Skip to main content

First rule of magic: always be the smartest person in the room.


Now You See Me
(2013)

(SPOILERS) These days, the arrival of a summer movie that is neither a sequel nor a superhero outing is rare. And one that requires its audience to do a bit of thinking is even less common.  Any film that promises both these ingredients is to be seized gratefully, making the ineptitude of Now You See Me doubly disappointing.

The premise is an alluring one; four stage magicians (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco) pull off robberies in public. They announce themselves as the culprits during live shows, but the authorities can neither place them at the scene nor prove their guilt. A grand conceit, and one that sets fairly high expectations if it is to be played out to any degree of satisfaction.


I was on board for this at least being fun, but Louis Leterrier’s movie lets you down on every level. The only clever bit of misdirection was right there at the booking office; the advertising persuaded me into an unwarranted trip to the cinema.


The filmmakers are set on imitating the pomp of the big Las Vegas magic shows, but they fail to apply themselves to the kernel of these acts; the tricks themselves. The heists, despite their CGI-sheen, are weary old illusions. Anyone unaware of the key tools of the stage magician’s trade, or who has never encountered a locked room mystery, might feasibly be intrigued by the feats this quartet pull off, but the director isn’t banking on it. The explanation for each illusion is raced through as if it is of incidental value to the main plot rather than something to be savoured. And, since magic tricks buster Morgan Freeman is doing the explaining, we’re in the curious realm of theory-in-progress rather than proven fact. It’s tantamount to Hercule Poirot giving the murderer’s name but not bothering to draw out the minutiae of how he reached that conclusion.


Leterrier and his (three) writers clearly want us to be impressed with the repetitive sleights of (often CGI) hand. But drawing attention to the fact that the theme of the movie is misdirection doesn't give the arbitrary twists any added cachet. Every good whodunit features red herrings; the trick is not only to keep the audience guessing but also to ensure that the final reveal is satisfying and apparently consistent.


Most mystery plots of this ilk have a house of cards structure; if you look too closely at the construction it’s often found to be structurally unsound. If you’re doing a good job, this occurs only in retrospect. If the audience is aware of the failings in each scene, you’re doing something very wrong. In Now You See Me, the precision timing required for events to play out as they do, combined with the uncontrollable variables at work, destroys any suspension of disbelief. The carnage of the freeway chase is the most glaring of these; unless every car on that stretch of road was equipped with a stunt driver the chances of serious injury or fatality would be enormous. We’ve seen this before, in David Fincher’s The Game, but that film’s lack of credibility is peanuts compared to this.


Now You See Me is only faux-clever, off-puttingly pleased with itself (never a good idea) and as smug in execution as its less-than-dazzling tricksters. Leterrier shoots the movie as if he’s letting us witness a Vegas show, and the effect is not dissimilar to watching a sitcom with a soundtrack of canned laughter. The rapt audiences at The Four Horseman gigs, gasping and wowing, makes us all the more aware of how underwhelming the experience is. It's like watching footage of a rave rather than being there.


Stylistically, the movie is a disaster. Leterrier can't keep his damn camera still, constantly cutting on movement and swirling 360 degrees around his magicians to reveal their sheer awesomeness. He treats the entire picture as a triumphant peak moment, and doesn’t appear to realise how wearying that is. If the script were any better he’d have been the wrong man for the job. As it stands, he just exacerbates its core problems, treating what ought to be a brain-teasing puzzler like an action movie (a genre that is his natural home; Transporter 2 is surprisingly hyperbolic fun). One might argue he's attempting to distract us from how shallow and nonsensical the plot is, but if that’s the case he fails abysmally. And, given his past efforts (Clash of the Titans, The Incredible Hulk), I doubt that’s the case. I’m sure he genuinely believes this is a cerebral feast. Brian Tyler's score only serves to underline the inability of its director to show any restraint. It’s ever-present, attempting to stoke wonderment but fast becoming an irritant.


The irony of a film like this is that it asks you to question what you see but only to the extent that you don't breach its flimsy internal logic. How would the magicians, having announced their intent, remain at large? Even given that their benefactor might potentially pull some strings shouldn't they be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a felony? When they give away backer Michael Caine’s money, are the writers just wilfully ignoring that the bank would have to return these unauthorised payments to him? Or are they just ignorant? Did the police really not check below the stage (after the first heist) until Morgan Freeman arrived to imbue wisdom? And when Freeman is imprisoned at the end, are we supposed to believe that his ridiculously-stuffed-with-cash car held up in court as the only and decisive evidence against him? Not to mention that he seems to be the sole inmate in the most squalid of prisons (I half expected a reveal that this was another fake-out but it never comes).


The dogged ineptitude of the Mark Ruffalo’s detective is the only aspect of his reveal as mastermind that remotely legitimises the vastly over-used trope of stacking your narrative on top of the least likely character twist. Yes, I know, it’s all about the misdirection. But the tale of the card in the tree in no way silences doubts about the converge of circumstances necessary for Ruffalo’s elaborate scheme to succeed.

There’s also a very real problem with audience identification. We don’t care for the obnoxious magic act (who, in any case, we are distanced from after the first 20 minutes) because they’re so obnoxious. We don’t root for the cops because they’re so inept (even excusing Ruffalo, their complete lack of ability is plain ludicrous). We’re looking for someone else to connect with, but Morgan Freeman’s smugly all-knowing trade secrets buster is too tangential to fit the bill. It’s not essential to include audience identification, of course. That is, as long as the plot engages. Which it does not. So, long before we discover why who did what and how, we've lost interest.


Further rubbing salt in the wound, the epilogue finds Ruffalo and Interpol agent Melanie Laurent sitting on a French bench as he explains his unlikely backstory. Going back to the Freeman’s reveal of the magic tricks, if there was any conviction about this character we’d be invited to marvel as Leterrier traces the visual narrative of his life to the point where he fulfils his quest for revenge. As there’s no sympathy for Ruffalo, he comes across as dispenser of disproportionate justice (in Freeman’s case at any rate, even given that 99% of the Magic Circle would be pissed at him). I presume there were deleted scenes, as Ruffalo’s dad is played by Elias Koteas in the newspaper photographs, but I doubt they’d make the plot any more digestible.


Any other character could quite easily have been slotted in as mastermind; Ruffalo’s only distinction is that suspicion hasn’t been cast his way (unlike Freeman and Laurent). Indeed, Leterrier goes to the opposite extreme. He cheats with scenes such as Ruffalo getting drunk, depressed about how the case is going, just for the benefit of the audience. Ruffalo’s a fine actor (he’d be the perfect Columbo in an inevitable big screen version), and I guess he was attracted to part for the leading man credit in a reasonably high profile movie, but his generally good taste in roles has deserted him this time (Freeman and Caine will show up in any old tat).

Speaking of Caine, he’s back in familiar cash-the-cheque mode. Perhaps it's divine justice that he has to struggle through some shockingly laboured scenes with the fraudulent foursome. Eisenberg’s attempts to “mentalise” Caine is painful to watch. There’s no chemistry; they all just want to get off the set.


The characters of the magicians are oblique at best. The opening scenes suggest we'll be along for the ride with them, and do a reasonable job of setting up their skill sets. And probably the best sequence in the film is their police interrogation following the bank heist, showing off why they are good at what they do (even that loses something when you realise Ruffalo was in on it). But they quickly take a back seat to the police investigation; the need to obscure the mechanics of their scheme is clearly the reasoning for this, yet other films have managed to etch out strong characters and avoid reveals (The Prestige, to name but one). When we occasionally cut back to them, to be informed of their motivation and that they are in the dark about their master’s identity, there seems to be an assumption that their fates matter. Why should we be invested in them? At the very least, Harrelson and Franco are unscrupulous in their former trades. At worst, outright immoral. Are we supposed to cheer their ultimate reward?


More damningly, Harrelson’s is the only one with an iota of charm. Eisenberg is playing another irritating little shit; Mark Zuckberg again, or maybe he’s just being himself? Fisher twirls through the air within a CGI bubble, which is as much weight as she brings to her role. And Franco continually cracks the most punchable grin in the history of Hollywood. If you thought his big brother was an infernal nuisance to cinema, prepare to discover that it runs in the family. I hoped against hope that his character actually had perished during the freeway scene.


The writers probably should have been a warning sign. It’s Edward Ricourt’s first credit, but Boaz Yakin is a master of mediocrity (The Rookie, sequels to From Dusk Till Dawn and Dirty DancingPrince of Persia). Ed Solomon hasn’t impressed anyone since his Bill and Ted days. Accordingly, there are committee-led subplots in abundance.

Ruffalo and Laurent's romance comes out of the blue (we’re supposed to believe she’s attracted to this sociopath who has done nothing but undermine her?) Poor Laurent is consigned to a miserable role. If she isn’t required to ramble incoherently about faith she’s shouting at Ruffalo, repeatedly demanding that he “never speak to her like that again”.


The magicians are motivated by the promise of membership of a magical secret society, the ultimate accolade for those who have perfected their art. But The Eye is so vague that it seems like an afterthought. Throwing in odds and sods of occult paraphernalia do nothing to nourish the idea. You can see why it’s there; mysterious ancient sects lend a bit of mythic weight. But even the lamest of movies have managed something a bit more inspired (Robert Langdon’s escapades, Wanted).  The Tarot cards presented to the foursome are presumably picked for symbolic reasons, but they don’t invite further interpretation. And the bombastic moniker “The Four Horseman” is an end in itself. Most laughable is their induction into The Eye; their Tarot cards merge into one via yet more CGI wizardry. Then, every bit as amazed as we aren’t, they are ushered onto an anti-climactic psychedelic merry-go-round.


Perversely, the only upside to Now You See Me may be its sleeper success. In an age of safe bets on aforementioned known properties, it might encourage studios to take a few chances. But I wouldn’t bet on it. And, if original fare is produced, there’s still the obstacle of making it halfway decent.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.