[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InqU8CLwbPg[/media]
I really enjoyed the first movie, really glad they're making another.
I love the effects in the trailer as well!
[sp]Morgan Freeman did nothing wrong[/sp]
Harry pottah can't do magic for shit without his wand.
Actually excited for this
Oh my fucking god of course they get Daniel Radcliffe to play a bad magician
Should have been called "Now you don't"
Could be so cool if the characters used actual magic tricks in these movies instead of just explainable bullshit made possible by CGI.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;49140994]Should have been called "Now you don't"[/QUOTE]
It was originally called [I]Now You See Me: Now You Don't[/I], before this 'second act' thing.
I actually liked the first movie, I thought it was pretty cool, the movie felt like a ride that kept on giving
this garbage film did well enough to get a sequel???? how??????
I liked the first one because [I]most[/I] of it had some kind of credibility to the illusions. This, on the other hand, just looks like a straight out superhero movie, which is a conceptual downgrade in my book.
[sp]I'll still probably watch it.[/sp]
[QUOTE=CupUp;49142130]I liked the first one because [I]most[/I] of it had some kind of credibility to the illusions. This, on the other hand, just looks like a straight out superhero movie, which is a conceptual downgrade in my book.
[sp]I'll still probably watch it.[/sp][/QUOTE]
Most of it? Most of it was clearly impossible CGI stuff, there was hardly any credible looking illusions.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49142115]this garbage film did well enough to get a sequel???? how??????[/QUOTE]
made money in the box office
tbh though the original was awful, it's the epitome of a movie that can literally only survive as a theatre movie to kill time, it's basically a direct to video movie if you even try to watch it at home
the only thing unique about the movie was the fact that it was about magicians but it was handled in the most boring and tired manner with dumb cliches and jokes that might as well just be a giant flashing sign that says LAUGH
[QUOTE=simkas;49142173]Most of it? Most of it was clearly impossible CGI stuff, there was hardly any credible looking illusions.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it was nice at first when they explained the bank in Paris, but after that, it became complete mystical bullshit impossible stuff.
It's the kind of movie to see a sunday night on TV.
I hated the first movie, but I don't even really remember why?
Guess I can add 'forgettable' as a reason too. Once I remember all the other ones.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49142231]made money in the box office
tbh thought the original was pretty awful, it's the epitome of a movie that can literally only survive as a theatre movie to kill time, it's basically a direct to video movie if you even try to watch it at home
the only thing unique about the movie was the fact that it was about magicians but it was handled in the most boring and tired manner with dumb cliches and jokes that might as well just be a giant flashing sign that says LAUGH[/QUOTE]
lets not forget
magic isnt interesting when its cgi and editing
What happened to the girl (Isla Fisher) in the first movie? Did she get canned?
The first movie was interesting up until the ending.
Then it just turned into :what:
The last one was horrible and Jesse Eisenburg pissed me off with his bad acting.
i enjoyed the first movie for a while but the "twist" at the end was possibly the dumbest thing i've seen in a movie
So the freezing rain thing, is actually legit...here's a video of them doing it. It involves certain frequencies and I guess they could do it with one's we can't hear?
[video=youtube;OqpPi8wNed8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqpPi8wNed8[/video]
I love Daniel Radcliffe as an actor, he was fantastic in the young doctors notebook.
The first movie was terrible. I'm baffled as to how anyone enjoyed it. The magic trick fight scene was good, but the rest was dumb as fuck.
Wasn't one of the antagonists motivations that a safe failed in an underwater trick and he hated the manufacturers for the safe failing? The biggest safety concern with a safe is not if it breaks underwater.
I actually liked the first quite a bit but to me it seemed like a perfectly self contained story, I don't feel a sequel is warranted.
[QUOTE=Badballer;49145351]I love Daniel Radcliffe as an actor, he was fantastic in the young doctors notebook.[/QUOTE]
I really hope he breaks the harry potter role, I loved the young doctors notebook
meanwhile good movies like Dredd will never get a sequel because the general audience has the IQ of a baby that likes looking at shiny and cool effects in a wannabe magician movie that make no fuckin sense at all
Why are they making this again? The first one wasn't even [I]that[/I] profitable, and on top of that it wasn't a very good movie. I like the concept of magic tricks in a movie, but the explanation for the trick shouldn't be "It's magic" - otherwise you might as well make another Harry Potter movie.
[QUOTE=Samson0722;49143920]So the freezing rain thing, is actually legit...here's a video of them doing it. It involves certain frequencies and I guess they could do it with one's we can't hear?
[video=youtube;OqpPi8wNed8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqpPi8wNed8[/video][/QUOTE]
The thing is, that's with a continuous drop of water in one set place. Rain doesn't exactly work like that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
