Misleading: That the film shows viewers images ("Paris at the same moment") that are not shown to characters (the Las Vegas audience). It is done solely to trick viewers (not characters) into believing that Etienne has actually been teleported to Paris.
actually it's true that scene was done 100% to trick the viewers of the movie, however, it was also done to show the DISCOVERY of the missing cash that occurred at the same time, notice how it follows the bank manager, not Etienne, nor the bank itself, but rather the manager who opens the vault for the day and discovers the missing cash, as viewers of a movie, most point of views in film give us a omniscient view of things.
Improbable: That The Four Horsemen go to the bother & expense & risk of ''teleporting'' an actual Parisian instead of simply planting their own shill in the audience.
actually, there was little risk in "teleporting" him, remember, he actually gets hypnotised when he steps on stage. while it is true that there was significantly more added effort required for it, this is a clear area where suspension of disbeleif should be applied.
Unbelievable: That Daniel's argument against charging The Four Horsemen succeeds. His argument is that the FBI can't charge The Four Horsemen because to do so would mean that the FBI believes in magic. That's absurd of course. There is no such implication. After all, an actual bank has actually been robbed. That the magicians are not charged and are allowed to leave Las Vegas is nonsense.
umm...actually thats how ALIBI's work, i mean proving you are on stage 5,421 miles where a crime is committed is a pretty solid *beep* alibi.
Misleading: That, though they know that Wilder is not dead, and though there are no characters in the scene to be tricked by bogus displays, The Four Horsemen display shock when they see broadcast reports of Wilder's death. This is another example of tricking viewers which, when the truth is revealed, is pretty maddening.
again this is where OUR perspective is privileged, because we have a omniscient perspective movies NEED to trick us...books are the same way, the easiest way a book prevents the omniscient perspective is to do the book in first person, sadly movies can't do that, so you are stuck with trickery. EVERY movie does this.
Impossible: That The Four Horsemen create bubbles that surround Henley as she is ''levitated'' by wires without the wires breaking the bubble.
another time you are gonna need to apply suspension of disbelief and movie magic.
Illogical: That The Four Horsemen hide the warehouse safe behind a giant mirror instead of behind a false wall.
a false wall would not work because the space of the room would suddenly become smaller... walking into a room where a big long ol safe was and teh room is suddenly shortened, total must be a false wall.
Impossible: That, though it's clearly perpendicular (not angled), the giant mirror doesn't reflect the images of the FBI agents entering the (seemingly empty) warehouse.
um...did you watch the movie? i mean after the mirror is shattered tyou can CLEARLY see teh bracket that was holding it...he bracket that is clearly angled. in fact when they show the mirror being lowered later you can clearly see when its angled, even as thy walk away from it, in fact in the setup scene, when atlas walks away his reflection walks UP the wall, here is a screenshot of when teh mirror is shattered, notice the mount behind the mirror, adn how it's CLEARLY at a angle?
http://imgur.com/ghXNbpZImprobable: That, regardless of its orientation, the FBI agents can't tell they're looking into a mirror.
human depth perception is INCREDIBLY easy to fool, and yes, modern mirrors are actually more then sufficient to pull off that stunt, in fact, the minimal room and glaring white is more than enough to compensate for the visible irrgularities one might see during such a trick, (thats actually why magician boxx have vibrant color and geometric lines, it's to fool the human eye.)
Improbable: That, even if the trick is preplanned, The Four Horsemen are actually able to execute an elaborate bridge highway crash trick involving many cars and a specially prepared truck and a cadaver, etc., and which endangers bystanders and other drivers, despite the unpredictability regarding when (or even if) they would be discovered in New York City in the few days leading up to show #3.
this is where the omniscient perspective should've helped you, OF course the 4 horseman KNEW they would be discovered in new york, because the guy who did the whole back tracing and all that, the MASTERMIND of the 4 horseman is actually RHODES, it's HIS plan and he was the one who basically controlled the FBI response the entire time.
Improbable: That The Four Horsemen are able to execute the elaborate bridge highway crash trick given that the timing and circumstances of the FBI raid are completely unpredictable & uncontrollable.
again, the guy LEADING the FBI raid and LEADING the entire investigation IS the guy who planned the whole thing in the first place... seriously, see my comment above, RHODES IS THE MASTERMIND.
Contrived: That the elaborate bridge highway crash trick exists solely to inject a high speed chase scene & spectacular crash into the film.
and to give the FBI evidence they would need for a logical investigation to lead them to the giant ass safe, and setup the LACK of security for the safe later basically all the misdirection they would need to actually break in to teh safe and setup freemans character as the fall guy.
Impossible: That The Four Horsemen project truly 3-dimensional images (holograms?) onto the sides of buildings.
1. the projections were NOT three dimensional, in fact the only time a hologram is used is teh schematic for the show directing the creation of, and the entire plan of the 4 horseman. 2. the images themselves are projections, sure their is depth to said projections, but that is created by teh background images, artist have been added depth to images for several hundred YEARS, it's all about tricking the human eye, in fact during those scenes you can actually still see the underlying graffiti on the buildings.
Impossible: That The Four Horsemen project truly 3-dimensional images (holograms?) in thin air.
umm WHEN, the only time a hologram appears is the very beginning, which is on dry ice fog, at no other time is a hologram used during the movie.
Undisclosed: That, though Lionel Shrike's body was not recovered (and therefore it's reasonable to presume that the safe that entombed Shrike's body was not recovered), Rhodes somehow knows that shoddy work by the safe's manufacturer caused Shrike's death.
the safe was most likely recovered and examined after the death, rhodes knowledge of the trick would allow him to know why the trick failed, and a warping safe would be easily veritable(verifiable?), the only mysterious thing here is shrikes missing body, since it can be assumed he died from being unable to escape the safe thus his body should also be in the safe.
Unmotivated: That, since they don't materially profit from it, The Four Horsemen rob a Paris bank for no apparent reason.
Unmotivated: That, since it is not they who seek revenge, The Four Horsemen commit heinous acts against Tressler & Bradley for no apparent reason.
Unmotivated: That, since they are not seeking profit from their bank robbery nor revenge against Tressler & Bradley, and since they in fact don't know the identity or motives of their true benefactor, The Four Horsemen commit robbery & wire fraud, thereby ruining their performance careers and leaving them wanted by the FBI, for no apparent reason.
i'm gonna clump these three together, SEVERAL times throughout the movie they mention WHY they do these things, its all to join the magician groups the eye, in fact the whole method of joining the eye is to follow the eye's direction unconditionally.
reply
share
markfilipak
8 years ago
I'm having to edit this because the bugs in the "rich text" are screwing up the page -- I've yet to find a web site where the HTML editor works right...
Misleading: That the film shows viewers images ("Paris at the same moment") that are not shown to characters (the Las Vegas audience). It is done solely to trick viewers...
actually it's true that scene was done 100% to trick the viewers of the movie, however, it was also done to show the DISCOVERY of the missing cash...
The film makers didn't need to trick viewers to show the discovery of the empty vault in Paris via an omniscient POV. "Paris at the same moment" and the discovery of the empty vault are unrelated.
Improbable: That The Four Horsemen go to the bother & expense & risk of ''teleporting'' an actual Parisian instead of simply planting their own shill in the audience.
actually, there was little risk in "teleporting" him...
Sure there was risk. Etienne could have missed the show (he could have been injured, or he could have died, he could have cancelled for any number of personal reasons (death or injury of a relative...), etc. -- then what would the Horsemen have done?). Also, there was bother and expense going to Paris to set up Etienne. If you were pulling off this trick, wouldn't you simply plant a shill? You've been distracted by the fact that Etienne was hypnotized. That Etienne was hypnotized is irrelevant.
Unbelievable: That Daniel's argument against charging The Four Horsemen succeeds. His argument is that the FBI can't charge The Four Horsemen because to do so would mean that the FBI believes in magic...
umm...actually thats how ALIBI's work, i mean proving you are on stage 5,421 miles where a crime is committed is a pretty solid *beep* alibi.
The robbery occurred prior to the show. Just because they are on stage when the robbery is discovered is irrelevant -- it doesn't establish an alibi at all. You are reacting as though Etienne was actually teleported and was found in the empty vault. Of course the FBI doesn't think that, but clearly the Horsemen were involved in some way, so releasing them is absurd. That would never happen in real life. Believing otherwise is believing in magical reality. This film is not about magical reality. It's about magic tricks. You want magical reality, try
Pan's Labyrinth or
The Fountain or any number of super-hero films. In short, the behavior of the FBI is unreal, regardless of Rhodes being simultaneously in the trick and in the FBI. He would have been relieved of command (which he eventually was).
I'll respond more in a bit. I've got to go now.
Edit: Replaced "the FBI doesn't believe that" with "the FBI doesn't think that" -- brain fart.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
reply
share
atom_alchemist
8 years ago
just in reference to the whole discovery of the robbery.
there a thing called a timeline,
if the bank works ANYTHING like a real bank, they would've checked everything in the vault when they closed the previous day, this is also when the bank manager would seal the vault (or it's time locks would engage) a standard flight from las vegas to new york takes roughly 13 hours, so their is SOME leeway for them to of robbed the bank, flew to las vegas and then put on the show, but not much, in fact, assuming the bank closed at 5 the previous day they would have about 2 hours to rob the bank AFTER they closed, but still be able to make it back to las vegas for the show. but again, their ALIBI comes to work here, in the fact that such a plane trip would also of included a customs check and a stamped passport and a record of them both leaving, and entering the united states, from a legal perspective, given what physical evidence existed in the movie at the time of their original apprehension, the ONLY thing the fbi could charge them with is conspiracy [to commit a robbery], but even that lacks physical evidence, so in truth the fbi couldn't really charge them with that either.
in fact, their alibi is actually basically bulletproof for any charge DIRECTLY related to teh robbery, because the robbery would not be physically possible for them, thats teh thing about a alaibi, one such as their is rock solid.
also, etienne TRULY beleived he DID rob a bank, during his interveiw before his hypnotism was trigger, he even goes on about how he tried to give teh money back, of course we never see what happened to etieene after that, but it's probably he was released, because teh PHYSICAL evidence was non existant.
reply
share
markfilipak
8 years ago
atom_alchemist wrote:
"... the bank manager would seal the vault ... a standard flight from las vegas to new york takes roughly 13 hours ... assuming the bank closed at 5 the previous day they would have about 2 hours to rob the bank AFTER they closed, but still be able to make it back to las vegas for the show. but again, their ALIBI comes to work here...
I'm mystified by this. I don't have the film rental, but I believe they didn't actually rob the bank, but robbed an armored truck. They switched their flash-paper euros for real euros. They could have done this days before their Las Vegas show. But if you want to consider whether they could have done this (Paris to Las Vegas, not Las Vegas to New York) on the same day, here's the flight info:
Charles de Gaulle to Heathrow to Las Vegas.
American Airlines 6555: CDG (2:00 pm) to LHR (2:25 pm)
American Airlines 6182: LHR (4:40 pm) to LAS (7:20 pm)
So you see, by the clock, using local time: about 6 hours -- actual flying time is about 15 hours, but they are flying east-to-west, with the sun.
There is no alibi.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
reply
share
atom_alchemist
8 years ago
this is true, they robbed a armoured truck, the problem is that they didn't just rob the truck, they also replaced the currency with a bunch of fake currency (that was triggered to degrade itself somehow) so as far as the bank knew, the truck was NOT robbed, and the bank did NOT put a bunch of fake currency in their vault, the money then self destructed sometime between them closing, and them reopening the next day, when the crime was discovered the next day, the logical assumption is that the money was stolen sometime AFTER them closing, and sometime BEFORE them opening.
that means, if the investigation follows a logical pursuit that means the bank was robbed sometime after 5 pm local time, but before 8 am local time the next day, that is a basic timeline, that all the facts present would support.
if you assume the absolute within the possibility of that time line, and they robbed the bank at 5:01 pm, immediately after closing, got away from the bank adn then boarded a flight back to las vegas to actually be there for their show, and we know their show was going on at 11:50 pm las vegas local time, it's "possible" because they have a window of opportunity that lasts about 1 hour (as they would've arrived in las vegas at at what, 11:00 pm local time? now of course if their show started at say 10:00 pm, then, why they would be on the stage 5400 miles away from crime with ZERO possibility of having done it,
because of the TIMELINE,
timelines are incredibly important when it comes to crimes, in fact, knowledgable criminals attempt to make discovering the timeline difficult because it makes it easier to get away with their crime.
furthermore, there would more then likely be evidence that we as the viewers don't see evidence that would further exonerate the group, who knows, maybe the vault was inspect at midnight, maybe the closing time for the bank is 8 pm and not 5 pm, the fact of the matter is that their was no real physical evidence linking them back to the bank, and depending on the timeline that would be revealed, they may have a rock solid alibi. take both those things, if both of those are true, then it's also true that it impossible to charge them with a crime, and they don't even have enough to detain them as persons of interested pursuit to their investigation, aka yea they DO have release them back to the public, and given that the fbi is a federal force, they would have zero reason to geographical restrict them to a single place (don't leave town now, ya hear?) as such, it's more than reasonable they were released. and that they could then travel to new orleans.
not sure why i say las vegas to new york. and yea it's true they could've switched out teh money days, weeks or hell months before the actualy show, the problem there is that even if they did, it doesn't matter, think about the course of events, the bank beleives it has real money, the money is secured ina vault, the money disappears without a trae, and someone 5400 miles away says they physically robbed the bank, the logical course of even ehre is that oh snap the bank was ROBBEd sometime AFTER they closed, and sometime before they opens, no one would immediately go "oh this money disappeared, the armoured truck that was delivering it must of delivered fake evaporating money instead of the real money they were s;posed to deliver...."
reply
share
markfilipak
8 years ago
atom_alchemist wrote:
"... the logical assumption is that the money was stolen sometime AFTER them [the Paris bank] closing, and sometime BEFORE them opening."
The Four Horsemen could have robbed the armored truck a day earlier than you're assuming. They could have robbed it a week earlier.
The bottom line is this: The Four Horseman robbed a bank in Paris. They rained the evidence of their robbery down on their audience in Las Vegas. Then the FBI fails to hold them. That's a hoot.
There is no alibi.
"furthermore, there would more then likely be evidence that we as the viewers don't see evidence that would further exonerate the group, who knows,"
Now you're making excuses for the film makers. That's good. It's the next step in your rehabilitation from fan-boy to film critic. Keep on the path to reality.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
reply
share
markfilipak
8 years ago
I wrote:
"Misleading: That, though they know that Wilder is not dead, and though there are no characters in the scene to be tricked by bogus displays, The Four Horsemen display shock when they see broadcast reports of Wilder's death. This is another example of tricking viewers which, when the truth is revealed, is pretty maddening."
atom_alchemist replied:
"again this is where OUR perspective is privileged, because we have a omniscient perspective movies NEED to trick us...books are the same way, the easiest way a book prevents the omniscient perspective is to do the book in first person, sadly movies can't do that, so you are stuck with trickery. EVERY movie does this."
Why would they act shocked when they have no audience? We are the
viewers of the movie. We are not
in the movie. It has nothing to do with POV of story telling.
I wrote:
"Impossible: That The Four Horsemen create bubbles that surround Henley as she is ''levitated'' by wires without the wires breaking the bubble."
atom_alchemist replied:
"another time you are gonna need to apply suspension of disbelief and movie magic."
Why? Can film makers do whatever they want and we're supposed to suspend disbelief? They're supposed to make us believe. This isn't a super-hero film.
I wrote:
"Illogical: That The Four Horsemen hide the warehouse safe behind a giant mirror instead of behind a false wall."
atom_alchemist replied:
"a false wall would not work because the space of the room would suddenly become smaller... walking into a room where a big long ol safe was and teh room is suddenly shortened, total must be a false wall."
You have been tricked into believing that the rabbit in the box trick uses a mirror, so you think the disappearing safe requires a mirror.
I wrote:
"Impossible: That, though it's clearly perpendicular (not angled), the giant mirror doesn't reflect the images of the FBI agents entering the (seemingly empty) warehouse."
atom_alchemist replied:
"... it's CLEARLY at a angle?
http://imgur.com/ghXNbpZ";
Oh, sure. Now that we can see some mounting brackets, they're at an angle. But go back and look at the film. Behind the false safe is not an angled mirror. Look carefully at the corner where the "mirror" joins the side wall.
Regarding the rest of your post: You do realize that the Horsemen endangered everyone on that bridge, don't you? If that flipping car had gone into the oncoming traffic, dozens would have been killed or injured and there would have been tons of property damage. Even if it hadn't gone into the oncoming traffic, it still could have killed/injured dozens behind it. I suppose that would have been okay, so I suppose it's reasonable to conclude that the Horsemen would have actually done it? And to what point? Why even have an "accident"? Oh, wait, don't answer that. I really need to move on.
PS: One last point. They didn't need to be charged with bank robbery to be held. All the FBI needed was a judge's order that they be held. It's called "reasonable suspicion". That's due process of law. That they were released after raining stolen money down on their Las Vegas audience is absolutely absurd. ... Never happen.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
reply
share
Outstandingness
8 years ago
well done. Thanks for taking the time. Even though we've already listed so many flaws, the more I think about this movie the more flaws spring up (the Paris bank robbery was the most absurd thing I've ever seen in movies; borderline surreal)
reply
share
atom_alchemist
8 years ago
...take a mirror, put it at a 45 degree angle to the ground, then look at it head on, it will reflect the GROUND as well as the 45 degrees of wall, but since it reflecting 45 degress of wall thats mirrors said degrees, ad 45+45 is 90, hence why the room still LOOKS square. the mirror intersects the left wall right at a bare building.
go and take a look at this image, http://imgur.com/5QGKJMY
i highlight two things that PROVE it's a angled mirror, teh first is the far left, where i highlight the actualy mirro border itself and then highlighted the corner of the floor as well, notice how it forms a crude 45 degree angle?
the second thing i highlighted was atlas character reflection, notice ho as atlas walks away from the mirror, his reflection walks UP the wall, this is because the mirror is reflecting the floor which simply happen to include atlas as a well, until he move out of the reflection.
the whole point of that mirror trick is to confuse a persons depth perspective and to trick someone that a closed volume (such as a box, or room) can have a item simply disappear into thin air, they technically are hiding behind a false wall, that false wall just happens to be a mirror at a 45 degree angle and it confuses them into thinking they are seeing the entirety of the exposed volume, because they have a grasp of teh external dimensions and thus their mind can tell whether teh internal dimensions are correct.
also, i never said teh bridge stunt was NOT dangerous for innocent bystanders, of course it was freaking dangerous.
furthermore, as i said elsewhere in this post, reasonable suspicion DID apply, in fact, thats why they arrested the 4 horsemen in the FIRST place, but reasonable suspicion does NOT allow a them to be charged with a crime, in fact, to be charged with a crime, the DA has to sign off on it, and more often then not the da will require some physical PROOF that they committed a crime before charging them, and at what point in the movie did we EVER see any physical proof that they did the crime? other than the omniscient point of veiw that we as veiwers saw when freemans character explained what he THINKS happened. furthermore, see as we never see the release agreement when they were release, they likely were NOT ordered to stay in the state of las vegas, because those type of orders are to insure the person stays within teh area of jurisdiction of the investigating authority, for the FBI there was no need for it, because the fbi is federal,
reply
share
markfilipak
8 years ago
atom_alchemist wrote:
"... his reflection walks UP the wall,"
Gosh! I guess the FBI would never notice that. Hahahahahahahahahahaha............
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
reply
share
atom_alchemist
8 years ago
yea if they never got close enough it WOULDN'T reflect them, they literally nee to be UNDER where ever teh mirror terminates at the ceiling. which i'm pretty sure they DIDN'T get close enough.
reply
share
ps_ssari
8 years ago
When it was on theaters, I wanted to watch this movie, but my friends had insisted on a comedy movie. Now, having watched it, I'm happy I hadn't convinced my friends instead at that time. It was flashy, attractive, action-loaded, and utterly stupid.
I agree with most of the flaws listed (not all), but the biggest problem in my opinion is that it expects us to believe an extremely, exceptionally, stupid FBI.
This eliminates the challenge. No need to be smart any more, the FBI are complete idiots any way.
Even if we disregard the ridiculous mirror-room scene (guys, seriously, some of you are really trying to explain this logically?), why would FBI ever travel with a safe in the first place, which they thought was filled up with 0.5bn USD?
And, how the bank-heist in Paris is even possible? Yeah, they robbed the truck, cool, but HOW? just by modifying the bank's truck, hiding inside, and replacing the money in a dark alley? really?? is this your smart plot?
The ending... did any one not predict the twist?
This is not suspension of disbelief. This is expectation of fooling viewers by terrible stage shows. Apparently it worked, so they made the second.
reply
share