Skip to content

Recent Posts

  • If You’re Trying to Explain Away the Death of Rayshard Brooks, You Don’t Want to See the Systemic Problem
  • The Rise, Fall and Suicide Letter of MoviePass
  • Hot Take: Second Act
  • The First 25 Movies of the Next 100 Movies of 2018, Graded
  • Hot Take: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Movie Hot Take

Wasting $8 On Popcorn So You Don't Have To...

Primary Navigation Menu
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Movies of 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Hot Take: Now You See Me 2

Hot Take: More style and less substance than the first. Not awful but nothing you’ll be disappointed to miss.

The original Now You See Me was fun. It wasn’t deep or overly memorable but it definitely had a lot of shine. As it meandered along, it worked so well because it caught you by surprise. By the sequel, you knew what to expect. The element of surprise was reduced to practically nothing. Sure, the tricks are bigger but they’re harder to believe and not like “how’d they do that?” hard to believe but “was that really magic or just camera tricks?” As for the story, it’s hard to imagine you’ll get as invested in the second installment as you would in the first. The stake aren’t higher and the twists have road signs now pointing you in which direction the film is going to turn next.

The movie has a few new tricks up its sleeve that aid the film. Lizzy Caplan replaces Isla Fisher as the girl member of the Horsemen. Daniel Radcliffe is added to the cast in a villainous role. Both have wonderful introductions then manage to disappear into the inner workings of the film. Overcrowding (a phenomenon many movies have suffered from this year) may be the film’s biggest problem as some characters fail to stand out as more minor characters earn some screen time.

For the first hour or so, Now You See Me 2 does a nice job of revisiting the things that worked in the original. As the film progresses, There’s an overriding feeling that maybe NYSM2 is trying too hard. In the original, there was a sense of wonder that is rarely present in the second film. Some of the tricks are just too big and too cinematic to buy. The traveling card scene highlighted in the trailer is probably the biggest letdown. It’s hard to imagine such a sleight of hand being possible but when meticulously shot with cameras zoomed in on the movement of the card it’s even less believable. It’s a shame, too, because the cast is great and there are a few fun moments. Unfortunately, they are just few and far between.

While going to the movie is still magical, the follow up to the magically successful Now You See Me only has one real trick up its sleeve. Bigger becomes smaller. Abracadabra!

“Spoiler Free” Pros

  • Introductions of Caplan & Radcliffe
    Both join the cast with a bang. Too bad they can’t maintain the level of intensity with which they join Now You See Me 2. Caplan holds up better than Radcliffe as she has at least one or two more charming moments throughout the film. We’ll get back to Radcliffe.
  • There’s Still Some Magic Left
    If you can suspend disbelief, the magic tricks in the film are fun to watch and if you can even half believe they are possible, it makes the movie’s enjoyment level levitate a little.

“Spoiler Free” Cons

  • Now What?
    After introducing Radcliffe, he fades into the background of the film. It’s almost as if someone had an idea that attaching Harry Potter to a movie about magicians would be catchy enough to give the movie yet another reason to be seen other than they obvious reasons people see sequels. Unfortunately, his character becomes a waste of resources. A problem the film has exponentially.
  • The Year of Sequelitis
    2016 continues to produce sequel after sequel which employ the philosophy “bigger is better” yet disprove it time and again. Of the 60 movies to hit 1,000+ theaters, 18 have been sequels.
  • Woody Harrelson Part Deux
    Sorry but Woody Harrelson’s character having a twin brother just doesn’t work.

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest

Related

2016-06-12
By: Brian Joseph
On: June 12, 2016
In: 2016, Hot Take
Previous Post: Hot Take: The Lobster
Next Post: Hot Take: The Conjuring 2

Recent Posts

  • If You’re Trying to Explain Away the Death of Rayshard Brooks, You Don’t Want to See the Systemic Problem
  • The Rise, Fall and Suicide Letter of MoviePass
  • Hot Take: Second Act
  • The First 25 Movies of the Next 100 Movies of 2018, Graded
  • Hot Take: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Recent Comments

  • Scott on Hot Take: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
  • BobJ27 on Hot Take: Second Act
  • Bob J. on The First 25 Movies of the Next 100 Movies of 2018, Graded
  • Brian Joseph on Hot Take: Ralph Breaks the Internet
  • Bob J. on Hot Take: Ralph Breaks the Internet

Categories

  • #5LinkMinimum (4)
  • 10 Things (6)
  • 1968 (1)
  • 1980 (1)
  • 1981 (2)
  • 1985 (1)
  • 1988 (1)
  • 2006 (1)
  • 2013 (1)
  • 2014 (5)
  • 2015 (127)
  • 2016 (270)
  • 2017 (169)
  • 2018 (133)
  • 7 Days (6)
  • Burning Questions (1)
  • BuRStS (86)
  • Hot Take (662)
  • Lists (24)
  • music videos (1)
  • Podcasts (1)
  • Ranked (43)
  • Spoiler Alert (1)
  • To See or Not To See (32)
  • Top Movies (7)
  • Trailers (120)
  • TV Shows (1)
  • Uncategorized (15)
  • Weigh In (13)

Archives

  • June 2020 (1)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (6)
  • November 2018 (8)
  • October 2018 (10)
  • September 2018 (9)
  • August 2018 (16)
  • July 2018 (16)
  • June 2018 (16)
  • May 2018 (9)
  • April 2018 (18)
  • March 2018 (11)
  • February 2018 (17)
  • January 2018 (12)
  • December 2017 (7)
  • November 2017 (13)
  • October 2017 (15)
  • September 2017 (14)
  • August 2017 (20)
  • July 2017 (15)
  • June 2017 (16)
  • May 2017 (24)
  • April 2017 (25)
  • March 2017 (17)
  • February 2017 (17)
  • January 2017 (25)
  • December 2016 (6)
  • November 2016 (23)
  • October 2016 (24)
  • September 2016 (26)
  • August 2016 (28)
  • July 2016 (25)
  • June 2016 (32)
  • May 2016 (38)
  • April 2016 (36)
  • March 2016 (31)
  • February 2016 (26)
  • January 2016 (23)
  • December 2015 (19)
  • November 2015 (40)
  • October 2015 (34)
  • September 2015 (51)
  • August 2015 (25)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Designed using Dispatch. Powered by WordPress.