BEFORE: Linking from "The Lone Ranger", a young actor named Mason Cook (he played the kid Tonto told the story to) carries over and plays the young Burt Wonderstone.
AFTER: I'm willing to bet that this screenplay was written with Will Ferrell in mind, because it seems right in line with the formula seen in many of his films: a clueless successful windbag suffers a setback, and has to rebuild his life, get back in touch with what made him successful, and gain a clue while he gets (or re-gets) the girl (see: "Anchorman", "Semi-Pro", "The Campaign", "Blades of Glory"). Probably this is most like "Talldega Nights", since that film featured a team of racecar drivers who battle a third rival, and this has a team of magicians who battle a third rival magician. So this is just "Talladega Nights", minus racecars, plus magic tricks. Once you realize there is a formula, that makes screenwriting a little less impressive.
Magic seems to be undergoing a renaissance of sorts, thanks to "America's Got Talent" and a best-of show called "Masters of Illusion", and even Penn & Teller are back on TV doing actual tricks, instead of de-bunking religion or competing on celebrity cooking shows. And there's probably a lot of things in the world of magic that need satirizing, I'm guessing there's no shortage of misplaced egos and pompousness. The main team here is not really a spoof of any particular set of magicians, not even Siegfried & Roy, but the rival is definitely a take on Criss Angel and/or David Blaine.
The problem here seems to be similar to what was seen in "The Lone Ranger", that of inconsistent characterization - of course, a character has to change over the course of a movie, but that works best when there is ONE major change. Here Burt Wonderstone used magic as a kid to fight bullies and make friends, but once he became successful and lazy, he started using his fame just to get laid. So magic made him strong, but then magic made him weak - which is it, and what forced that change, which is not shown? The passage of time caused them to omit the reason for Burt becoming egotistical and clueless, which therefore counts as weak storytelling - it's not enough to equate success with being jaded, clueless and apathetic.
It's true that sometimes you have to lose it all to realize what you've lost, in terms of a job or a relationship, I don't have an issue with that. But then to lump together finding oneself, reinventing one's career and having a real adult relationship for the first time feels like too much going on at the same time. If someone went through a complete re-invention like that, you'd expect them to essentially be a completely different person afterward.
I almost mentioned this last week, but I held back - I was quite close to quitting one of my jobs, for reasons perhaps similar to what's seen in this film, for why the two magicians stop working together. Lately my boss and I have been arguing frequently, especially when we spent five days in a booth together at Comic-Con. I feel like I'm unable to disagree with him over even the smallest point without him taking that as a personal attack, then getting defensive and insulting me. I realize that I'm often a contrary person, but when I disagree with someone or point out a small mistake, I try not to do that with malice, it's usually in the interest of making a film or a press release better, or just getting everyone on the same page so we can move forward. I won't be belittled or meant to feel lessened just because I have a dissenting opinion on the way business should be conducted. It's a case where I may need to walk away to prove how much the company needs me.
Anyway, about the film. Another problem is that this film couldn't completely convey the sense of wonder that well-performed magic creates without relying on special FX trickery. Sure, we all know how a magician really pulls off the "sawing a lady in half" trick, so they had to break new ground somewhere. But they could have come up with some new, inventive tricks that would be possible in a real magic show and still maintain the illusion, just by not telling the film audience how it's done. To show a magician do something that is genuinely impossible, and rely on movie magic to portray that, it almost feels like a cheat. Yes, FX are generally allowed in a film, so I'm of two minds on this point.
But then we come to the ending of this film, which seems like a huge mis-step. To spend so much time demonstrating that a callous person has changed his ways, become more interested in his lover's feelings, treating his friend better, etc. and then have him devise a trick that doesn't just fool the stage audience, it puts them in harm's way and literally treats them like props - mindless props at that. Well, then it seems like the main character hasn't really changed after all. Is it OK to harm the audience in order to entertain them? That was the whole reason why they hated the rival street magician in the first place!
Still, it's all done here in the name of comedy, which is why this scores one point higher than "The Lone Ranger", which was also ridiculous and non-sensical, but wanted to be taken seriously.
Also starring Steve Carell (last seen in "Melinda and Melinda"), Jim Carrey (last seen in "Anchorman 2", Steve Buscemi (last seen in "The Island"), Olivia Wilde (last seen in "In Time"), Alan Arkin (last seen in "Argo"), James Gandolfini (last seen in "Killing Them Softly"), with cameos from Jay Mohr (last seen in "Picture Perfect"), Brad Garrett (last heard in "Hoodwinked 2: Hood vs. Evil"), Gillian Jacobs (last seen in "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World"), Vance Degeneres, John Francis Daley and David Copperfield.
RATING: 5 out of 10 white rabbits
Plenty of problems with this one. It's generally a mistake to begin a movie with its own "prequel." It's usually frustrating later on, when the now-grown character recaps the whole first ten minutes of the movie in just one nostalgic line of dialogue about his childhood.
ReplyDeleteSteve Buscemi is mostly wasted in this role, and the movie is filled with characters doing silly, impossible things. And this isn't a "silly" movie in which I would buy that a stage magician is unaware of how utterly unconvincing his solo performance of a two-person act is.
I found the ending just as dumb as you did. It seems as if the "right" ending was there in front of them: they beat the "edgy" gross-out street magician by tapping in to the childlike wonder that's been at the core of great magic for centuries. Instead, there's this utterly impossible trick that couldn't possibly be repeated even once, let alone nightly.
This is another flick where I wonder why problems that seemed so obvious to me during my one viewing weren't spotted and fixed before they began filming. It sure isn't because I'm smarter than people who actually work in this industry!