Skip to main content

You pulled a hat out of a rabbit. That was very colourful.

Now You See Me 2
(2016)

(SPOILERS) I don’t really know why I bothered catching up with Now You See Me 2, since I found the original an active crock. Masochism, I guess. Both occupy such a counterintuitive basis for a movie: “clever” magic tricks expressed by way of bad CGI, so revealing an inverse ratio of cleverness.


Compounding which is an utterly unsympathetic lead character, essayed by a surprisingly unassured Mark Ruffalo, whose Dylan Rhodes, in the last movie, took revenge on those he perceived to have been culpable in his father’s death (aside from his father doing bloody silly things for a living that were, likely as not, going to lead to his death irrespective of anyone else getting involved).


One can only assume the execs at Lionsgate/Summit were aware of the backlash against his cruel treatment of poor old Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), because here the character is entirely retconned as being the long-time colleague of pa Lionel Shrike. Even more, he’s so loveable, he doesn’t even nurse resentment towards, or a desire wreak revenge upon, Dylan for getting him banged up. Quite extraordinary. We’re also subjected to a flashback to the terminally traumatic formative event itself as an opener, designed to reassure us, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Dylan really does have some motivation for being so damn angry all this time. It doesn’t work.


And I haven’t even mentioned his smug Four Horseman yet, one of whom has gone AWOL (Isla Fisher) and been replaced by Lizzy Caplan (Lula), who tries her best be the most irritating cast member but has stiff competition. Dave Franco (Jack Wilder) achieves the scarcely conceivable feat of being more punchable than his older brother, but that’s about the only unbelievable display here worth mentioning.


Jesse Eisenberg (J Daniel Atlas) plays the same passive-aggressive nerd rage character he always does, while Woody Harrelson essays two roles (Merritt and Chase McKinney), neither sufficiently engaging to justify double the Woody. The obvious thing to do there, particularly since they’re feuding twins, would be to engineer a startling third act identity swap, but alas Ed Solomon, who gets the sole screenplay credit this time and, it should be remembered, was one half of the team that gave us Bill and Ted, appears to have nothing up his sleeve (apologies for the magic metaphors). Together, their pranks, repartee and distraction tactics are desperately irritating rather than witty or clever.


However, this actually does come in marginally above the first picture for withholding the risible magic shows until the end. Most of the proceedings find the team requisitioned, Terry Benedict in Ocean’s 12-style, to engage in a spot of thievery that would be a lot more interesting than it is if it were an entirely different movie with an entirely different plot. Sir Michael Caine is back and still a villain (maybe he’ll be retconned for the third outing), and you wonder just how many pay cheques the mid-octogenarian needs to pick up any more. Still, if he gets a kick out of this kind of thing, more power to him. The singular interesting aspect of his presence is that said mere presence shows up how wooden poor Daniel Radcliffe is as his son. Enthusiastic, but wooden.


In a movie revolving around the mastery of stage magic, the magicians really need to dazzle; you want their trickery to provoke genuine puzzlement and genuine awe when the reveal comes. You don’t want CGI playing cards flying around a room, no matter how competent director John M Chu’s choreography is, and you don’t want Eisenberg making it CGI rain and stop in mid-CGI-air. There’s an attempt at a Mission: Impossible-style (the TV version) fake out for the final villain-snagging ruse, but it’s so obvious in build-up, it falls entirely flat. As for Brian Tyler’s score, it’s as obnoxiously pleased with itself as the fake magicians its supporting.


One has to assume the picture’s shameless appeal to Chinese audiences, by featuring a significant portion of the picture in Macau, boosted Now You See Me 2’s box office (almost a third of its total tally came from the country), guaranteeing that, while it plunged elsewhere, there will be a Now You See Me 3. I’ll definitely remind myself not to bother with that one.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.