a drawn-out argument when they should be giving chase; but never mind, in the next scene they have caught right up with the crook who should be a mile away by then. Oh but that's also OK, the crook manages to gain several car lengths on them again - another eyeroll
But none of that is a reason to hate. I just don't think it's a rival for the next James Bond movie, that's all. What I thought was good (and probably one reason some people are hatin') is it doesn't have a "Typical Hollywood Ending". Or at least, of the two "THE" scenarios that you'd most likey expect (Good Guy gets the Girl, Good Guy catches the Bad Guys) only one transpires. But the chief Bad Guy gets away with his caper (and frames a relatively innocent bystander), and that doesn't gel with what we've come to expect from Hollywood, so there's bound to be some criticism.
-
xaigo — 11 years ago(March 04, 2015 10:03 AM)
I'm completely with you.
Watched it today. Then rewatched it. Found it even better on the second go. I got around to it so late for the same reasons you did.
I'm always amazed by people who write that a movie sucks because they were "simply not entertained" or that the movie is "not entertaining"(and it's usually followed by over 9000 personal reasons why they found it boring). Oh, what a nice world it would be if they would just write "I didn't like it. Period.":) -
juxtapose70 — 11 years ago(March 10, 2015 08:06 PM)
I loved it. It has everything. Magic, sarcasm, humour, mystery, and a kick to the seat of Morgan Freeman. When has
that
ever happened? Not that I don't admire him greatly as an actor, but he's always a hero or great guya winner.
I admit that I saw who was behind it all, but I still didn't know how that would play out. It was superb! I am buying it.
"I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"