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

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Look out the window. Eden’s not burning, it’s burnt.

Reign of Fire (2002) (SPOILERS) There was good reason to believe Rob Bowman would make a successful transition from top-notch TV director to top-notch film one. He had, after all, attracted attention and plaudits for Star Trek: The Next Generation and become such an integral part of The X-File s that he was trusted with the 1998 leap to the big screen. That movie wasn’t the hit it might have been – I suspect because, such was Chris Carter’s inability to hone a coherent arc, it continued to hedge its bets – but Bowman showed he had the goods. And then came Reign of Fire . And then Elektra . And that was it. Reign of Fire is entirely competently directed, but that doesn’t prevent it from being entirely lousy.