Psychologist Margaret Matheson and her assistant study paranormal activity, which leads them to investigate a world-renowned psychic who has resurfaced years after his toughest critic mysteriously passed away.
The skeptical psychologist Dr. Margaret Matheson and her assistant, physicist Tom Buckley, are specialists in disclosing fraudulent paranormal phenomena. When the famous psychic Simon Silver reappears to his public after many years of absence, Tom becomes singularly obsessed in determining whether Silver is a fraud or not. Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
The black and white clip of the Russian woman moving metal objects and matchsticks around on a table shown by Tom Buckley (Murphy) in class is the same clip used in The Atticus Insitute (2015); another film about clairvoyants. See more »
In a classroom scene (0:13:32 into the film), Margaret draws four X's around a circle: top, left, bottom, and right. When she draws the X on the right, she does not lift the marker and, having done it quickly, makes the X look more like a fish shape with two west-end tips of the X connected; however, the following camera angles show all four X's as full X's - no "fish." See more »
Not impressed. Too hollow, self-conflicting, unfulfilled
Unimpressed. I liked the theme that the movie was hinting towards in the beginning. Scientists evaluating and debunking pseudo-science and psychic phenomena. Reminded me of the Great James Randi. But within minutes, it was clear that even that aspects are mangled up. Some investigations are shown without the results/ explanations given in detail. The debunks are simplistic, and talk about some of the common/ popular psychic cons, but never in detail; I wonder if people would catch it unless they are already familiar with the cons via documentaries and other shows.
I was particularly irritated about how they administered the Astrology chart test devised by James Randi, and popularized via "Pen & Teller: Bulls**t" episode. Cilian Murphy's character administered the test, and then left the scene without explaining the point of the exercise, which is a shame.
I liked Sigourney Weaver's character in the beginning, but the character turned out to be so poorly threshed out; not a lot better than a caricature of a pseudo-science skeptic.
I understand a lot of people have problems with the movie's ending. I can understand the frustration. The climactic twist takes away from the central premise, it reminded me of 'The Reaping' in some way. And besides being incongruous to the main storyline, it further had the problem of being very poorly executed.
Overall, I'd rate it around 4 out of 10. Not great.
58 of 105 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?