Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueProfessional skeptic Margaret Matheson and her assistant, Tom Buckley, set out to prove that famous psychic Simon Silver, who has re-emerged after years of seclusion since the mysterious dea... Tout lireProfessional skeptic Margaret Matheson and her assistant, Tom Buckley, set out to prove that famous psychic Simon Silver, who has re-emerged after years of seclusion since the mysterious death of his toughest critic, is a fraud.Professional skeptic Margaret Matheson and her assistant, Tom Buckley, set out to prove that famous psychic Simon Silver, who has re-emerged after years of seclusion since the mysterious death of his toughest critic, is a fraud.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 nominations au total
Avis à la une
"Red Lights" could have been a good movie with an intriguing premise. Unfortunately the plot is destroyed by the awful rushed conclusion, leaving many open questions behind. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Poder Paranormal" ("Paranormal Power")
The director keeps it close and walks a fine line, with a really great cast to support the theme and the story. You might not be pleased by how this movie resolves the issue at hand, but can't deny that the story has quite a lot of appeal. I did like the movie, even though I can see why some people were not that invested in it. The beginning is really great (especially if you haven't read anything about the story).
That little sink example is the perfect illustration of how this movie, which initially began so well I spent the first hour whispering to myself, "how did I never hear of this awesome movie before?" falls apart in the last 30 minutes and becomes almost a parody of every cheesy action flick you've ever forgotten. "Red Lights" begins with one of the most suspenseful 'gotcha' scenes in movie history--simply because it's the *opposite* of every thriller cliché you'd never expect it. Immediately the film establishes itself as the true skeptic's thriller: a movie that'll scare the crap out of people who don't scare easily because they don't fall for ghosts and demons and spooky gags. This film sucks us into the intrigue NOT on the promise of supernatural gimmicks but on the opposite: a cryptic, real-world secret that explains all the fake supernatural stuff.
Finally, I thought! A movie that can carry the suspense with pure, scientific reality. Almost like Mythbusters but with a dead person or two. Like a good political thriller ("Manchurian Candidate", "The Spy Who Came In from the Cold"), the film is tense and riveting even though there aren't any shootouts or car chases or space robots. But, oh dear lord, all of that gets flushed in a supremely preposterous climax that left me wondering if the real director died during filming and was replaced by JJ Abrams.
Nobody is more disappointed than I am, because I really thought this would become one of my top 10 thrillers. Great acting, excellent mood cinematography and a wonderfully original story had the deck stacked in its favor. I'm still in shock that it turned so sour, most probably for the sake of dazzling the less attentive audience members who demand gratuitous fight scenes and pyrotechnics (literal pyrotechnics lol) to give us a wow bang finish.
Sigourney Weaver and Cillian (pronounced 'Kill-ian') Murphy play Doctors Matheson and Buckley. They're a psychologist and physicist who investigate psychic claims. Invariably they come away from each case laughing. Every one is explained scientifically; rationally. They're exposed as magic tricks.
Recent roles haven't reflected why Weaver, who is nearly 65, has been so prolific of late, but here she excels. Her character is meant to be an expert and, because of the plausibility she exudes, that's exactly how I viewed her. Writer-director Rodrigo Cortes' ('Buried') excellent script assists her characterisation. Intellectual, detailed, life-like: you could be mistaken, at moments, for watching a TV show debate. Murphy gets similar credit. He invests in his role a seriousness which might have been silly if he did so in isolation.
The doctors find their match in Simon Silver (Robert De Niro), a famous psychic who comes out of retirement for one last pay check. He's the only one Weaver won't investigate because 'he's the only one who makes her doubt'. Murphy insists, however, but when he does, he – we – uncover more than we were expecting.
Like you (I hope), I'm convinced that psychic ability is balderdash. So I was more than impressed at how Cortes creates a mood and a tempo that keeps you guessing until the dramatic end. His film is original, suspenseful and, most importantly for a film with this premise, credible.
But then there's De Niro, my favourite actor. Always has been. Always will be. But my God has he been making it hard for me these past 20 years. He once said that he was an actor, not a personality. I think it's time for him to update his personal quote book. Why do I say this? Because (and I deeply regret admitting this) he's the single biggest reason why 'Red Lights', regardless of Weaver's and Murphy's endeavours and the superb final twist, will join his expanding cannon of fodder.
www.moseleyb13.com
In regards to my experience with Spanish and Mexican filmmaking (I bunch them because they seem to have similar artistic tropes) Red Lights possesses much of the same details. Moody lighting, technically sound editing and generally brisk pacing. We get this during the first 2/3 of the film, and then things kind of fall off the track. Cillian Murphy's character is becoming unhinged and possibly the more frenetic pace and editing is meant to match that. Either way it wasn't necessary. Murphy has enough range and chops to bring that energy to the screen.
What I especially loved was Robert De Niro's performance. Hammy, over the top when it needs to be, nuanced and bizarre when the story calls for it. I especially enjoyed the aspects of how Sigourney Weaver and Murphy hunt down and debunk the fake mediums and psychics. It's clear the director has some experience or did massive research on the subject. I appreciate this because we were definitely brought into the world of the skeptics and the believers.
There is really only a couple things I disliked. The music was basic at best, sometimes coming in too hard and melodic. I especially did not like the score for the final scene, which is really the only part of the movie I take issue with. In a perfect world, the score and the Coda would have been removed, and instead the final scene could have played out like The Usual Suspects. Either way, we got the ending we got. I think many people would hold it in higher regard if it wasn't spelled out the way it was. Maybe we will get a directors cut (unless the choices were what the director wanted of course).
The movie won't wow you but it will bring you in. I enjoyed the premise and while the ending was too spelled out... I had no problem with the final resolution.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe videos of the parapsychological experiments done with Silver at the university mimic those done in real life with Uri Geller at the Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s. These experiments are discussed at length and clips of the actual video are shown in the James Randi documentary, An Honest Liar (2014).
- GaffesTwo times in the movie a traditional camera that uses film is referred to as "analogical." Although analogical is a word, it's not correct in this usage. The word that should have been used is "analog" (or alternate spelling, "analogue")
- Citations
[last lines]
Tom Buckley: You can't deny yourself forever.
- Crédits fousAt the end of the ending credits, the film's title flickers in a similar manner to the way light bulbs behave in the presence of psychic activity throughout the film.
- ConnexionsFeatured in CineMaverick TV: Épisode #1.2 (2012)
- Bandes originalesIf Not for You
Written by Bob Dylan (Big Sky Music)
Performed by Olivia Newton-John
Courtesy of Sony/ATV Music Publishing Spain LLC and ONJ Productions, Inc.
By arrangement with PEN Music Group, Inc.
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Red Lights?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Poderes ocultos
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 14 000 000 € (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 52 624 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 10 340 $US
- 15 juil. 2012
- Montant brut mondial
- 14 107 313 $US
- Durée1 heure 54 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1