A psicóloga Margaret Matheson e seu assistente estudam a atividade paranormal, o que os leva a investigar um psíquico de renome mundial que ressurgiu anos após seu mais duro crítico ter morr... Ler tudoA psicóloga Margaret Matheson e seu assistente estudam a atividade paranormal, o que os leva a investigar um psíquico de renome mundial que ressurgiu anos após seu mais duro crítico ter morrido misteriosamente.A psicóloga Margaret Matheson e seu assistente estudam a atividade paranormal, o que os leva a investigar um psíquico de renome mundial que ressurgiu anos após seu mais duro crítico ter morrido misteriosamente.
- Prêmios
- 2 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
Dr. Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and her assistant, Dr. Thomas Buckley (Cillian Murphy), are university professors who debunk psychics, mystics, healers, and other similar snake charmers. They have never met a fraud they couldn't uncover, until Simon Silver (Robert De Niro).
Simon Silver had been around for ages doing his schtick. Margaret went up against him years ago and lost. He stopped performing for a long time after an opponent of his died of a heart attack during one of his shows. For some unknown reason he is seeking to make a comeback and Tom Buckley wants to take him down. Even though Tom is hankering to expose Simon, Margaret is not sold on the idea, in fact she's opposed to it, but Tom will not be denied.
When Tom starts the process of trying to figure out Simon's tricks many weird things begin to happen. Is Simon doing all of this? Is he really as powerful as he claims?
"Red Lights" is atmospheric and well paced with good dialog. I like the plot idea: using science and instrumentation to expose fraudulent psychics and mentalists. My sentiments are always with the most sincere and the least arrogant, yet I'm always looking out to see if I'm being swindled by the movie itself. "Red Lights" keeps everything fairly straightforward without too many plot tricks. This was a good movie and a good quality production overall.
Free on IMDb TV.
Simon Silver had been around for ages doing his schtick. Margaret went up against him years ago and lost. He stopped performing for a long time after an opponent of his died of a heart attack during one of his shows. For some unknown reason he is seeking to make a comeback and Tom Buckley wants to take him down. Even though Tom is hankering to expose Simon, Margaret is not sold on the idea, in fact she's opposed to it, but Tom will not be denied.
When Tom starts the process of trying to figure out Simon's tricks many weird things begin to happen. Is Simon doing all of this? Is he really as powerful as he claims?
"Red Lights" is atmospheric and well paced with good dialog. I like the plot idea: using science and instrumentation to expose fraudulent psychics and mentalists. My sentiments are always with the most sincere and the least arrogant, yet I'm always looking out to see if I'm being swindled by the movie itself. "Red Lights" keeps everything fairly straightforward without too many plot tricks. This was a good movie and a good quality production overall.
Free on IMDb TV.
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.
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).
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).
The skeptical psychologist Dr. Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and her assistant, the physician Tom Buckley (Cillian Murphy), are specialists in disclosing fraudulent paranormal phenomena. When the famous psychic Simon Silver (Robert De Niro) reappears to his public after many years of absence, Tom becomes obsessed to investigate whether Silver is a fraud or not.
"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")
"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")
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe 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).
- Erros de gravaçãoTwo 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")
- Citações
[last lines]
Tom Buckley: You can't deny yourself forever.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosAt 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.
- ConexõesFeatured in CineMaverick TV: Episode #1.2 (2012)
- Trilhas sonorasIf 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.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Red Lights?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Poderes Ocultos
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- € 14.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 52.624
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 10.340
- 15 de jul. de 2012
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 14.107.313
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 54 min(114 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente