Now You See Me Jun 02, 2013

2 stars / 4 stars
Rated PG
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Melanie Laurent, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Isla Fischer, Micheal Caine, and Morgan Freeman
Still Playing

My grandfather died of cancer several years ago. I loved him - he was my role model growing up. He was also, and still is, the only member of my family who ever worked in Entertainment. I thought he was the coolest guy ever - because for more than sixty years, he worked as a magician.

I've always loved magic, and I've always loved movies. So when I saw the trailer for "Now You See Me", I instantly got very excited. After seeing the movie, I have to say I enjoyed it. But not because it was a good movie - because I love magic, and seeing Jesse Eisenberg as the only character he ever plays. I liked the movie for it's flashy spectacle, acting, and smarts. But it's not enough to justify the lack of classic movie magic.

A quartet of master magicians - who call themselves "The Four Horsemen" (Eisenberg, Harrelson, Fischer and Franco) - stage an elaborate show in Las Vegas where the final trick involves them stealing $3.2 million euros and showering their audience with money. Immeadiately intrigued, FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is assigned to work with an Interpol agent from France (Melanie Laurent) to figure up what these illusionists are up to, why they're doing it, and what's coming next. The only challenge is - the more Rhodes thinks he can see, the easier they can be fooled.

The major problem with the movie is that a lot of the film is clearly an illusion - so at the end of the movie, nobody really cares. The actors have gripping portrayals of these characters in the cat-and-mouse-and-cheese game, but we are never invested into who they are or why they matter. The movie instead focuses on the magic tricks and chase scenes - and while they look spectacular - they look more like skits of each character's incomplete story.

As for the "dazzle" effect of the movie, the reason people don't care about the magic is because it's IN A MOVIE. Because the tricks are on a screen, we know it's all CGI and camera work, so we don't believe it's real. Because the audience in the theatre can't suspend their disbelief, nobody cares what's going on, and the magic is literally gone.

As a whole, the movie is all smoke and mirrors. The try to cover everything up, and the movie has a really awful twist at the end. I enjoyed the movie because I love magic and much of the cast. But I enjoyed it for my stupidity - you won't enjoy it because you won't be interested by the action. There's no illusion at play in "Now You See Me" - because after reading this, now you won't.

By: Tyler Collins

Add a comment

Email again:


Eugene Fitzerherbegersly _ Good show, I really enjoyed this article, I can really understand and relate to what you're saying, as I am a fellow movie and magic lover myself. However I must get my word in about one thing...Why in the name of the Lord Almighty are your ratings out of 4 stars? What credible review gives a movie some number out of 4? The only scored I would see being effective are reviews out of 5 and reviews out of 10...but if your into picking odd non-sensicle numbers that go against the norm, why not make your review out of 347 next time? Well done on the article though, well enjoyed and keep it up!   Jun 05, 2013
Tyler Collins _ Hi Eugene! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the review. As for rating out of four stars, many critics in the world of professional entertainment rate films, television, and theatre out of four. If you read the Toronto Star, you'll see that both Peter Howell and Richard Ouzanian use a four star rating. In the early days of printing in America, it would strain the paper to press a star shape on the page, even tearing paper, and heavily increasing production costs. This is why Hollywood began a four star system, going from 0 to 4 in half star increments - much easier to read and publish in the early days of cinema. Most critics still hold on to this tradition today. Even the late Roger Ebert used this system for almost fifty years. So four may be strange at first, but it's worked out for over a century for some of the greatest entertainment journalists in history - I see no reason to change it.   Jun 06, 2013
Tyler Collins _ PS - While it goes against my style of critique and writing (not to mention the consistency in my reviews), if I had to give a more specific rating for this movie, it would be about a 186 / 347 stars. But the scale seems a bit much to me.   Jun 06, 2013
Damarcus Fontaine Williams _ Hello Tyler,
I am a member of the Church of Scientology and after reading your many articles within this school newspaper, I have come to believe that you would be an ideal candidate to join our noble cause. Your many newspaper articles have indicated that you are quite adept in the fields of critical thinking and analytically observation. These qualities will make you perfect for spiritual rehabilitation. With enough spiritual training you will eventually be able to progress from your stage of pre-clarity to a fully operating thetan. I hope to be able to work with you in the future

-Operating Thetan and Member of Recruitment for the Church of Scietology
  Jun 06, 2013
Damarcus Fontaine Williams _ My humble apologies, it appears I have made some grammatical errors as I was self-auditing as I was writing to you, analytically should be analytical and it appears I misspelled my name at the bottom. Unfortunately this is the result of rigorous self-auditing, although it provides you with spiritual clarity and keenness of mind in the long run, the grueling process often results in a temporary dullness of mind due to the recollection of past traumatic events.   Jun 06, 2013