Most times, a very good film will leave me pondering it well into the next day with key scenes replaying in my mind.
Apparently a certain type of bad film can affect me the same way. 12 hours and a full night's sleep after the closing strains of "HOW DID YOU DO THAT!!??," (side note: please stick a fork in De Niro) I find myself reeling and puzzled to the point of signing up to write my first ever film review for "Red Lights."
"How did you do that?" is the question on my mind for several people (both those involved in the movie and those who have watched it and enjoyed it); perhaps even more for the film itself... How did the screenplay make it through the entire process? How did this film earn such a high rating on IMDb? How has this film captured my attention so strongly without being enjoyable?
The film has a strong start and an interesting premise but the screenplay may well be a product of that game where everybody adds a sentence to a story. It progressively becomes sillier and more incongruent, ignorant to its own content, trying to outwit me without being clever. The story is full of unnecessary, tangential, malformed bits of plot that treat the viewer like an idiot to the point of annoyance.
Even if I were to accept that spoonbenders can have the same celebrity status as Michael Jackson, and that some university funds two departments dedicated to the paranormal; one to prove and one to debunk, and that there could be some hyperagressive skeptics who are as bent out of shape as that table of spoons in the lab, and that a "plant" can be part of a "controlled study" even with a hack scientist, and that sinks and toilet bowls break like glass, that faith healing is illegal if proved to be fake, and that one scientist signing one study has the gravity of the President signing a piece of legislation...
Even if I accept all that and dozens of other things both impossible and implausible within the world presented in this film, I am made to feel like someone doesn't think I'm paying attention, or worse yet, that I keep leaving the room and walking back and asking someone what just happened, because the characters act like an irritating friend that is constantly explaining what just happened. This is especially annoying when any half intelligent person should be two steps ahead throughout the entire film... "He's not really blind," "Throw something at him to prove he isn't blind," "I bet the watch has something to do with the test results," etc.
In fact, the entire end of the movie is an explanation of the movie that nobody needed. Why can't we take "How did you do that?" and move on? Murphy's character could have been killed by falling debris in the arena full of tens of thousands of spoonbender fans (none who bothered to run when the place was collapsing), therefore unable to deliver his final monologue, and the film would have been just as effective at bringing closure... to the A plot that is. I still don't know why we needed the automatic painting scene, or why Murphy's and Olsen's characters live in the lab, or why they had romantic ties at all, or who killed Matheson, or what the point of the comatose son is. Perhaps the comatose son can return in a sequel for an epic psychic battle against Buckley (who, being responsible for "everything," must have killed Matheson; motive for revenge). I would recommend a montage where the Junior Matheson is trained by Silver and has some kind of astral projection superpower learned while in coma. De Niro will likely be available again.
As for Silver's dialogue... I wish DeNiro's character had been written as a real mute instead of a fake blind man.
I could write an entire volume on the story's logical, narrative, and technical flaws and have just started doing so, against my own wishes (perhaps next my phone will ring with nobody on the other end and a random tough is awaiting me in the bathroom). It has them all in spades.
To the point of my summary, it's not one of those films that's so-bad- it's-good/funny. If there were a spoonbending superstar genre of film outside of this, the Wayans brothers could have made very minor tweaks to this script and had a film of their own. But it's the durgey score, serious tone of the actors, and "what's-around-the-corner?" cinematography that make this thing seem pretentious and trite. The fact that this movie seems to be either hated or kind-of-liked raises an interesting question in my mind about what makes people enjoy a movie. Is it possible that the score, tone, seriousness, and camera-work, along with a "twist" of an ending are enough for some? I mean no offense to those that like this movie, but it could have a lot to say about film as genre and how it's received.
If this film has done anything, it's left me feeling unnecessarily enraged and wrapped up with trivial nonsense, when I should just click 1 Star, say I don't subscribe to it, and let everyone else enjoy it as they will. In this, I relate strongly to the movie's protagonist. This is quite an impressive trick, and enough to earn the film an extra star in my review.
If you want to see a film that touches on similar subject matter and premise but doesn't employ armies of scientists, pointless rage, and public fueds between believers and nonbelievers, watch "The Skeptic." That film exists in a (more) normal world, and is driven by good characters and a tight story, not sensationalism and Shyamalanian diversions.
Apparently a certain type of bad film can affect me the same way. 12 hours and a full night's sleep after the closing strains of "HOW DID YOU DO THAT!!??," (side note: please stick a fork in De Niro) I find myself reeling and puzzled to the point of signing up to write my first ever film review for "Red Lights."
"How did you do that?" is the question on my mind for several people (both those involved in the movie and those who have watched it and enjoyed it); perhaps even more for the film itself... How did the screenplay make it through the entire process? How did this film earn such a high rating on IMDb? How has this film captured my attention so strongly without being enjoyable?
The film has a strong start and an interesting premise but the screenplay may well be a product of that game where everybody adds a sentence to a story. It progressively becomes sillier and more incongruent, ignorant to its own content, trying to outwit me without being clever. The story is full of unnecessary, tangential, malformed bits of plot that treat the viewer like an idiot to the point of annoyance.
Even if I were to accept that spoonbenders can have the same celebrity status as Michael Jackson, and that some university funds two departments dedicated to the paranormal; one to prove and one to debunk, and that there could be some hyperagressive skeptics who are as bent out of shape as that table of spoons in the lab, and that a "plant" can be part of a "controlled study" even with a hack scientist, and that sinks and toilet bowls break like glass, that faith healing is illegal if proved to be fake, and that one scientist signing one study has the gravity of the President signing a piece of legislation...
Even if I accept all that and dozens of other things both impossible and implausible within the world presented in this film, I am made to feel like someone doesn't think I'm paying attention, or worse yet, that I keep leaving the room and walking back and asking someone what just happened, because the characters act like an irritating friend that is constantly explaining what just happened. This is especially annoying when any half intelligent person should be two steps ahead throughout the entire film... "He's not really blind," "Throw something at him to prove he isn't blind," "I bet the watch has something to do with the test results," etc.
In fact, the entire end of the movie is an explanation of the movie that nobody needed. Why can't we take "How did you do that?" and move on? Murphy's character could have been killed by falling debris in the arena full of tens of thousands of spoonbender fans (none who bothered to run when the place was collapsing), therefore unable to deliver his final monologue, and the film would have been just as effective at bringing closure... to the A plot that is. I still don't know why we needed the automatic painting scene, or why Murphy's and Olsen's characters live in the lab, or why they had romantic ties at all, or who killed Matheson, or what the point of the comatose son is. Perhaps the comatose son can return in a sequel for an epic psychic battle against Buckley (who, being responsible for "everything," must have killed Matheson; motive for revenge). I would recommend a montage where the Junior Matheson is trained by Silver and has some kind of astral projection superpower learned while in coma. De Niro will likely be available again.
As for Silver's dialogue... I wish DeNiro's character had been written as a real mute instead of a fake blind man.
I could write an entire volume on the story's logical, narrative, and technical flaws and have just started doing so, against my own wishes (perhaps next my phone will ring with nobody on the other end and a random tough is awaiting me in the bathroom). It has them all in spades.
To the point of my summary, it's not one of those films that's so-bad- it's-good/funny. If there were a spoonbending superstar genre of film outside of this, the Wayans brothers could have made very minor tweaks to this script and had a film of their own. But it's the durgey score, serious tone of the actors, and "what's-around-the-corner?" cinematography that make this thing seem pretentious and trite. The fact that this movie seems to be either hated or kind-of-liked raises an interesting question in my mind about what makes people enjoy a movie. Is it possible that the score, tone, seriousness, and camera-work, along with a "twist" of an ending are enough for some? I mean no offense to those that like this movie, but it could have a lot to say about film as genre and how it's received.
If this film has done anything, it's left me feeling unnecessarily enraged and wrapped up with trivial nonsense, when I should just click 1 Star, say I don't subscribe to it, and let everyone else enjoy it as they will. In this, I relate strongly to the movie's protagonist. This is quite an impressive trick, and enough to earn the film an extra star in my review.
If you want to see a film that touches on similar subject matter and premise but doesn't employ armies of scientists, pointless rage, and public fueds between believers and nonbelievers, watch "The Skeptic." That film exists in a (more) normal world, and is driven by good characters and a tight story, not sensationalism and Shyamalanian diversions.