MovieChat Forums > The Magician (2010) Discussion > This film was bloody fantastic!!

This film was bloody fantastic!!

posted 19 years ago by poyz
46 replies | jump to latest

Just a short note. I just got back from Cinema Europa in melbourne tonight where I saw The Magician, and must say I loved it. I wasn't aware of the background to the film, only that it was supposed to be a documentary. I was amazed and spellbound by what I saw in short, and thought it was a fantastic effort by all involved. Some of the drug addicts and foes that Ray went after could/should have had more development. I had thought of putting myself in those situations and thought these guys were way to calm for the dangers they were being exposed to. Until then end thought I thought all of this was real, and quite amazing and was really suprised when it turned out to be a 'mockumenatry' take on the whole gangster lifestyle. Most amusing was the locations which are very close to my former office at 120 collins. I used to park at the carpark shown in the begining every day for seven years, and eat occasionally at the italian waiters club which was down one of the lanes they walked through. Having walked past much of the drug activity for years in Russell Street outside the video game arcades my feeling of making the drug addicts more real in a sense was seeing them as more gritty low lives. Some of the dialog could have been improved also like the references to 'eating *beep* etc. though I guess those were the sorts of jokes that made the film such a laugh. Sure it was c-level humour, though thats on par with most of the western suburbs high school drop outs that peddle drugs each day in that area.

5/5 stars.. I really liked it, and hope Scott Ryan gets some added support from this release to go on and make many more films in the years ahead.

PS: There were only five people in the cinema -- i'm not sure how well this is getting supported... I can only hope that the film receives some positive media to get some more bums on seats as I think a lot of young australians would love this, especially if they are from melbourne.

Cheers.

[–] greigjl 19 years ago

there were only nine people in the palace cinema in adelaide where i saw this film last week. come on poeple get out there and support the aussie film industry. this movie is fantastic!!

[–] sryan2 19 years ago

Scott Ryan was at a Q&A session in Perth last night and there was a pretty decent turnout (a few hundred) so I'm hoping it might be gathering some momentum as the press latch on to it.

[–] rwgordon-1 19 years ago

Not only should people be seeing this film, but those who don't like it should have a think about it before they critisise it on here. I've read at least three reviews that made blatant mistakes or simply didn't understand what they were talking about.

E.G.

"There are no insights into why Ray is a hitman."

Wrong. Ray explains that he was in the army for a while and was discharged for being overly-aggressive with the wrong guy. Plus, he is extremely sheepish and cagey, throughout the film beginning a sentance and finishing with "you know..." and this happens most when Ray is being probed by the cameraman.

"This is a one joke film."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I saw this film at the sold-out premiere at the Melbourne International Film Festival and the audienced laughed (when they were supposed to) all the way through. I loved it so much i took some friends to see it at another packed cinema (admittedly it was the tiny cinema at the Nova) and again the audience ate it up. I just can't imagine anybody seeing this with a group of friends or a large audience and not thinking it was brilliantly funny, and sad, and relevant.

People who love indie films should see this. People who love hitmen should see this. People who want australian films to stop being pieces of garbage should go and see this. If you don't fit any of these catagories then you should see this and decide for yourself.

[–] St_Anus 19 years ago

it was pretty good compared to other crap aussie movies of recent times but it was no 'Chopper' or 'Romper Stomper' IMO. And i've heard it being compared to 'Man bites Dog'. MBD was so much better. way more provocative and clever.

[–] blair_sokolowski 19 years ago

I quite liked this film. Saw the first screening at dendy brisbane, only me and four other people though. Maybe cause it was 10:30am on a thursday? =)

It made me laugh, it made me feel for the characters and it kept me wondering till the end. I'd reccomend it!

[–] murphmeister-1 19 years ago

Saw it at Dendy, Brisbane, it rocks the big one! If only more Aussie films were this good.

[–] lastknuckleman 19 years ago

Australian cineman has hit a new low.

Ryan talks to camera for 85 minutes.

Riveting.

[–] roguedoolan 19 years ago

Are you insane?! What are you waiting for, more sh-t like Summersault?!

The Magician, Look Both Ways, Wolf Creek etc are the only good Oz films for ages.
See you at the finish line FOOL.

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

I used to say the Matrix was my favourite Australian film, it could well now be The Magician. Hilarious, ridiculous, fantastic.

[–] lastknuckleman 19 years ago

No drama.

No plot.

No story structure.

Underdeveloped characters

Poor dialogue that goes nowhere (and rips off Tarantino.)

Cinematography looks like crap.

Yeah, great film.

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

No drama, no plot and no story structure. ok knuckleman I guess you missed it so I'll explain it to you. the drama, plot and structure is about a man whilst put on the spot and interviewed about his profession reflects on it and through the whole process evolves. by being interviewed he makes a massive transition. the questions from the documentary maker force him to think about his rules such that he evolves and changes and ultimately in the end does something that would otherwise be out of character.

*spolier*

Ryan was asked in the 'meet the filmmaker' session I went to why the magician let the guy go in the end. his response was that 'the clues were there'. Unfortunately knuckleman missed the clues. the clues of course were how the documentary maker responded to the killings and how the magician responded to that response. being interviewed about his life forces him to reflect on his life and a change is made.

How could you say there are underdeveloped characters? Character complexity comes from conflict. Here is a man, a serial killer is loveable and relaxed yet does evil things. He has a military background and doesn't realise his wrongdoing until ultimately the film climaxes.

Of course you thought the dialogue went no where as you missed the whole point. As for ripping off Tarantino?? I think you need to back that up. You think just because the characters chat about seemingly unrelated subject matter he's ripping of Tarantino? Go read 'Catcher in the Rye' and listen to Holden Caulfield talk through the whole book about quirky seemingly unrelated things whilst all the while a story with structure and character development is happenging underneath. Does Tarantino rip of Salinger?

The cinematography looks exactly like it should look for an interview of a serial killer by a guy's neighbour. As a result the cinematography succeeds brillantly and is very solid.

Great film? Yes

[–] roguedoolan 19 years ago

Nuff said. Lastknuckleman is just displaying what a dumb a$$hole he can be. Go eat a bowl of $hit.

[–] lastknuckleman 19 years ago

Drama is simply frustrated desire. A character wants something and obstacles get in their way from getting it. So they do whatever they can to get it. What did Ray Shoesmith want again?

The film's structure, if you could call it that, is messy at best. You do realise that when we talk structure, we're talking about inciting incidents, turning points etc don't you?

Plot? The film is basically just one long boring interview that goes nowhere, regardless of what spin the filmmakers and posters on this site put on it.

The characters are underdeveloped because they are flat, one-dimensional and don't go on any journey. They are stereotypes rather than archetypes. This comes about when you write from 'outside the character,' as Ryan obviously did (and has admitted himself in interviews' rather than from 'inside the character.'

Complexity, please. As I stated in the previous paragraph, they're one-note.

The cinematography looks exactly like it should for someone who waves a cheap digital camera about.

At the screening I went to, there were four people in the cinema. Three walked out after half an hour. Enough said.

Though I will concede that it's good to know Scott Ryan's family and friends are very supportive of him, as evidenced by the passionate and irrational defences of him on this site.

[–] chevell 18 years ago

You're absolutely right. The scores of people praising this film are obviously deluded. It's not like there's a possibility you just don't get it, right? It couldn't be that they're seeing something you're not, that they're not cynical bastards who can't just go into a film and see it for what it is? No, they must be idiots who don't understand what a film is supposed to be, not like you and me.

Rest assured, you are right. Everyone else is wrong.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gainsbarre 18 years ago

You're obviously refering to my comments there, rwgordon.

And I'm sorry but you haven't really disproven my comments. It is a one joke film.

This was meant to be documentary about a hitman. The maker of the documentary is a criminal by just hanging out with him, but does he try to get to the bottom of what's going on? No, he just follows around while Shoesmith unfunilly drones on about crap.

I can tell you now that most of the film's problems are because of its budget. Shoesmith obviously didn't have the money to go into much depth in this film, so he decided to make a movie based on dialogue, and a supposed character study. The dialogue unfortunately was supposed to be funny but it really wasn't because it was just one joke: a hit man and a victim talking about banal things. There was no guts to this at all.

Now obviously you're going to find this film funny if you like people talking about eating turds nad pissing and all that sort of stuff, all that rubbish, but in a film as slight as this, it would've been good if all that crap was fruit for the sideboard instead of being the ENTIRE film.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] standingononefoot 17 years ago

I quite liked it. I know far too many people who act and talk just like Ray. He really captured the low life Australian persona. Also the scene where Tony is begging for his life was excellent. The emotion in his voice really made you think he was going to die and the begging panic seemed very real. If you have ever been in a similar situation or witnessed one you would know that's how the person will act.

This was amazingly done and they were all amateur actors. It really shows all amateur film makers what they could do.

[–] mandapantz 19 years ago

Happy to report that my boyfriend and I went to the 9pm session at Cinema Europa Jam Factory last night and the cinema was almost full! Hope more people are lucky enough to catch this gem before it leaves the big screen.

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

*spoiler*

oh knuckleman you think I know Ryan. I don't know Ryan at all, but I know a good film when I see it. a protagonist's objetive does not need to be known to the protagonist. the objective he thought he had was to be interviewd and to do his job, but what he was actually pursuing was enlightenment. the plot is there as I've discussed before.

inciting incident - his neighbour decides to document his life thus changing his life completely as he is sent on the journey of contemplating on his career.
Turning points - having a friend not do as instructed, then having to make a choice as to whether or not to let that friend off. when he kills even his friend and thinks it's letting him off nicely to do this we think that really under no circumstances does he have a heart. Then in the final act climax he does something unprecedented and let's a man go.

that whole funny scene where the documentary maker asks him to pick up his stolen stuff is key - the magician is being asked to contemplated other measures than murder and brutality.

Are you going to explain how he rips off Tarantino? I'm intrigued.

[–] lastknuckleman 19 years ago

My comparison to Tarantino comes from the dialogue that goes round and round in circles and ultimately goes nowhere. Most of it is pointless. Also, the glib infatuation with the underworld. It's fan-boy, comic book stuff. Ryan isn't the first and, unfortunately, won't be the last.

Filmmakers can be very persuasive when when justifying their films. But their words are hollow if what they're talking about is not up on the screen, no matter how persuasive their argument.

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

glad to hear that you're finding the arguments persuasive. it's sad when people glance over a book like 'Story' missing the point and thinking that plot points need to hit you sharply like the magician killing another target, and therefore lose the ability to enjoy films that are a bit more subtle in there telling.

I'm not so sure the dialogue goes nowhere. to be honest I was too caught up in the story and to busy laughing to be thinking about. I loved the Wayne Carey chats, and dispite my general dislike of toilet humour thought the eating *beep* conversation was great.

a good film is one that sticks in your mind afterwards. you think about it frequently and remember the scenes. it's one you want to relive in conversations as we're doing here, and one ultimately you want to see again.

A glib infatuation with the underworld? Ryan read about the underworld for years and actually has quite a handle on underworld figures. He spent years wondering how they'd react in certain situations. It shows in his acting don't you think?

How much would I have to pay you to eat a bowl of *beep*

[–] unkleduke 19 years ago

What's all this talk about script and plot and structure? I think some of you have missed the point. The Magician is, and has always claimed to be documentary in style. The banality of the conversations only added to the idea that this was a real hit man we were watching.

To have tight, well scripted lines would have made the whole documentary idea seem fake and redundant - where is the realism in that? The film has little to no plot i'll agree, but so what? Who says there's a set bunch of rules that must be followed when making a film. Is the concept of experimentation to be made off limits? What a tragedy it would have been for cinema if directors like Fellini, Tati, Van Sant had sacrificed their imaginations to dish out commercial tripe to dumb audiences!

This film ultimately led to sadness for me, however - I thought Ray Shoesmith was a fascinating character, a great subject for study, and yet
he existed on camera for only a few days then departed before we got a chance to know him. It's these unanswered questions that made Ray such a plausible hit man - he always retained a sense of mystery. That subtle but very crucial point appears lost on these failed film school hacks who probably use Stallone as their benchmark for quality hard man.

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

agree to disagree. respect.

as for unkleduke's comments:

Hollywood heavyweight Sylvester Stallone will reprise his role as a working-class boxing champ in a new sequel to Rocky, the film that propelled him to fame almost 30 years ago.

The actor, now 59, will also direct, write and co-produce Rocky Balboa, the sixth film in the winning Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) film series launched with the Oscar-winning Rocky in 1976, Stallone's spokeswoman and MGM said.

"It's all very exciting," said Michelle Bega, the spokeswoman for the star who won Academy Award nominations for starring in and writing Rocky.

The new film will begin shooting in January, according to MGM and co-producers Revolution Studios.

Rocky Balboa will pick up the saga of boxer Rocky Balboa when, years after his retirement, he is drawn back to the boxing ring one last time following the death of his wife.

He is challenged not only by a powerful new champion but also by his personal woes.

"We're convinced the Rocky franchise is as strong as ever, with a whole new generation of filmgoers ready to be introduced and an established fan base eager to be reacquainted with this iconic character," said MGM president Dan Taylor.

"We felt it was the perfect first film to be green lit under the 'new' MGM," he said as the studio relaunches itself following its purchase last year by Japan's Sony Pictures.

The Rocky franchise has raked in $US495 million ($A650.37 million) dollars in North America alone over the past 29 years and remains the signature role of Rambo star Stallone.

[–] lastknuckleman 19 years ago

Quite the opposite re: persuasive arguments! But we'll have to agree to disagree.

Ryan glorifies the underworld, much in the same way Tarantino and Ritchie do. His performance is okay but its not in any way a true reflection of that world.

All this *beep* eating reminds me of the scene in 'Life is Cheap...But Toilet Paper is Expensive' where the American Cowboy is forced to a bowl of his own *beep* by the Hong Kong gangsters. As they're all laughing at him, he turns and says: "It's good s***!"

[–] sikwitit23 19 years ago

This film was excellent! I laughed all the way at all the quirky discussions, particularly the Wayne carey one - classic!
And to that idiot who said the cinematography, plot and story was poor - it was a 'mockumentary', it was filmed that way because it suits the documentary format and the fact that it is a character study of a hitman.
As for the plot and story remark, it was an interview containing certain footage of a hitman edited to make a documentary, Michael Moore's work isn't linear in its editing and i liked that it switched between Ray and his assalents back to him talking to the camera. I don't think Ray and his dealings with the underworld were glorified as i found it made clear that people who are drug dealers/hitman that are seperated from civilization (their families) certainly do have a conscience no matter how hard they try it will catch up with them or they will simply wind up dead.
The film exposed what dilemma's Ray faced and how Max (interviewer) forced him to reflect on his life/methods and learn some compassion contrasted with earlier on where he didn't care the guy had a daughter.
As for comments it wasn't as good as 'Chopper', i personally felt it was better as apart from Bana's performance i didn't rate chopper that much when i saw it - mainly because i had built up expectations.

On another note - does anybody know who the 'gay celebrity' they mentioned was (another amusing hollywood diss)?

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

tom cruise

[–] sikwitit23 19 years ago

Yeah that's what i had thought coming out because i heard a few rumours of his relationship (cough) contract with nicole kidman to make her a star.

I missed the first few minutes of this film cos we were late, can anyone tell me what i missed, i saw from when he was waiting in the car for the drug dealer with the beard to come by near the carpark when he first grabs him.

[–] lastknuckleman 19 years ago

'And to that idiot who said the cinematography, plot and story was poor - it was a 'mockumentary', it was filmed that way because it suits the documentary format and the fact that it is a character study of a hitman.'

Yeah right. Because there's no structure, plot or decent cinematography in documentaries. Who's the idiot?

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

A: the guy who agreed to disagree and then still carries on.

[–] roguedoolan 19 years ago

Well said.

[–] getoffit 14 years ago

it was actually john travolta, then tom cruise

[–] getoffit 18 years ago

you talk about the underworld as if you know something about it. what makes you an expert?

[–] bajparry 18 years ago

I saw this film in a preview in London yesterday. Fantastic! I can't express what an achievement this is from Ryan. Absolutely brilliant.

"Find out what to think next!"
-Chris Morris, "Brasseye"

[–] batterypoweredhamster 18 years ago

To the poster who commented on the below average quality cinematography; from what I heard, the film was made on a budget of $3000. To make a feature film that is being shown to audiences for this ridiculously small amount of money is a huge success, but you must realise that the picture quality might not be to the same standard as, for example, one with a several hundred million dollar budget?

[–] lastknuckleman 18 years ago

"But for all your supposed "knowledge" of what movies are about, you have forgotten the single most important element: CONFLICT"

The most important element is DRAMA.

Two different things.

[–] robizcool 18 years ago

*Spoilers*

I think if you're going to bad mouth the film for riffing on Tarantino's style of dialogue (which is arguable) and then say that the film has no structure is void, it just mixes up it's chronology, like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. It is also easy to argue that The Magician dose have structure. Ray's Ordinary World is Melbourne and any of his past that he refers to, the inciting incident is when he becomes part of the documentary, the turning point is when Max starts questioning what he is doing subtly, the crisis is when he picks up that man (Tony?), the movie climaxes with their trip to the farm and when he walks off to go to the train at the end, he returns to his ordinary world. But following that structure is committing yourself to a conventional style of storytelling, therefore it is not necessary.

Again saying the movie didn't have a plot is arguable, the plot was that a man is making a documentary on a hitman, but I don't think it's aim is to have a plot. It is, after all, supposed to be a documentary, again showing why it may not have a set structure.

It had plenty of dramatic tension too, particularly in the scenes where Max tried to talk Ray out of killing Tony. Or when Ray gets angry, he could snap and kill Max, or whoever they are with, whenever he wanted. Max makes a few mistakes in the movie, but Ray does not kill him over them because he is not a brutal killing machine but a human being, who acknowledges people can make mistakes but also redeem themselves. This, among other reasons, is why he lets Tony go at the end, even though he's lied to them.

The characters were developed with backstory being covered, in what you referred to as circling dialogue that didn't go anywhere. It wasn't there to develop plot, it was there to develop character. Yes, similar to Tarantino, but again, Tarantino is not the first writer to use dialogue to develop character.

The cinematography did exactly what it was supposed to, look like a cheap, handheld student film. The movie was a mockumentary, not a movie. If it had sweeping helicopter shots in high def digital, it would of been ridiculous. As stated earlier, some people believed what they were seeing was real until the end credits.

This movie attempted something different, and succeeded. There may be hope for the Australian film industry after all.

[–] thewholebrevitything 18 years ago

I thought this was a pretty ordinary film. What ruined it was the that the "victims" didnt act very well and it blew the whole realism thing for me. They just didnt act very well in terms of being scared.

6/10

This message will soon be deleted by an administrator

[–] monkey-tennis 18 years ago

I have to agree with the title of this thread, really enjoyed the movie! Stayed on after the screening for a Q&A with Scott Ryan who came across as an intelligent and pleasant guy who put up with some really stupid Qs (people at the Cardiff screening: you know who you are! "when they dicuss football in the movie was it english or aussie rules? Honestly!)

A note to those on here criticising it as 'a rip off': think about it; its a true story you retards!!

[–] Jimmyobr 18 years ago

Pretend for a moment that it is a documentary. There's lots of sorts of doco's out there. Doco's made in Pre-production after the event, docos filmed during the event in the hope that something happens. Doco's that are made during the event rely on circumstance to change... Yes there isn't a lot of plot but thats part of it's beauty it looks at the grime in society we don't take the time to care about. Did one day in the life of Ivan deichovich have storyline? What about All quiet on the western Front... No they didn't because they were real and to properly portray them we must keep them realistic. This film would have been utter *beep* if it was filmed on 35 mm and had Ray in some conspiracy plot or some gang war related crime plot. It is not a journey it is a window into someones life for a few days. It's not for everyone but I thought it was great.

[–] batterypoweredhamster 18 years ago

aw i missed out on the cardiff screening, was planning on going and all. sounds like a missed a treat!

[–] Ali_Khaled 18 years ago

I saw this movie 2 weeks ago on DVD & have been telling all my friends about it. It really is worth seeing if you like black comedy. If you liked Chopper I guarantee that this movie is one you will want to own. I know some serious criminals and Ray Shoesmith is a mirror image of some of them.

Best Aussie movie I have seen for a while. It deserves to do really well.

[–] iipigbear 18 years ago

5/5 is a bit to much, but yes, It was amazing. Really nice to see something fresh for once.

[–] Xcalat3 18 years ago

I agree I was very surprised with this film

My Cat's Breath Smells Like Pussy

[–] CptHowdy87 17 years ago

Allow me to lay some fact on the line for for all you judgemental hollywood movie whores who obviously know not a damn thing about this movie and what it's purpose was, you're going to be hearing not opinion but FACT so pay attention!

This movie was not made by some dip *beep* Tarrintino wannabe trying to be different and that is the only impression I'm getting from most in this thread which is why you're so wrong.

To clear the air this movie was made for Australians, Period. If you're not an Australian you simply won't have any idea how to relate to the subject matter, the characters, the dialogue and the overall general happenings in the film, you can be an avid 20 year film watcher with the most complex of understandings of movies but unfortunately if you aren't Australian then you won't get it.

The film was doing a Blair Witch Project in that the only footage is from the person holding the camera who's character is documenting what we see to give that exact feel of a documentary and not only did this film create realism through the documentary form but they kept the characters and the scenes and all the happenings as real and un-exaggerated as possible.

As far as the characters being boring go I'm here to tell you that I live in Melbourne in the metorpolitan area and can personally verify that the dialogue throughout this entire film is completely authentic and a totally accurate portrayal, it may not have been overly dramatised dialogue like you'd hear in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs but that wasn't the intention and anyone making judgements on this basis have again not been able to see the point of this film.

Now here I'm going to use my old man as sort of a reference /confirmation as to how authentic and real to life this film was. My dad grew up on the other side of the Melbourne city where this film was made in a very dangerous place called Preston, now anyone on this board who is from Melbourne would sure as *beep* know what I'm talking about, it's the equivelant of downtown LA in America, guns going off all the time, rampant crime all over the area, Neighbourhoods that you basically have to crawl through to make it to the other side and half the people on your block wouldn't think twice about killing you if you looked at them wrong. Growing up in those conditions and having a father who fought off the the locals to defend his property on a daily basis my dad naturally got involved in the same sort of scenes and by 20 was living in a house for the better part of a year with the main members of the Hells Angels. My dad reguarly mixed in those sorts of crowds up until he was about 25 when he p1ssed the whole life off to live in the country for a while but soon moved back into the suburbs and all though he's not living with these sorts of people any more he still reguarly sees these soughts of things out in public. Now that you have a good idea of what my old man is like, he watched the film with me a few days ago and when the credits started rolling he said he was convinced it was real and didn't just say it because of the mood but he was genuninely convinvced that we'd just watched a doco until we saw the take outs at the end of the film which confirmed it was acting.

Now my story of my old man may have no fact or evidence behind it but it's up to you if you believe me but I couldn't make that stuff up if I tried and have made the effort to offer a real life insight/perspective on this film so take it how ever you want.

BTW Romper Stomper was a good film but has nothing on The Magcian reguarding authenticity and realism.

[–] Blad33 17 years ago

It was good, 6/10, could of had more of s story, more characters. Overall it goes somewhere (far) below Pi and Clerks as a quality no-budget film.

"Thinking about it that's the easy bit...it's doing it that's difficult." -- Life Is Sweet.