Now You See Me

**yoco** · 17.11.12, 12:15

Release Date: June 7, 2013
Studio: Summit Entertainment (Lionsgate)
Director: Louis Leterrier
Screenwriter: Boaz Yakin, Edward Ricourt
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Morgan Freeman, Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Caine, Common
Genre: Crime, Thriller
MPAA Rating: Not Available

"Now You See Me" pits a crack FBI squad in a game of cat and mouse against a super-team of the world's greatest illusionists, who pull off a series of daring bank heists during their performances, showering the profits on their audiences while staying one step ahead of the law.

**fuzzy** · 29.06.13, 09:49

Refreshing movie to see. Just one tid bit from me:

Spoiler why?:

**SealLion** · 30.06.13, 05:04

Totally unrealistic in the real world. However, this film almost reminds me of the Robin Hood story. Bad guy (read actually the good guy) gives/returns money back to the poor people originally stolen from them by the real bad guy. The one who robs from the poor through over taxation, over taxed levies and such. The illusionists supposedly are the good guys and the cops are the bad guys. Or is it the banks that are the bad guys since banks hold all our money and the illusionists are just trying to rob from the bad guy (banks) to give back to the general population??

Like I said. Totally unrealistic in the real world. Besides according to the small blurb on this movie's plot, it involves staying one step ahead of the law. That's kind of impossible now-a-days. Your digital footprint is virtually everywhere. And so is potentially your face and the car/truck/van you drive. Ever come to a 4-way intersection where there are a number of different positioned cameras that point directly towards the road and/or drivers? I realize that these cameras are there to participate in traffic assessments. But sometimes I get this eerie feeling. You know what I mean?? Could a person be tracked in addition to his/her digital footprint while being potentially tracked by the law?? And if not by law enforcement then by other interested parties?? Ya..I think so. In my opinion. It portends of the future. That is, if the future isn't already here. In a way (imo) it portends of 1984. But that's another subject.

Maybe the movie will get some handsome review for good acting or best cgi or something.

**slikrapid** · 30.06.13, 19:15

@SealLion:

Totally unrealistic in the real world.

yeah, you can say that again (in the age of 'we want more realism in our movies' no less)

However, this film almost reminds me of the Robin Hood story. Bad guy (read actually the good guy) gives/returns money back to the poor people originally stolen from them by the real bad guy. The one who robs from the poor through over taxation, over taxed levies and such.

except that robin hood wasn't returning anything (being a collector for a different king) and even if he did, who knows where the money originally came from (previous owners) anyways - similarly in the movie, that money was 'showered' onto random viewers who purchased the likely quite expensive tickets for the show, meaning they aren't exactly poor either, plus the few snatched bills/banknotes won't be sufficient to cover the mentioned damages (cars/houses/...) anyways - its just a good bait to draw-in the audience as they like to be fed with 'rob-the-rich' or 'bathe-in-cash' themes (minor caine/freeman roles being another bait towards the same goal), its a good example of misdirection (one of the movie themes), getting 'hoodwinked' in a way hehe

it involves staying one step ahead of the law. That's kind of impossible now-a-days.

except that these 'illusionists' already explained what they were going to do (mentioned the bank, the location, the owner, the robbing, their involvement/intentions, showing off in front of hundreds of viewers), losing any advantage they might have had - its like 'making a confession' prior to the deed itself lol

Ever come to a 4-way intersection where there are a number of different positioned cameras that point directly towards the road and/or drivers? I realize that these cameras are there to participate in traffic assessments.

thats the official explanation, but you don't really need cameras to count vehicles, a few (much cheaper, less intrusive) sensors will do the job
as already mentioned, the real goals are to increase surveillance, monetize it (law enforcement, third parties, contractors, data collection,...), desensitize the public to such tracking gadgets, create reasons to increase taxes & government spending, increase the number of active (never-ending) projects, use it for PR & political purposes, etc. - all of which has a higher priority than the formal goal of, lets call it 'traffic assessment'

as for the movie, it looks flashy and potentially entertaining, but the improbabilities are already way too obvious and huge from the start (lazy scriptwriting?)