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?!?

[–] computer2computer 12 years ago

Dude the movie was different and quite entertaining, and you're simply a troll.

To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important

[–] MaceGriffin 12 years ago

what i want to know is, what was all that about when cillian murphys character goes to that room where there is a line of salt on the floor and de niro comes out from behind the curtain and starts talking a load of nonsense??

it reminded me of the scene in twin peaks in the room with red curtains and the midget talking backwards but more confusing.

[–] devirginizer83-1 12 years ago

While I wouldn't go so far and agree with the OP that this is "the worst movie ever made" (there are hundreds of terrible films much worse than Red Lights) I do think he brought up several salient points.

1. The film's treatment of paranormal investigation is curious at best. In the movie, Weaver and Murphy's characters are treated like pariahs, have to fight for funding and are met with ridicule by pundits, the public and other scientists...but in the real world it's actually paranormal investigators and believers who are on the fringe.

The fact that in the movie the Department that studies Paranormal events has more funding and respect than the Department that debunks Paranommal events is laughable.

2. The OP was right on the money when he remarked on the intensity of the hate Weaver and Murphy have for psychic frauds. I mean seriously...is it that big of a deal? Like the OP said, they act as if De Niro's character is an ex-Nazi in need of exposure and trial but really he's no worse than a televangelist.

3. Some scenes of the film are very strange. The backroom scene with the salt in the floor makes very little sense, De Niro's perfomance is all over the place, one minute he's dead serious and another it feels like he's playing the role for laughs, etc.

4. WAY too many jump scares. I HATE that in a horror movie. I was pleasantly surprised when I started the film and it felt like an atmospheric film that was going to creep me out like the Orphanage. I was greatly disappointed to see it reduced to one jump scare after another. Horror film directors need to learn this: we want to be scared and creeped out by imagery NOT started by loud sounds.

All in all I thought Red Lights was beautifully shot but ultimately a disappointment...it took a great idea and through mediocre writing and questionable plot decisions reduced it to a forgettable film.

[–] ArsonCuff 12 years ago

The movie was watch-able, the "twist" at the end felt a bit - been there done that in an almost but not quite M. Night's "Unbreakable" sort of way - however, I could see people enjoying and identifying with the movie in terms of feeling alone or isolated in the world, people who have felt like they cannot identify with others and seek others like themselves, perhaps the bullied even, in terms of that the ending was quite pretty...

The "being blind" aspect was not really delivered as a "twist," but rather as a piece of their deducing and the obvious given that had been overlooked by the scientist who was shown to be susceptible to overlooking such things or accepting without probing the "given" aspects of something..I think it fell into place in the story quite naturally and as it should have.

Several of your complaints don't seem worth someone's time to actually consider as a flaw in the movie logic, as movies always amp things up and stretch things, instead of wondering why characters in the movie choose to care so greatly about things, perhaps the issue is why you choose to care that they care ha ha..though when someone does not enjoy something they indeed will pick at every aspect, even if they were to find themselves able to forgive a different movie that they do enjoy for containing a similar aspect.

[–] alex-819-312296 12 years ago

I am drunk now so I know I might be spelling wrong.

This film is based on Uri gellar and Peter popoff. Its happend in REAL LIFE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

You are saying you have a girlfriend which I translate in to you are young.. Otherwise you would be married right? Anyways this was a real "phenomenian" back in the 80s which people actually believes and trust me if you watched the youtube clip I posted you will see that this film was based on what uri gellar and popoff did.. It's really a "belivable" film because thats what happend.. I aint trying to put you down sir.. But plz just admit that you didn't have all facts. I think this was a great film cause I grew up in the 80's (I also had a girlfriend at the time) so I really can relate to that. And if you really don't care about what others think why do you mention your girlfriend?? Isn't she another person or do you feel like you own her:)?

[–] divisionbell-2 12 years ago

I can't help but feel like we watched two different movies. Most of these issues you have were explained (like Sigourney having a long standing heart problem...of the fact that the faith healer was hurting people by concvincing them they were healed only to still be sick and dying). No clue where the meth dealers fit in...or why it seems to crazy that people would get really excited for a psychic. Even if it's a "different universe" it's a movie that set it's own rules. Why is that so horrible??

"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind" - Lovecraft

[–] mich_tim 12 years ago

It started out 'REAL'good !
The first two thirds held my interest-but
what hapened next?? And at the end of it(was there an ending)?
Perhaps i was in some sort of etheral stasis or Hypnotized by the
sheer intesity of crap that overwhelmed my "SENSES"-or maybe i was
just falling into a booze induced slumber-in any event i found ,that
the conclusion led to confusion. Maybe that was the point "They" had
misdirected us with the talented actors,given us two thirds of a good
movie(except for when we first saw DeNiro blatently show us he could see)
thenin the end gave us nothing subtstantial. Kind of like the charletans
portrayed in the"FILM"!!??

[–] bigboss25262 12 years ago

I wouldn't call it one of the worst movies ever, but i can say it was a real boring piece of dog *beep*

[–] kaada_1 12 years ago

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.
It is not an alternate reality and people do care about exposing psychic frauds. There are quite a few popular "professional skeptics" who spend their time educating people about pseudoscience and debunking fraudulent psychics (e.g. Ben Goldacre, Ray Hyman, Derren Brown, Penn and Teller and Phil Plait). One of the most prominent is James Randi an internationally known investigator of pseudoscience. The James Randi Educational Foundation has offered $1000000 to anyone that can demonstrate paranormal abilities under laboratory conditions. So far no one has ever been able to claim the money. And there are other organizations (e.g. 'The Skeptics Society' or the 'Committee for Skeptical Inquiry') who promote critical thinking. There are so many good books out there about this stuff (e.g. 'The Demon-Haunted World' and 'Why People Believe Weird Things'), there's activism (e.g. 'the Worldwide Homeopathic Overdose Campaign'), there is A LOT of discussion going on at the moment.
I think frauds (Uri Geller, Peter Popoff etc.) ARE plaguing the world - why keep ruining perfectly good spoons?!

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?
Blaming the victims of fraud is really low. Basically what you're saying is it is OK to steal money from gullible people? In the movie Simon Silver tells people who have cancer that they are cured. What if they believe him and give up their treatment? This stuff happens in real life. -> http://whatstheharm.net/psychics.html I generally support the right of people to be idiots but some of these idiots (e.g. Greg and JaLea Swezey) have sick children who need medical treatment. Still don't care?

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.
Faith healing isn't illegal, conning people IS. The "hilarious" bust is based on a real life incident - Popoff vs. Randi. -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y (The so-called "high-tech spy gear" was a simple radio scanner).

Other people have already addressed the other points. I agree the movie isn't very good but for different reasons.

Reality continues to ruin my life. ~ Calvin