popvoid

I'd probably give this a higher review- six or maybe a seven-if not for one thing: ALL the ten stars reviews here are by people who have never written a review on IMDb before. This often means that someone had people log on and write ten star reviews to boost the film's rating and credibility. There are two reviews that don't fit this description, the authors of which gave the film an eight and a nine respectively. These are worth reading. Another person gave it four stars. I do think it deserves better than that, but at least I know this opinion came from someone not associated with the film. [BTW, I'd issue the same warning about films that receive a lot of one star reviews from people who haven't reviewed anything else. This can often be enemy action.] As for my own opinion, I think the film has some very good aspects. It's always fun to watch magicians at work, and some of the history is interesting. But the film's main claim is based on too much supposition to be of any value in academic history circles. Correlation does not imply causation, as the saying goes. The film is well put together and not a total waste of time, but take everything it says with a grain of salt.

I must admit, when I started watching this movie, I wasn't fully on board, but I found the movie grew on me as I watched it. It's not a great movie, by any means, but there were enough original ideas here to keep me watching. It's visually interesting, although we've seen most of these things before in the films Jan Svankmajer, Phil Tippett, and the Quay Brothers. The use of out-of-date film gives it a lomography look, which I like, but I can see where it might irritate some. As to the version of "Without You" that's sung in this film, it sounds like it was based on Harry Nilsson's version, not Mariah Carey's (or the original by Badfinger). Far less Melisma and the vocal fry.

Just a note on one of the other reviews here which claims that favorable reviews are all done by people who did not review any other movies. My research indicates this not to be the case. Of the 10 star reviews here, only two are by people who reviewed no other movies (although I do agree with that reviewer that you should treat 10 star reviews by people who haven't reviewed anything else with suspicion). This is clearly a divisive movie, but if you can tap into it's aesthetic, it can be a rewarding experience.

It looks like this one got a lot of bad reviews. One person accused all the people that gave it ten stars of working on the movie. Some certainly were but not all. You can always check this by seeing how many other movies that person reviewed. It the movie in question is the only one they reviewed, you know they're a plant. If they've reviewed a few movies, then it just means their opinions are different from your (I did find one ten star reviewer who appears to be legit). One reviewer headlined their review "CGI lacking," which I assume means they didn't like the fact that the movie used a real shark. The only CGI shark I saw was in the poster and that scene isn't in the movie. Too bad, the poster makes it look far more exciting than it is. I've certainly seen far worse, but that doesn't mean I think this movie is worth watching.