Red Lights

When you see the cast list for this film, you have to wonder why it never succeeded. Red Lights is not a perfect film by any stretch, but it is still engrossing and approaches the subject matter with a care and detail you wouldn't expect.

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.

No, the story resolution itself isn't stupid. I'm talking about the ridiculous over-the-top theatrics that turn this otherwise intelligent story into a carnival, heavy on the cotton candy. All subtlety is lost, and we're given a razmatazz final scene that beats the point home harder than getting your head slammed into a ceramic sink so hard that it breaks (the sink). Twice. By the way, that's what happens to a character, and the character still manages to walk away like nothing happened.

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.

Sometimes Questions are answered without the viewer knowing it and others raised without the viewer noticing. This movie is one of those instances that will have you guessing from start to finish. With some nice twists along the way, everything is set up along the way, so if you really think about it, there is no real cheat in it (no pun intended).

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).

Firstly, apologies for the review title. I've seen too many tabloid headlines.

Red Lights was reasonably original, well-written and well-acted. Any movie that can tick these three boxes is worth a look. Although the build up to the introduction of De Niro's character (Simon Silver) represented a slightly excessive portion of the movie it was, nevertheless, interesting. I gather the ending has divided opinion quite a lot, and I admit that it could have been done much better. I've said before when reviewing movies that it's never a good sign when you have to have a character explicitly explain just what has happened in the film. It might have been a better idea to leave it without the explanation and let the audience decide. That might have stoked up debate in a good way and generated some more interest in the film.

Acting-wise i'm sorry to say i'm always skeptical when Robert De Niro appears in a movie nowadays. The man was a terrific actor in his day, but he's been in a lot of recent turkeys. He doesn't have a lot of screen-time here but his performance was fine. If he keeps choosing credible films like this one his reputation will start to repair itself. Sigourney Weaver performs with credit as usual and I always rate Cillian Murphy highly.

Definitely worth going to see this. It's above average, if only slightly.

Psychologist Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and her assistant (Cillian Murphy) study paranormal activity, which leads them to investigate a world-renowned psychic (Robert DeNiro) who has resurfaced years after his toughest critic mysteriously passed away.

I really enjoyed the first half of this film, with the crew debunking psychics and trying to find their methods. Weaver is not my favorite actress, but she does a fine job being the cynic. Cillian Murphy is excellent as always, his eyes sparkling, and I wonder if he has finally broken through to the top of the pile (I feel like he should have done so a decade ago, but I suspect the average person has never heard of him).

The second half is less than spectacular, as we focus on DeNiro's so-called powers. Things blowing up, a man flying... it just seems to get too supernatural, and I do not care for it. The film makes attempts to redeem itself, but I feel like it should have just stayed on the path it set out for itself in the first half...