MovieChat Forums > Red Lights (2012) Discussion > One of the worst 'films' I've ever seen

One of the worst 'films' I've ever seen


I honestly don't how, or why, this "film" made it beyond a random thought in some idiot's drug addled brain. The entire concept is flawed. I read in another post that the director did a great deal of research because he wanted the film to be "believable?" Are you kidding? This is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen... and that's including what plays behind the hilarious characters of MST3K. The only reason to sit through this train wreck is if you are really stoned and want something to dissect and laugh at.

At one point about halfway into the film, I commented to my wife, "Maybe De Niro is just a regular, old, blind guy and all of this is in his head. A sort of fantasy he made up to entertain himself as he trudges through the daily routine." It was supposed to be a joke, but a testament to the awful reality of the script was my wife's response: "That would actually be a better idea for a movie!"

Honestly, we only finished watching for two reasons: 1) We were having a great time making fun of it. 2) We wanted to see what laughable "twist" was coming at the end. The twist did not disappoint. **SPOILERS** De Niro wasn't really blind. OOOHHHHHHH!!! Couldn't see that one coming ten thousand miles away. The second twist? I'll let you find out, but it's just silly and certainly not worth sitting through the film, if that's the only reason you're still watching after the first 20 minutes.

Now this section will contain many SPOILERS, as I want to respond to some of the more ridiculous plot points:

1. Is this supposed to be some alternate reality, as other reviewers have stated, where any of the subject matter of this script actually matters... to anyone? If so, they did not do a good job of establishing this fact. The movie makes it seem as though psychic frauds are PLAGUING the world and must be fought with the fervor of the war on terror, or the drug war. Which, incidentally I do not agree with, but at least those would make sense for a movie plot.

2. De Niro is supposed to be some master villain, hellbent on destroying people's lives, but they never really cover any terrible act he's committing. Ohhhh... he's a fraud who fleeces people for money... AND?! Who gives a *beep* Am I supposed to care that much about idiots giving their money to a conman? He's no worse than a televangelist. Did they show him raping women and children? Was he shown stealing money from thousands of sick and poor people? No. So who cares what some hack psychic does with his time?

3. The scene where they bust the fraudulent faith healer is hilarious. First, Sigourney and Cillian are using some high-tech spy gear to bust the guy, and for some reason the police are with them. OK. When the bust occurs, the director makes a half-assed attempt to make it look like the whole production is being run by biker meth dealing types? I assume that's what he was going for. The bust concludes with the cops hauling the faith healer off to prison... for... I'm not sure. In this world, I guess being a faith healer is some major crime that gets you locked away for life? I doubt they even broke any laws, scummy as the characters might be.

4. Sigourney Weaver's death. WTF? Did those people on the talk show kill her? Cillian just finds her dead after the talk show got out of hand. And why are they portraying the talk show appearance as though it would matter at all? In most believable worlds, Sigourney's appearance would be little more than an episode of some daytime talk show, or a blurb in a TLC programs on debunking paranormal claims. Yet, Cillian is watching this event unfold on his television screen as though he's watching a State of the Union address, or some debate that has ANY consequences to important matters. Again... who cares? Cillian's character, I guess. The audience sure wasn't lead to a place of caring by this point in the script.

5. Near the end of the film, the "scientist" who ran the experiment on De Niro is about to publish his findings that the demonstrated psychic phenomena was real. This is supposed to be a HUGE deal for some reason, that ONE scientist at ONE university published a study. This also goes against the point other reviewers posted that this script takes place in a universe where everyone is interested in the paranormal and the public widely believes in paranormal abilities. If that is the case, then why would this study be a big deal? I think this point shows that the writer/director wanted this script to take place in the real world, which is absolute insanity. Anyway... back to the topic. This scene is ridiculous! Scientist publish controversial findings all the time. The movie acts as though the second this study is signed and published, the world as we know it will come to an end. Up will become down. Black will become white. Yadda yadda. Who... gives... a... *beep* Studies like this one HAVE been published in the real world and no one cared. So... why would anyone care about a fictionalization of a common occurrence? It's all just so terrible.

6. Sigourney make a comment at one point about how the department trying to prove psychic phenomena exists has double the funding of her "debunking" department and how they are "over subsidized." So, one weird and inconsequential department at one random university has more funding than the other weird and inconsequential department. Who cares? The writer acts as though there is one university on the planet and one scientist's findings have some massive effect on the human population. And oh yea, the government is funding entire departments to prove psychic's are real. The funny thing is, the US government actually does spend a good deal of money studying these topics and experimenting with remote viewing, mind control, etc. AND IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER!

7. De Niro not actually being blind is a poor attempt at a twist. First, it's pretty hacky and easy to see coming. But, more importantly, De Niro being blind in the first place had no real effect on the story, so who gives a *beep* if he was faking? Nice "twist" that didn't matter at all.

The entire script just seems like a debunker's wet dream. A world where people care about this topic with a passion and the entire world is out to get the debunker for being right in the face of wrong. Seriously... no one cares and this film sure as hell doesn't do anything to change that fact. I don't know why any of the actor's took this job. Come on, De Niro. I know you take a lot of *beep* roles now, but really? This piece of crap? Did you even know what movie you were in? Sigourney does an OK job acting, but she should really stick to comedic roles nowadays (Baby Mama, Paul, Cedar Rapids, etc), unless a very good script comes her way. She sure as hell couldn't carry this film, but I doubt anyone could. And Cillian. What are you doing to your career? I've liked you in many roles, but why on Earth did you take this job?

TL;DR:
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Up there with Bongwater and equally fun to dissect and make fun of while high. So many plot holes, you might trip over one, set in a silly world that isn't very believable, stupid and inconsequential twists that can be seen coming a mile away... but those are not the worst aspects of this film. The worst thing about the film is that the basic idea is just flawed. A lot of movies fail to execute a good idea. That is not the case with Red Lights. This movie does the best job it possibly can executing a terrible idea for a script... and that is just sad. As with softcore "skinamax" flicks I'll see randomly on the guide at 2AM, this movie left me feeling: Who the hell pays for this *beep* to get made and why did anyone think it was a good idea in the first place?!?

reply


Are you questioning Robert De Niro's power?

reply

lol. I would pay to read that sentence over paying to watch this "film"

reply


I agree brother, you make some good points and quite honestly, I would probably have posted something derogatory or troll like, like "Shhhh now!"

But I think your rant is totally justified.

If a DVD weren't as flat and as hard as it is, I'd wipe my posterior with it.

reply

Okay.

And one more thing..
The thing I hate more than anything
on imdb is reading everyone's signature.

reply

I dunno. You didn't use enough single 'quotes' to 'convince' me your 'review' of the film was 'credible'.

SPOILER: I haven't 'seen' the film. All I know is I never 'heard' of it until recently, so, with all those 'stars' in the cast, I have to 'assume' it wasn't very 'good'.

reply

Some funny *beep* lol

reply

I noticed that you have 'film' in quotes like I just wrote it here. Are you suggesting that it wasn't recorded on film?

reply


I think he is suggesting that Thoughtography doesn't work with digital cameras.

reply

Nice. I think anyone with a brain knows why I put the word "film" in quotes.

reply

Did you put it in quotes because Robert De Niro, Cums with the wind and "goes" with the wind?

reply

Am I missing something with that pun? That's the second time you've used it just today!

reply

I'd have to strongly recommend against questioning any of deniros powers

reply

Because you think you're some kind of arbiter as to what constitutes a film.
I imagine that means you're about 15 years old.
Not to your taste? Not a film then!
How child-like.
And kiddo, there are many, many 'worst films ever'. It's a brainless and self-centered concept.
Not your taste, fine, You listed your reason - great!
But it's a film, and it's not the worst film ever.

reply


Yawn!

reply

Gosh OP how about condensing it into a few lines or paragraphs, not this novel you wrote.
It was not a great film at all I agree.

And the reason is, the writing. The acting was ok, maybe the editing was crummy as well.
I wonder if they beat up Tom Buckley to keep him from exposing Simon Silver as aphoney or to keep a true psychic from being revealed.

reply

So, you're illiterate, can't read more than a few lines at a time, and need everything spoon fed to you?



http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply


well, it might not be the worst film ever, but it fits pretty well into that category.

it is, no question, reasonable regarding this machwerk/sorry effort/elaboration to put the word "film" into quotes.
calling this childish is just as childish.



i kept falling asleep during this "film" (which is quite common with me when watching TV), and i fell asleep during a lot of better movies than this one.

and about the final outcome of this "film" : oh boy - superstition never dies.


----------------------------------------------

but the statement earlier this thread about wiping your posterior with a dvd containing this "film" was real fun to read - a lot more fun than it was watching this "film".

reply

thanks cinesimon. the OP is disturbed or mentally retarded. this film is entertaining. remember that is what movies are... entertainment. its sad this guy spent 30 minutes giving a ridiculous rambling critique of a good movie.

reply

Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. It's not "entertaining" for me to sit through an entire movie going "Wtf?!" It's especially not "entertaining" when you can figure out way ahead of time the so-called twists. The script was just horrible, too.
*shrug*
It's all subjective. Just because one doesn't find this waste of time entertaining, that doesn't mean he or she is "disturbed" or "mentally retarded."
Some people like NASCAR.
Just sayin.

reply

Gainsaying! How child-like.

reply

No, it isn't. ;-)

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

cinesimon: you're the child. He said it was ONE of the worst films he's ever seen.
First of all, how do you know what films he's seen? Sure there are worse films out there, I'm sure you've wasted your life on, but he said THIS one was one of the worst he's ever seen. Second, he didn't say it was not a film. And he didn't say it was the worst film ever. Maybe learn to read more, and judge less...you'll sound more intelligent when you write, like the OP does.

reply

[deleted]

why do you care so much to spend so much time bad mouthing this movie? are you a failed movie maker ? seriously, you need to calm down. its like you have something personal against this movie. did the director bang your wife or something? what a complete doosh

reply

Hey at least he's just bad-mouthing a movie. You are ready to start insulting people and calling them "doosh" just because they express their opinion on IMDB opinion boards. Wow, who's a doosh?

reply

[deleted]

He has "film" in quotes for the same reason that this post card has Doom in quotes.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/109/255673705_3da087c065.jpg

reply

ughhgh so much unnecessary punctuation

reply

He's suggesting that it's such a terrible appalling abomination of disgraceful garbage that it barely deserves the title of 'film'. It's more like a 'sack of sh#t'

reply

Huh, didn't find it that bad.

reply

I liked it..Was it great? No..but I thought in this day of superheros and mindless action and special effects that it was something a little different.
The worst film ever comment (ridiculous) and a post as long as my arm makes me wonder about some people having too much time on their hands.

reply

Even though I agree with the "worst film ever" comment being ridiculous, saying "some people have too much time on their hands" is equally overused.

... I just wasted 10 seconds of my life reading your comment.

reply

Don't worry. You're not that special.

reply

I guess you still managed to miss the point...

reply

It could be a number of things, Sexual frustration, anger, hate etc...And all for nothing. Just a faceless internet forum poster that will not change the history of cinema with his pessimistic post. What a waste of time and energy. If he hates this film so much why does not go out there and prove us all wrong and Direct and write a film :)

reply

You must not watch a lot of films if you consider this one of the worst.

reply

Yes this movie was complete waste of time!

reply

Although I disliked the film as well, there is one flaw in your argument that many people fall to: Saying "who cares"? It's a film. If it wants to take place in a reality where people absolutely care about debunking magicians, then why not? As long as the audience believes what the character believes, that's all that's needed. I never once questioned how incredibly "authentic" the film was because I was invested in the story. As long as that happens, a filmmaker can do anything he wants, if it's either telling a story about a grown man and a boy in an adventure on a flying house with balloons or a story about chess meaning so much to a bunch of students in a poor school.

reply

"One of the worst you have seen"



I guess the other two you have seen were Battlefield Earth and Godzilla





"You`re right, no human being would stack books like this" - Venkman (Ghostbusters)

reply

oh really??? really ? Godzilla was a 100 times better than this crap movie. Everyone knows Godzilla and noone ever forget the Godzilla . Will someone remember this movie after 10 years ? 1 year? month? don't think so

reply

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but to say Godzilla is 100 times better than this is laughable, much like Godzilla.

Red Lights imdb rating 6.3

Godzilla 5.1

Me thinks you are mistaken.


"You`re right, no human being would stack books like this" - Venkman (Ghostbusters)

reply

Yeah, um.s....no.
Red Lights is a masterpiece compared to Godzilla.

reply

Everyone knows Godzilla and noone ever forget the Godzilla .


Who the hell writes this non-word?!?!?


I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

Im gonna spend some time "debunking" this *beep*

1.They never implied that, they went to a couple of houses. Are you retarded?
Do you believe that there's no frauds or conartists around? If so you're delusional. And with that comes people who wants to prove it wrong.
Worst argument ever, just because there are some fraud cases in a movie doesnt mean they're telling the story that the world is overrun by them.
Point 1. A point to make a point, theres no logic behind it just an excuse for you complaining.

2. He set up the murder of several people (Not certain but most likely) if thats a "Lame bad guy" then maybe you should see a shrink.

3. First valid point, good job son!

4."And why are they portraying the talk show appearance as though it would matter at all?" Maybe you dident connect the dots, she made a fuss and they killed her. Is it unrelevant to point out that she made a fuss to begin with, would you rather her being killed for backing off and keeping shut? Would that connect the dots better for you? Because it wouldnt for me.

"or some debate that has ANY consequences to important matters."
If my friend were on television i would watch, no logic in your statement.

5.
"this script takes place in a universe where everyone is interested in the paranormal and the public widely believes in paranormal abilities."

Never says that, besides if you go to a magician show do you believe its magic?
It never states why people are there to watch it, ever thought of entertainment value? Nothing to back you up, yet again point invalid.

6. When they debunk the guy who goes to jail he says "We dont have any money" because the listening device is broken.
"The writer acts as though there is one university on the planet and one scientist's findings have some massive effect on the human population."
So you're saying if there was NO DOUBT about that there's these kinds of powers in the world it wouldnt matter. You dident think this through did you? :/

"The funny thing is, the US government actually does spend a good deal of money studying these topics and experimenting with remote viewing, mind control, etc. AND IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER!" Oh so you're good friends with the goverment now are you? And even if its true there's no way to tell if not to experiment. Does it need to be true to be researched? Well then you're yet again delusional.

7.
"De Niro being blind in the first place had no real effect on the story"
Wrong, he acts blind so he can pretend to see things with his mind, to "feel" peoples presence, him being blind is a big part of his fraud. Wrong yet again.

You had ONE valid point out of 7. Should've just written that. The rest are just points to whine (without reason i might add). You're nothing but an internet troll and i just wrote a wall of text because of that so in that way as a troll you win, but as a movie reviewer, your points are about making points, about filling the box with text.

reply