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

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

posted 12 years ago by dankoni
128 replies | jump to latest

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?!?

[–] fiszyi 12 years ago

It was a pretty bad film. Without the budget, the big names, and the Hollywood aesthetics, it would be seen in much lower esteem than it already is. However, worst film you've ever seen? Seems to be stretching it.

As for point 7: Yes, it was pointlessly obvious for the whole film. Not to mention it wasn't even proven or elaborated on AT ALL. Just a throwaway "omg he can see" line with no backing at all. Most of his psychic tricks did not even involve sight at all, so what was the point? And why didn't the scientists conducting this super-tight experiment even check if he was blind? And even if he wasn't blind, how does that explain at all how he "passed" the psychic exam and the two examiners who were very acutely looking for signs of fraud were unable to find any other evidence other than some silly watch tricks?

The film was intensely stupid, badly made, and insulting to its audience. Behind all the Hollywood glamour and the worst ever jumpscares in cinema history is a film lacking in any of the required substance to amount to a half-decent flick.

[–] winzentween 12 years ago

obviously u have not seen many movies but it is terrible lol truly shocking they all signed on and that it was made in the first place :/

[–] winzentween 12 years ago

wow for someone who doesnt care u sure nailed it buddy and clearly put waaaaay too much time into this but i know where u r coming from as i just watched it and it literally incensed me with its stupidity to the point that i come on these boards and moan and read about what others think and if they liked it...i call them dumb as any obscure random self respecting film critic wannabe would do!
the only thing u should have expanded on was the other twist..there was two though being blind wasnt really a twist if u have a brain bigger than a pea and can actually use it. the other one was MAJOR SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that other guy who did stuff was something other than he pretended to be and stuff!!!!!!!!MAJOR SPOILER PASSED please resume your day...in relative safety unless u saw this film as u r now brain damaged and should consult your GP.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Statistician 12 years ago

Although it is pretty bad, it could always be worse. You obviously haven't seen a movie with Andie McDowell in it yet.

[–] pmat257329 12 years ago

If you honestly believe that this film is 'one of the worst films ever made', you're obviously a complete idiot.

And you think the film has plot holes?? Just go ahead and read through your 'dissection' again. Slowly, of course.

[–] Holy-Fire 12 years ago

The OP has to be the biggest spoon I have ever had the pleasure of reading on IMDB. All his major flaws are not really flaws, but merely subjective opinions about the plot and the story. His idea that he told his wife is that of what a child would write. It's nice to see fully-grown adults developing their creativity in later life, right?

I've read a few reviews about people not seeing the point and saying it went nowhere. It wasn't a masterpiece but I'm pretty sure in the end it had some points about identity, truth and all that morality *beep* Both Murphy and De Niro's characters lead double lives as such, one used it to take advantage of vulnerable people and one had conflicts within himself. The latter prevailing through to find himself, the other being unraveled as the fraudster he is.

[–] grimes_derek 12 years ago

wow, i'll have to watch it now and read your comment then to see what got you so worked that you felt you should write such a looooong warning against viewing.. ;-)

[–] pendergast7 12 years ago

thedonsdank,

You need to go and work for Romney's campaign, or Obama's, or somebody's, because your skill at finding and detailing flaws, fails, and things that don't make sense is more powerful than DeNiro in this film. Great job posting things I noticed but didn't clearly label in my mind.

This movie (and I liked parts of it) should cut the Amazing Randi a check because a lot of it is based on his life. Like the school scene where Cillian's character has students getting the same horoscope. Randi did that, on film. And Randi's version was WAY more powerful. And it was Randi who exposed Peter Popoff and his wife as using a secret ear phone to speak to each other. In fact, the movie basically lifted exact lines from the real life incident.

One big OH COME ON moment was when DeNiro did the surgery on the person on stage. If this was some third world country I could see people being amazed but anyone with daytime TV or the internet knows that such surgery is a scam.

I also HATED how it seemed that people were afraid of DeNiro. In reality, it is the con men who have to hide in shadows and the Amazing Randi even publicly offers a million dollars to anyone who can prove their psychic gifts, and no one has won it. I know this was a fiction movie but ANY investigator or debunker knows that such cons harvest info and it would be easy to find out she had a son and that he was sick. So, when she said words to the effect that it made her doubt because he knew of her son it just seemed a tad bit too satisfied that I would be impressed with that, or accept it. Just typing in someones name on a FIND ME website will often show up siblings and where they live. And that is for free! Imagine what a PI can find. So, when she seemed floored by DeNiro's words about seeing a boy beside her, I was not impressed.