MovieChat Forums > Now You See Me 2 (2016) Discussion > For the people that didn't enjoy this mo...

For the people that didn't enjoy this movie.

posted 8 years ago by derekshaffer
17 replies | jump to latest

Do you know the people that don't enjoy this movie, the way they think? lol They are getting upset at things like a quantum computer chip that can control all the phones in the world. lol (which wasn't even real in the movie) Never mind all the million 'close calls' and basic drowning that could have gone wrong. What do you get upset at watching Rick and Morty, too? "But that isn't possible!!" "That doesn't make sense!" They completely overlook the element of 'magic' or 'special powers' of what is really, actually completely bleeping implausible characters and happenings.

"This movie is for 10-year-olds" is exactly correct. It's made for teenagers who go on dates with their teenage lovers to the theater and, since they've never seen any good thought-provoking films, or more importantly: READ anything good and though-provoking, they leave the theater under the impression that they've seen something good, but obviously it's "good" only in the mind of a teenager.

Thought provoking? Seriously? Pot meet kettle. This is a guy where serious movies that are presented as 'real' that have obvious plot holes etc, they go right over his head because he has no critical thinking skills. This is a guy that likes 'Crash' even though it's ridiculously cheesy and forced, not creative, but critically acclaimed. This is the guy that needs a movie to show him how he's a little bit racist but doesn't realize it. Or stuff like, 'Oh but I didn't realize that people are different people and go through different experiences as a child, and that causes them to be a different way as an adult' 'Now I see it!!' These are the people that get angry and point out someone is stupid for not using proper grammar or a misspelled word. Simple minds.

This is a 'good movie' not a great movie, but for what IT IS. It's a 'feel good,' very positive movie that intelligent people can go see in the theater with their significant other. This isn't supposed to be intriguing or really pull the wool over your eyes, though you can entertain plot happenings if you'd like. I just take it for what it is, it's very creative, clever, and just enough entertaining movie enough to have you smile and enjoy. This and it's former sure beat the **** out of Ocean's 11 or whatever number boringness.

[–] hardly-replies 8 years ago

I think the better question is, "Why are you upset?" How does someone else's opinion upset you so much that you have to type out such a lengthy post? Can't have hate it your heart.

[–] derekshaffer 8 years ago

Yeah. Great question. WHy would I care or be upset by someone calling my mind that of a 10 year old, when it's literal hypocrisy. Tons of posts like this. Great question.

[–] hardly-replies 8 years ago

So someone you don't know is trolling and you get upset? That's cool. That's feeding right into it. I could say that the mind of a 10 year old would be suckered in.

[–] derekshaffer 8 years ago

It sounds to me like you would be trolling then, because he, and 'others' as I explicitly stated were not.

[–] hardly-replies 8 years ago

Maybe if I saw the post I would know what you mean. I saw how poorly the movie did and the reception, hopped on here and started reading a few posts. It just seemed like a cash grab movie to me. You can having movies like transformers and say that it could never happen. But this was a movie with real people in a possible situation. Having things that aren't possible is lazy writing to me. I saw one clip where they were just passing a card around and even the cgi looked terrible. So yes, it's a fictional that never happened. But at least make what they do possible. Don't just explain it away with special affects. Make their actions creative and tricky. Not lazily throw something out there.

[–] bryan-vanfleet7 8 years ago

Judging a book by its cover much?? Holy crap... And the card throwing scene was irrelevant because they were being duped by the eye and the eye sees everything in this fictitious world. Cgi card scene obviously had to be Cgi because remember it's a movie with actors not real Illusionists.

[–] dargorrof 8 years ago

You're calling that load of bull good, yet you get upset someone thinks you're a 10-year-old. Not even teenagers fall for that kind of crap anymore. Both movies are ludicrous from acting to plot.

[–] disent 8 years ago

You're a dikchead, this movie sucked because it was so freaking stupid and disappointing compared to this first film, which was actually fun and enjoyable. Regardless of whatever else anyone has said, this movie was simply stupid and incoherent, that is the films, and your, main problem. I'm actually glad you enjoyed it, stop being so upset that others couldn't enjoy the retarded mess.

[–] grahamhamilton2000 8 years ago

I'm disappointed in the "Now You See Me" franchise ...

Two reasons really ... First of all it's very unfair on real stage magicians to use computer generated images (CGI) and camera tricks, to portray stage illusion and it's also rather lazy. It's the difference between "The Illusionist" (2006) and "The Prestige" (2006) ... One used known illusions; the other relied on pseudoscience and I agree with a previous post, if you are going to use "movie magic" to portray stage illusion then why not go Harry Potter on it and produce live Dragons, or re-animate the dead?

The other reason ... I'm not sure what happened during the filming of "Now You See Me (1)" but it looked like there was a major re-write mid-production (perhaps to steer it away from a mystical conclusion) and that left a lot of viewers a bit confused and angry (judging by the comments left on IMDB). I don't want to post spoilers (so I won't); but for the first 20 minutes of the movie I thought it might be one the best movies I'd see; a sort of "Mission Impossible" with magic ... but instead it turned into a complete fantasy with a nonsensical conclusion, in my opinion, but don't let me put you off watching it (the movie does a pretty good job by itself).

There are quite a few good things about the first movie: it made money; it had a big enough budget to look polished; I liked the concept of "the four horsemen" and the actors who played these characters did a pretty good job ... but (unfortunately) it was really a triumph of style over substance; it was insulting to the craft of stage magic and I'm guessing the sponsors, or studio, balked at the idea of arcane Egyptian transmutation ... but were in too deep to cobble together a sensible conclusion. I'd really like to know if that's what happened ... because clearly something happened and it detracted from what could have been a really great movie.

A "feel good" movie ... Sure, but most movies are; a positive movie ... I'm all in favour of that, although Hollywood does on occasion produce some sickly sweet endings that are rather hard to swallow. I can't speak for others, but thanks to the wonder that is IMDB they can make their own opinions known. At the end of the first movie I thought, there's two hours of my life I won't get back. I did like the "Easter egg" in the closing credits; the idea had great potential, but the ending took a huge dump on it (Zut alors ... pardon my French). I didn't overlook the difference between magic and special powers, but unfortunately the film makers did and that rather ruined the movie for me. It started off clever, it was based on a creative set of ideas; but the first movie was a "cop out".
Now I'm off to see if this was based on a book (which I will then have to read). Have a nice day!

[–] ronniehrubin 8 years ago

grahamhamilton2000; I know I'm late to this discussion, but I just watched this movie for the first time this past weekend; didn't see it in the theaters. I agree with you when you said "the first 20 minutes of the movie I thought it might be one the best movies I'd see;". But for reasons not clear to any of us, it just went crazy the rest of the way. I hope the next installment is more like the first one.

[–] MikeHunt1075 8 years ago

Everything you're defending the movie with has nothing to do with why I didn't enjoy it.

Is thhis going to inspire you to waste everyone's time by quoting my message and adding s heap more to rant about how you don't agree with someone's opinion?

[–] conjh13 8 years ago

People don't like this movie because it was just bad. It wasn't even in the same league as the first one. The "illusions" were cheap computer tricks, completely unrealistic, unbelievable, and impossible. The plot was dull, predictable, and uninteresting. Even the acting was subpar compared to the first movie, and replacing Isla Fisher with Lizzy Caplan definitely made it even worse. Everything that made the first one great went AWOL in this one. It's difficult to believe it was even written by the same people. The first movie, at 7.3/10 is moderately underrated, while this one, at 6.6/10, is massively overrated.

[–] niklasholz-79080 8 years ago

This was no good movie. It was a mess

[–] asadujzaman1 8 years ago

You have to agree, this was the *beep* movie of 2016. Don't try to defend something stupid. I liked the first movie so much. But the 2nd was just horrific, without a decent plot.

[–] viniciusamorim 8 years ago

No. Just, no. Sorry. This film is garbage. There's no other way to put it. You can argue it is entertaining - that's very personal. You can't, however, say that it is clever. It tries to be, but fails miserably. Its plot and its scenes are so dumb it hurts. It is not even worthy to being called a "guilt pleasure". It is just a shame to mankind.

[–] nandasasmita 8 years ago

you know even movie has 9.0 rating, people always complain