Ajouter une intrigue dans votre languePsychologist Margaret Matheson and her assistant debunk paranormal activity, which leads them to investigate a world-renowned psychic who has resurfaced after many years out of the limelight... Tout lirePsychologist Margaret Matheson and her assistant debunk paranormal activity, which leads them to investigate a world-renowned psychic who has resurfaced after many years out of the limelight following the suspicious death of his toughest critic.Psychologist Margaret Matheson and her assistant debunk paranormal activity, which leads them to investigate a world-renowned psychic who has resurfaced after many years out of the limelight following the suspicious death of his toughest critic.
- Récompenses
- 2 nominations au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe videos of the parapsychological experiments done with Silver at the university mimic those done in real life with Uri Geller at the Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s. These experiments are discussed at length and clips of the actual video are shown in the James Randi documentary, An Honest Liar (2014).
- GaffesTwo times in the movie a traditional camera that uses film is referred to as "analogical." Although analogical is a word, it's not correct in this usage. The word that should have been used is "analog" (or alternate spelling, "analogue")
- Citations
[last lines]
Tom Buckley: You can't deny yourself forever.
- Crédits fousAt the end of the ending credits, the film's title flickers in a similar manner to the way light bulbs behave in the presence of psychic activity throughout the film.
- ConnexionsFeatured in CineMaverick TV: Épisode #1.2 (2012)
- Bandes originalesIf Not for You
Written by Bob Dylan (Big Sky Music)
Performed by Olivia Newton-John
Courtesy of Sony/ATV Music Publishing Spain LLC and ONJ Productions, Inc.
By arrangement with PEN Music Group, Inc.
Following in the footsteps of the director, why not separate my review into two halves? Though I will try not to decline in the quality of analysis.
With a highly respected and frankly quite surprising cast (the surprise being the lack of marketing and attention the film has received), nothing negative can be said of the fine performances, most notably from our protagonist Cillian Murphy. The actors deliver dialogue to assist the slow plot development and at times subtle, appropriate humour between Murphy and Sigourney Weaver's characters. The chemistry between the two paranormal researchers is evident throughout and it is not until one of the film's many expositions where this is lost. This technique of continuous revelations is what enables an audience to remain in their seats despite having perhaps consumed too much of the overpriced beverages from the lobby, and as cliché as it is, keeps you on the edge of your seat. (hopefully not due to irritability) The script itself unveils an original idea of exposing paranormal phenomena as fraudulent, which itself is reason enough to enjoy this film in theatres while you still can!
Now onto the second hour, I mean paragraph. The immediate impact of the arguably primary disequilibrium can be felt as it occurs, as the tone of the motion picture changes. Unexpected plot holes begin to expose themselves as spots might to a thirteen year-old. This unfortunate turn in events (speaking both figuratively and literally) proves to lead to an eventual anti-climax, that cannot be described as anything else but disappointing. As a consumer, I found myself questioning where exactly the film was going, as one might if taken on a different bus route to a usually predictable destination. Though we ended up at the expectation of predictability and disappointment. (only an expectation in hour two) Anticipating the final exposition was a task of its own, would there be a resolution? Would our unusual tragic hero achieve his goal? How would a new equilibrium be incorporated? This is what kept blinking to a minimum throughout, though eyes were still rolling at particular moments due to the inconceivable mistakes and unexplained occurrences. We were almost being rushed towards the end of the story so that the theatre could get more people to enjoy the film for an hour or tw... forget it, just the one hour.
Without the cast to save the ambition and potential of Rodrigo Cortes' piece, it no doubt would have been a disaster in all respects and its already mundane box office performance would be as low as my mood coming out of Screen 14 last Wednesday. With all respect to the director/writer though, 'Red Lights' is worth watching based solely on the first 60 minutes because of the idea, as well as the performances of the many talented actors, despite some characters being completely irrelevant and unnecessary. If you find yourself searching for something to do one evening, and if there are no particular films you desire to see, but you desire to see a film then 'Red Lights' will moderately satisfy your appetite, though you may be disappointed there wasn't more on the plate.
- BharatSamra
- 4 juil. 2012
- Permalien
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Red Lights?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Luces rojas
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 14 000 000 € (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 52 624 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 10 340 $US
- 15 juil. 2012
- Montant brut mondial
- 14 107 313 $US
- Durée1 heure 54 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1