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

I'll give this a serious reply. I see where you're coming from, but movies, like all art, is subjective and there's really no correct way of viewing it but maybe this will help you see why some people really like this movie.

1- This statement is somewhat true. A couple of things though. It was the main character's job to investigate fraud in people who make money off of their psychic abilities. So, of course it's gonna be a big part of their life and something that matters to them. If there was a celebrity out there like 'Silver', it would also matter to the public a lot more.

2- That's pretty much the same answer. It's their job. Also, you learn that Weaver's character started taking things personal after Silver had brought the subject of her son up while debating on a tv show.

3- This is one of the few parts in the movie I didn't find believable. Maybe if you're making money off of your 'abilities' and it's proven you don't have any...that would be considered 'fraud' ..but like you mentioned that's unlikely.

4- I think you're really mentally projecting here. I understand YOU don't care about the subject of the paranormal but believe that if there was someone out there that could do the kind of things De Niro's character could do and make himself into an entertaining showman/celebrity, it would be on talk shows everywhere. And i thought it was obvious about Weaver's death. She was killed by Silver. Silver also killed the other skeptic that was investigating him. Did anyone NOT get that? Why did you make the comment about the tv show killing her?

5- You don't know what you're talking about. There's been a lot of studies of the paranormal. All false. Nothing conclusive except one study that shows a very slightly higher than chance coincidence of the paranormal. It involves people who sleep near one another tend to have similar dream content.
Nothing to write home about, really.

6- All things that matter are subjective. Nothing is the only thing that doesn't matter. :)

7- I agree here, somewhat. It doesn't really "matter" in the storyline. I didn't really see it as a big twist though either. I think it more or less shows what a hack/con-man Silver was. The way he pretends to know things that couldn't be known otherwise.


"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."

Again, not the whole world, just the main characters of the movie, and to sum up, it's not that people aren't interested in the topic. They really are. Why do you think Paranormal Activity does so well at the box office? Or why there's all these fake haunted house reality tv show types out there? It's something a lot of people hope for. That there's something out there that's completely unexplainable by science. Something we can't just break down into a boring process and shrug apathetically about afterwards. This movie even draws on that topic a bit.
We want to believe.

what a crap film totally senseless and confusing and boring

Sir, I respect your point of view, but all you is talk about how this movie fails to adapt reality in it. Most of the movies fail to do that. I assume you can hardly watch any 90's action movie.

OOOOKkkay, after reading your rant

you are the worst "reviewer"
all questions. all opinions. you leave more unanswered critiques than the few "plot holes" this movie has.

You are as annoying as the idiots who didn't like Prometheus, because none of them ever learned about any single shred of Philosophy.
Let me actually do your volunteer work AND answer your questions in the numbered order:

1. No it is not. nor the movie or script ever gives that inclination. I still do not know why you even asked this question because it is blatantly clear it is grounded in reality. If anything, the technical and creative setting are to mirror the perspective of the real narrator of the story: cillian murphy. The film never makes it seem like the world are plagued by frauds. If anything, more accurately depicted, is yes, that mofo' cillian murphy is highly obsessive and so he seeks out other obsessive people like him. Anyone who truly loves their career and craft do the same. That's directing; the ability to show, not with just images, the obsession a character possess.

2. De niro is not a villain. He was never written to fit the archetype you are blaming the movie for him failing to live up to. I do not know what prior information you were given about this movie, or what bad marketing the studio probably did for this film, but it was not a superhero movie; or at least not a traditional one. Robert was hated by the two main characters for their own individual reasons. (c'mon? if you thought someone was *beep* with your head and "killed" one of your closest friends, all the while parading around, wouldn't you want a taste of revenge? oh wait, just maybe that was how the script was written....)

3.So I am guessing you never took law? ha, no one has to to, to know it is illegal to make money off of fraudulent claims... and that is assuming the affected party press charges. if that equipment is hi-tech, then I wonder how many college campuses you have walked on and how many college laboratories you have been in.( maybe they purchased this equipment with their own money due to low funding.. )

4.The only observation I somewhat agree with; Her death was never explained BUT THAT WAS THE POINT!! some deaths are natural causes,there are plenty of medical names for conditions and deaths that cannot be explained with modern science. Moreover, since it was filmed cillian's perspective, all we saw was he his own allusions to the cause. regardless, it was pretty clear the director wanted the "wtf" reaction. The film is not what I call "theater" style, in which the audience knows more than the character. no, the director wanted you to not know more and only what was seen. why? that's up to you to discuss.. why does everything need to be explained? the irony of the film.....


5.Yet again, yes you are somewhat "correct" with FEELING this way. I am pretty sure there are other things that go on in this world that are important, let say, to a particular town or country, and not to the world. Your poor articulation is the reflection of the better analysis the film does on the topic of media and sensationalism.This can simply be part of news that is as alienable as celebrity gossip or sports. This film thrusts you into THEIR world and a world where people actually take this seriously. I will not even begin to point out the parallels in "real life"...


6.Yawwwwn.your are such a whiner. Did you know the government spends money on the military? you pointing out obvious facts is not a support of a critique on a film. The financial argument,although a weak support, was for Weaver's obsession and dislike for the competing departments, his societal critique on college and the mishandling of funding within universities, and the critique on the literary and scientific profession dependence on such universities being the "end all, say all" on topics that can change the course of a society.

7. De niro wasn't the twist. there was only one twist.. and that was the end. any beginner who studies film would have deduced that without any effort.

and then you reference *expletive* CEDAR RAPIDS AS A GENRE SIGORUNEY WEAVER SHOULD STICK TOO? I ONLY WENT ON THIS RANT TO PROVE YOUR A FRAUD AND HOPEFULLY MANY WILL READ THIS REBUTTAL AND DISCUSS THE MOVIE FOR THEMSELVES, MINUS THE ENTERTAINING AND PERSUASIVE INACCURACIES PRESENTED IN YOUR REVIEW. frauuudd!!!!

"Rick Killed a guy!!" ( gotta love that anchor man ;)

One of the best actors, Sigourney Weaver. Other than Alien, check out Death and the Maiden. Before you talk yourself in to a silly corner.

I agree that the movie completely sucks but the acting wasn't bad. Sometimes you can over look a weak script if the actors are good but there isn't an actor alive or dead that could make this into a good movie. I honestly think thats 2 hours of my life completely wasted.

live and let live

This film's story is essentially a restructured version of 1992's Leap of Faith, with parapsychology being substituted for religion. There are even a few suspense-ified sequences cribbed directly from the aforementioned film, but details aside, both stories offer the same characters and premise: Deniro/Martin as the fraud, Richardson/Winger as the partner in crime, Weaver/Neeson as the skeptic, and Murphy/Haas as the 'genuine article' who's very existence changes everything for everyone else.

The primary difference in the Red Lights script is that the genuine article doubles as a plot point "twist" in the climax. The pros and cons of this technique can of course be debated to no end, but unfortunately for this film, without the advantage of experiencing the protagonist's journey from his perspective, the twist sacrifices the impact of a clever reveal (Witness for the Prosecution, Psycho, Oldboy, The Usual Suspects) or a cathartic epiphany (Carnival of Souls, Fight Club, The Matrix, Memento), or even a simple shock to the system (Diabolique, Carrie, Haute Tension, Volver). In as much, the story doesn't earn the audience's faith, and the finale is reduced to a contrived deus ex machina that ultimately robs the audience of empathy while simultaneously pointing a spotlight at any plotholes.

Storytelling problems intrinsic to keeping secrets from the audience are typically obfuscated by some amalgam of innovative execution, technical eye candy, good performances, and/or a strong script. The principle actors in this film turned in good performances given the material, and the pointless romance angle was largely avoided, but that's about as much as can be said for the effort.

The movie does make this all seem awfully heavy. Part of the time, it works as a way of showing how important this is to the characters. Cillian is having a meltdown watching... not a war, trial, election or even the Super Bowl, but a talk-show spat about spoon-bending. But to this character, this IS the Super Bowl. This matters more than anything to him. That's fine. Later, we learn the real reason why this is so. The characters have deep personal issues related to the paranormal. It works.

But then they can't stop there. They make it clear that everyone in this world -- media, police, everyone -- is hanging on every ex cathedra ruling uttered by some self-appointed professional skeptic. A debunker who matters so much that when she has a bad day on a talk show and walks off, it makes the front page of the paper? Pure fantasy. I don't read my horoscope, but that doesn't mean I check with James Randi before deciding what to believe either.

If only they could have stopped with the characters, not the whole world!