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?!?

[–] bolaman 12 years ago

I liked the first part of the movie even though I knew the world had its own logic and it wasn't realistic. I thought by the end everything sort of fell apart a bit. Too many ambiguous events and just kind of strange.
I didn't have a problem admitting it was a movie, and that I was going to watch it knowing that I had to follow the movies rules rather than compare it to reality.

To me it was the writing that failed, and not the premise or the general rules or plots of the movie. Most fictional works do this. The movie simplifies reality to fit a narrative. If it was to follow the real world it might be too complex for a movie plot. Also there needed to be a stake at the end, namely the revelation of the scientific findings and its impact. Had it not had an impact, or a very little impact, there would be no tension for the audience. The focus was on the main characters, including DeNiro, and that's why he was portrayed as a very influential figure in the movie. Otherwise, why would the audience care?

That said, I agree with your analysis from your point of view, and it's very stupid in that sense.

[–] glroberts 12 years ago

I usually am skeptical of "worst movie ever" comments, but after watching this last night, I pretty much agree with your points...but the ending...

I get the impression that they made this whole movie up to the last 15 minutes without a clue as to how they were going to end it. I thought the movie was "watchable" despite the plot holes and ridiculousness of so much of it, then Sigourney Weaver dies, which was completely pointless. But as the ending unfolded I was just shaking my head. I can see them agonizing over how to end it, and finally, late one night, "I know, let's just ......" and they did.

It may not be the worst movie I've seen, as I said it was watchable for a while at least, but the quality drops quickly from the middle, and the ending is in serious contention for the worst.

How did they get such a talented cast to do this? Did they trick them into signing without realizing how swiss-cheesy the plot was?

[–] carlphillips408 12 years ago

I am watching this film this very moment.
I like the storyline,it makes a refreshing change from the ghost footage type films that swamp the film market.But it is not a horror film.
The phone ringing,car radio turning on,figure appearing suddenly through car window have all been added (i think) to give the film a "jump" factor in silent moments.
I am not jumping but puzzled as to why they were included in the movie.I am only half way through so maybe all will be revealed at a later date.

[–] carlphillips408 12 years ago

Watched it & got it.The kid had the powers,everything revolved around him.Enjoyable watch the one time.Better than a lot of films around today.If you did not get the ending things can be a bit confusing.It was the kid that bent the spoon when he was thinking of investigating Silver.The things exploding were triggered off by what the kid was thinking about at the time.The lights shaking & the mini earthquake at the end was because the kid was angry i assume.

[–] lupin_is_lupin 12 years ago

Just a thought. Your constant use of "Who cares" defies the concept of watching a film in the first place. Anything can happen in a film and you can choose not to care. The main character can die and you can choose not to care.

So seeing that your most arguments are based on "who cares". Then maybe you don't have a valid point to prove that it is the worst film ever.

This film is just what it is. a 5 or 6 out of 10 film, entertaining if you choose to suspend your belief. If you act all realistic and like a critic and you pick on it you will surely find flaws. Hell I found at least 5 reasons to trash the Dark knight rises and that wouldn't make any one think of it less.

So take a deep breath, and try to care more or don't watch films after all.

[–] miktal-1 12 years ago

entertaining if you choose to suspend your belief.

There is no such thing.

If you HAVE to SyD then the film has failed. It is the film makers job to KEEP you in suspension of disbelief, it`s not something the audience needs to offer it.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] Warrior_Poet 12 years ago

So every film has to accommodate the vast multitude of every individual's belief system? Nonsense. It has to create and present its own belief system, its own set of internally consistent rules. It's not the film's job to coordinate with what you believe. The job of the filmmaker is to make sure the world within the film is internally consistent. But it doesn't have to be, and usually isn't, 100% congruous with our reality outside the film (I would estimate that most films fall into the 95% to 98% range). Actual external reality only exists as a framework, not a concrete guideline. Movies are allowed to exist with their own rules, their own reality. Although I personally wouldn't phrase this as "suspension of disbelief", I think that's what Lupin_Is_Lupin was trying to say.

All movies have a certain degree of fantasy to them, even those more squarely grounded or more congruent with actual reality. It is indeed the viewer's job to accept the reality the film presents, regardless of how in conflict it may be with our real, outside world. Movies are fables; they're like dreams. They don't necessarily have to follow real-world physics, real-world culture and society, real-world anything, although they can choose to do so. For a film to be a success it merely needs to invoke an emotional, engaging response. It's why they're subjective, with some people liking certain films, others not liking them. But not liking a film for nitpicky incongruences with actual reality is a choice (not necessarily a fault) of the viewer, not a problem with the film.
____________
"I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo."

[–] lupin_is_lupin 12 years ago

So I take it you are not watching "Man of Steel"?

There is no way you can sit through a flying man, right? No suspense of belief?

Inception is also off your list? hmmm, The hunger games, etc...
Those are all films you choose to suspend your belief from the get go
The film can't force you to do so

[–] miktal-1 12 years ago

I think you`ve both misunderstood what I`m saying. Firstly you cannot enjoy a film simply because you suspend your disbelief, this is wholly inaccurate. As the other poster has pointed out, if the film makers do not stick to the rules in the world they have crated, you will not, cannot, enjoy the film, no matter how much you suspend your disbelief.

Also, yes, no film is 100% accurate to the world in which it has created, there are plot holes along these line, but we have tolerances, because we don't want to be take out of the movie going experience. Too many and the film has failed.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] Warrior_Poet 12 years ago

As the other poster has pointed out, if the film makers do not stick to the rules in the world they have crated, you will not, cannot, enjoy the film, no matter how much you suspend your disbelief.

Completely agree. But in what way was that done in "Red Lights"?

There are few items I can point out offhand, although I consider them minor quirks and they don't come close to ruining the movie for me (just ruining those specific elements). One of them is the glass-like porcelain in the bathroom. What in the world was that stuff made out of, and why would anyone manufacturer sinks and toilets so fragile? Another is Silver taking his shades off at the beginning of the film for no apparent reason other than to let the audience know he’s blind. Another is the scene with the first bird that hits the window, which although effective (reminiscent of the great newspaper scene in “Blood Simple”), existed largely to make the audience think Silver was behind the birds (because the phone call itself was never explained).

Don't agree with the second half of your statement, however. Being incongruous with our reality isn't a plot hole, it's just different from our reality. There are definite differences between the world in the film and our reality, one being the fact that Tom possesses genuine supernatural powers, the other being people like Silver whipping up a media frenzy in 2012 (although I'm not sure if the year the film takes place in is established, it appears to at least be within the last decade), which wouldn't happen today, but would have, and in fact did, happen a number of decades back when people like Sliver seemed to run rampant and people were more gullible.

I don't personally have a problem with a melding of what our society at large was like in 1950 or earlier (which is what I think was being attempted) with a more modern setting. If you choose to let that bother you, that's your choice (and I won't fault you for it), but it's not a flaw with the film. It's just something you didn't like (which is your prerogative). There may very well be internal inconsistencies, however, and if you can point a legitimate one out I'd agree that it would be a mistake in the movie.
____________
"I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo."

[–] shinji-ikari-1 12 years ago

I find it extremely comical, how you can find the typical "worst film I've ever seen" (or similar) comment with virtually ANY movie out there. :D
Especially with "kinda ok" movies like this one. I wonder what are these people watching normally? I almost envy them cause it means they never saw the REALLY bad ones. :)

[–] foomancrue 12 years ago

I'm going to respond to a few of the more ridiculous comments on your list of a few of the more ridiculous plot points.

1. No, it's not supposed to be some sort of alternate reality. Paranormal activity is interesting to plenty of people in this reality, and as you pointed out, plenty of scientists as well. If you don't find the subject interesting maybe you should have chosen a different movie, maybe one that isn't ABOUT scientists studying paranormal activity?

2. De Niro is not painted as a master villain in the movie and they have no intention of showing him raping anybody. He is shown as the primary antagonist. In other words he's the best as faking his abilities and that causes a problem for the main characters, who are trying to catch him faking. The central question of the film which is whether or not paranormal activity that cannot be explained by science actually exists. So what this conman does with his free time is exactly what your supposed to care about.

3. Fraud? have you ever heard of fraud? I don't think the 'faith healer' was part of any organized religion and unless he explicitly stated that his show was for entertainment purposes only than what he is doing is called fraud, and yes you can go to jail for it. You can't lie to people about what your selling.

4. Sigourney's death was explained in the movie, something along the lines of a cardiovascular disease. Possibly something genetic that was also responsible for putting her son in a coma. Her appearance on that discussion panel would amount to little more than a daytime talk show to most people but it matters to Cillian because he's her research assistant and he doesn't want her to look foolish. I don't know how often you see your friends/colleagues on TV discussing something that is very important to you but I would treat it like the State of the Union too.

5. This is actually something I agreed with. It was a bit surreal seeing this turd of a scientist take the podium with camera flashes and a half dozen mics to report that De Niro somewhat inconclusively might have some psychic ability. However De Niro was something of a celebrity for his abilities and having a university acknowledge his abilities would probably be a pretty big deal. It would be like Harvard coming on the news and saying David Blane is the real deal, kris angel really is levitating above that pyramid in Vegas.

6. The department that is trying to prove paranormal activity getting more funding than the department trying to debunk it matters because the main characters are part of the latter group. It is again part of the central message of the movie. The protagonists are on the side of reason and truth, but nobody cares about truth, everyone wants to believe in nonsense, to lie to themselves, to believe in something beyond reason, etc.

7. De Niro being able to see wasn't much of a shocker for me either, I kinda assumed he could see immediately upon finding out his character was supposed to be blind. Maybe it was bad writing or maybe De Niro doesn't play a convincing blind guy. The effect his blindness has on the story is that it not only proves he is a fraud but also explains how he does some of the fraudulent things he does. People presuppose his blindness and miss what he is doing with his eyes. Yes, it's a very old trick but throughout the movie your not supposed to know whether he's capable of doing the things that are happening to Cillian.

I don't know where your getting this 'the world is out to get the debunker' thing but nobody is out to get either Cillian or Sigourney.

There's those people who believe De Niro has powers and it's understandable they wouldn't want to know any kind of truth, and there's parapsychologists that argue on a scientific level because they have a fundamental difference of understanding of the topic.

For the most part the rest of the world in this movie probably doesn't care, and that seems to really bother you. Your post implies that any movie in which the central characters can't directly affect the rest of the world is stupid. So you probably loved Armageddon and the Avengers. But in a character driven movie like this one it is supposed to be enough that the characters care about the subject matter.

Oh and while the 'De Niro not being blind' twist was a bit lame the fact that *SPOILERS* Cillian was the actual one with abilities was pretty good in my opinion. The whole message of the movie up until that point was that there's a reasonable explanation for everything. There's nothing beyond the world we know, there's nothing more. To find out the main character had known that to be untrue throughout the film is pretty good.

In conclusion I didn't even think the movie was great but certainly not deserving of your rant. Oh and tell your wife your off the cuff suggestion of how the movie could end is stupid.

[–] ethermusic1981 10 years ago

You really need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're". Other than that, you made some excellent points.

[–] wdoug95608 9 years ago

The difference is knowing your *beep* and knowing you're *beep* - I Felt the need to pass on this quote.

[–] sltfilho 12 years ago

I'd like to comment on number 5. I think those were the 10-15 minutes of this movie that were somehow interesting. I don't mean the execution of it, but the proposition: what if paranormal activity could have been put under the scientific spotlight? If someone could have given the idea to a good writer and director, that could have been an interesting movie. I suppose this is the reason most people watched this movie. I was pissed off when Sigourney Weaver's character died, but much more when I realized that the entire movie could be considered a cheap deceiving advertising saying that the supernatural is there.

[–] svrnmnd 12 years ago

The twist wasn't that De Niro's character could see.....maybe before ranting about a movie and how awful it is, you should understand it first.

This wasn't my favorite movie either, but I still was able to enjoy it. I like jumping up in my seat, and this movie had a lot of those jump moments, where stuff gets real quiet then they blast you with a dead bird to the window.

I don't like any of the superhero or transformer movies where everything is just explosions and CGI, but I don't write pages on how awful they are, I just don't subscribe to them.

If you are such an A-list writer/director why don't you film your own super awesome movie? It's a lot harder than you think.

[–] yojimboy 12 years ago

"If you are such an A-list writer/director why don't you film your own super awesome movie? It's a lot harder than you think."

Lame argument. Apparently if I can't build my own car I shouldn't complain when the one I bought runs poorly.

[–] svrnmnd 12 years ago

thats apples and *beep* oranges. if you don't take care of a car it will run poorly, I personally work on cars and make sure mine is running tip-top. A car you buy is not ART it is a thing.. like spagetti-o's . if you want a good meal you go to ruth-chris not buy a can of pasta. lame argumentitive come back.

[–] yojimboy 12 years ago

Thank you for avoiding the completely obvious and undeniable point with a handful of nonsensical and irrelevant statements. "I personally work on cars and make sure mine is running tip-top?" What does that have to do with the obvious point I was making?

We have to experience things that are beyond our own ability to produce all the time. Art is one of those experiences. We have the right to say whether or not that experience felt successful to us as members of the intended audience.

According to your words "If you are such an A-list writer/director why don't you film your own super awesome movie? It's a lot harder than you think." I pointed out why that is a ridiculous attempt put down people who express their dislike a movie.

How about if you can't make a coherent argument against what I said, keep your fingers off the keyboard? No one needs to know about your "tip-top" skills as an auto mechanic, which have nothing to do with anything but stroking your own ego.

[–] ethermusic1981 10 years ago

Art and transportation are apples to oranges though...

[–] yojimboy 10 years ago

Not in the example I used.

[–] e5capeveloc1ty 12 years ago

Not disagreeing with you (I haven't watched it yet) but I was just wondering: why write something that long and post it on the message boards instead of as an actual imdb review? I think more people would see it and it deserves to be read. You obviously put a lot of work into it.