So it turns out, the things critics complained about in 2013's Now You See Me would've been better off untouched. While not producing a perfect movie in the first installment, the opposite ends up happening here.
On the other hand, much like the first one, Now You See Me 2 has the mind-bending entertainment taken care of. It holds the same charm that was present in its predecessor--perhaps even more. However, there are just a few things that are problematic.
For one, the audience constantly feels like they're missing something--like they're always behind in what's going on. And not because of natural occurrences in the narrative, but because the filmmakers simply want us to be. Which is odd, seeing that this time we're actually in on most of the tricks.
In Now You See Me, we're given the story through the FBI agent's point of view--always on the other side of the magic. In the sequel, we're mostly given the point of view of the four magicians, so we're deeply involved behind the scenes. The former situation was a major complaint of the first film, but now that I'm seeing the alternative, I think I would rather things be back to normal. And even though it's worth it in the end, the whole time prior you just sit there, frustrated, not wanting to be in on the trick, trying to mentally disassemble all the rigmarole in the meantime.
Two years following the events of the first film, the Four Horsemen (played by Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, and Lizzy Caplan) must remain in hiding for fear of the FBI. But they're growing impatient waiting for further instructions. Caplan replaces Isla Fisher as the female in the group. She's very unfunny--even when she so desperately tries to be--making us wish Fisher was back.
The clan ends up in China where they are forced into working for a rich businessman (Daniel Radcliffe) who faked his own death and is supposed to be dead to the rest of the world. Radcliffe's brilliantly evil persona is far from the paladin, Harry Potter, as this may be his most mainstream role since.
Morgan Freeman also returns with his character still in prison, because, for some reason, he can't seem to prove his innocence yet. Freeman is a key cog because he's what connects Ruffalo's character to his father's death as a child.
Also differing from the first film, the first two acts are the weakest part. Waiting for things to get better towards the end, we sit through a magic trick-less setup that's more confusing than interesting. We do, however, get "treated" to an unnecessary card-flinging scene that just ends up being silly and five minutes too long.
Does a good ending make up for a meandering 90 minutes? I guess it might if those 90 minutes are pertinent to the climax. And in this case, they are. But things may be a little too intricate to be cherished in the long run (something untrue for the first film). Maybe it deserves another watch. Maybe then will things be more clear. Because even after it's all explained to us, things wind up being overly complicated, but I guess you just have to trust that it all makes sense. If you're okay living like that.
Twizard Rating: 73
Everyone loves magic tricks. The wonder has been ingrained in us since our childhood. And movies about magic are usually just as enjoyable. This one is no exception.
Four individual magicians--each with a different specialty--get summoned by some mysterious master magician to join together and perform "tricks" to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Meanwhile, a frustrated FBI agent, played by Mark Ruffalo, can't seem to figure out how it's all happening. He teams up with a female Interpol agent (Melanie Laurent) to put a stop to the madness.
The dynamics among the magicians are fun and kept very light. The tricks they perform are, at times, very fascinating to the point that we wish we could go to Vegas to watch their show. We become invested in the lives of these people because the writers let us. But then something happens--our focus is forcibly changed.
For the last 60-90 minutes we are pretty much solely focused on Ruffalo's character. We don't want to be, but we are. And as we travel deeper into the story, the befuddlement steadily increases. Luckily, the film makes itself fairly easy to focus on to somewhat help negate the convolution.
It helps to rewatch this movie. But then again, seeing behind the curtain--which is the ending--may cause you to feel like you've been manipulated. Realizing the filmmakers trick you into seeing what they want you to. And depending on how much you like magic tricks, you may or may not be happy about it.
But see, putting together a movie is different than live magic tricks. Filmmakers can make up their own rules, using cuts and edits to change your perspective--not slight-of-hand--making much of it feel contrived. Personally, I wouldn't say that it bothers me. It just feels too easy here.
We do get a good bang four our buck with plenty of subplots. There is one about Morgan Freeman who plays a magic debunker smugly trying to crack these elaborate tricks. He has a rivalry with Michael Caine, who acts as a financier for the magicians' performances. Caine exits about an hour in, but Freeman has much left to accomplish. And amidst all the action, there is an obvious romance building between Ruffalo and Laurent.
But all of the story-building amongst the characters only helps to thin them all out in the process. There is little depth. And the depth that's established feels forced.
Mind you, none of this changes the fact that this film is wildly entertaining. How can you call it anything but? It's gripping from beginning to end, and the way it's set up, you will probably end up wanting more. Give it huge points for that. Beyond that, though, I can see why people feel slighted.
Twizard Rating: 84
I like Vince Vaughn as much as the next guy, and I think he makes any movie better, but when the script and the direction is terrible, it's a little harder to salvage. And I'm talking about easily fixable mistakes. One character says that he's 67 years old, and then there's a time lapse of 1 year and he still talks about how he's 67 years old. It's just really sloppy.
Dan (Vince Vaughn) quits his job to start a company to compete with his former. He recruits two hopefuls (Dave Franco and Tom Wilkinson), and together they try to make a new life for themselves. A year later they have gotten nowhere and Dan is trying to send his kids to private school because they are being bullied at their current school. Dan and his two employees chase a deal all the way to Berlin, but realize that they may be the decoy deal.
The script is very unorganized and it makes us put the pieces together for a lot of crucial information. The whole time Dan is trying to make business moves, but only the business-minded audience members will understand what's going on and what the significance of certain characters are.
There are also huge narrative flaws, which include fitful pacing and inconsistencies in the tone. It can't decide whether it wants to be vulgar or sweet, and it doesn't balance the two very well.
Despite all these negative comments, I did enjoy the movie. It has a sincere anti-bullying theme and I laughed throughout. It's just not very well-made. Some jokes fall flat, some don't even make sense, and there is too much reliance on the humor of Vaughn's straight man to Franco's cluelessness.
A movie's gotta be at least a little more than just the laughs in provides. It has to have a well thought out structure. It can't win without it--otherwise, what's to prevent every other person who can write funny jokes from cranking out films the lazy way?
Twizard Rating: 69
In general, there are two types of comedy films: unrealistic over-the-top ones, such as Anchorman or 21 Jump Street, and realistic ones, such as Animal House or The Hangover. Maybe in the realistic ones there will be a character or two who is, in fact, over-the-top, but in a unique way that is creative in respect to the film itself (e.g. Alan in The Hangover). However, Neighbors couldn't quite figure out which one it wanted to be. Here you are presented with a realistic premise but when necessary for the continuation of the plot, they sprinkle in some unrealistic characters and situations, as though straddling the fence between the two movies that they wanted to create.
Situation #1: The entire film is based on a plot hole. Teddy (the frat dude) makes Mac (the neighbor) promise that if he has a problem with the noise that he will call him first before calling the police. Teddy says that he values promises very highly--especially in his newfound friendship with Mac. So the next night when the frat house is having a party for the 2nd night in a row, Mac calls Teddy 10 times (although later he says 5) but Teddy is doesn't pick up the phone. They can't take it any longer so they finally call the police. The officer comes and then rats out Mac for calling him. Then Teddy goes over there with the officer and Mac tells him that he called him 5 times but he didn't answer. Teddy ignores this and proceeds to get upset and tells Mac that he broke a promise and that he is going to pay the consequence. Mac--who seems like a very aware and pedantic guy--doesn't even attempt to explain to Teddy that, in fact, he did not break any promise--if anything, he KEPT his promise. The entire rest of the film stems from this "breaking of the promise".
Situation #2: The police officer lets the fraternity off the hook because of the fact that the complaint came from a guy (Mac) who partied with them before. So it's okay that there is loud noise on a work night in a residential neighborhood because the guy who complained has partied before??
Situation #3: The dean of the college uses every faulty argument you could think of when Mac and Kelly go to her to complain about the fraternity after their baby daughter put a condom in her mouth on their front lawn. She explains that there is a 3 strike policy when it comes to the frats and that the frat would have to do something "headline worthy" in order to earn them another strike. She also states that there should be a headline talking about how they are neglecting parents for "letting" their daughter put a condom in her mouth. It's not like they just let it happen. They're not expecting her to find that on their own front lawn. And they ran after her and got it as soon as they realized what it was...Also, at this point, the fraternity has extremely vandalized Mac and Kelly's home, and proceed to do so very illegally throughout the rest of the film.
Scenario #4: How in the world is it possible that Mac and Kelly are the only neighbors that are filing noise complaints and are having problems with the fraternity. They are having parties every night! Sure, they are "buying out" their neighbors with gifts and favors or whatever, but no matter how many favors and gifts you give someone they are going to get annoyed if they are kept up every night because of excessive loud noise and partying.
Scenario #5: How in the world is Teddy even allowed to be in a frat--let alone the president. He says that his GPA is in the high 1s. That's barely enough to even keep you in school.
Although the pranks are pretty clever, the equality in the back-and-forth makes for a frustrating viewing because you really only want one side to win. Seth Rogen is the only main actor who is not completely annoying. I guess Franco is alright--he's not annoying, but he's also just not really that funny either. Rose Byrne is annoying and tries too hard and Efron plays douchey way too well.
It has some decent bits, but even the jokes that are funny are hard to laugh at a lot of times because of everything else that is happening, and you become so mad at the antagonists that everything they do is just annoying and frustrating as if you hate them in real life.
The only other things that this film has going for it are the decent character development across the board and a thoughtful theme of growing up. However, these things are going to be overlooked by most of the people seeing it because everything else is way too distracting.
I wanted to like this film, but there really is no hope for me.
Twizard Rating: 54
