I saw this first in the evening aboard a naval ship, before going up to the bridge for the midnight to 4AM watch. It was a very interesting 4 hours, after which I had a real interest in reading the book. As with most novels, it would be very difficult to re-create on screen. The movie though, gave enough of a flavor of the continuous surprise twists that it draws you in to the mystery of trying to figure out what is going on. I have most of it on a video tape somewhere, and don't remember it as being very good. John Fowles agrees with me. He also said in an interview that he didn't think much of the book, but many people disagree with him on that. It was at least another version of the theme, and visually very interesting. I rated it high because it caused me to think and explore Fowles works further, for which I am very grateful.
Add a Review
-
zies-230 April 2006
-
pawlo-317 July 2003As other commentators I didn't quite know whether to expect the worst movie ever or an undiscovered pearl. Well, it is neither. For lovers of the novel, I feel the film is quite adequate and interesting. Hard to imagine how the film impressions someone who hasn't read the book. In my mind this could have been an excellent film, but for two aspects: the score is awful (especially in the mountain climbing sequence with Anne); the final "trial" is totally botched, filmed as a dream-sequence instead of reality, as it should be, and featuring a ridiculous robot. I wish I could do a re-make.
-
Bunuel197623 February 2007Being an arty psychological puzzle - and one which might well be not just incomprehensible but also meaningless - I'd always been interested in checking this film out; the fact that it was a critical and box-office failure made it doubly fascinating. Still, what must have seemed like the turkey of the year when new has, with time, acquired a certain charm all its own! On the surface, the film is certainly good-looking (shot by Billy Williams in numerous European locations, mainly a sunny Greek island) and boasts a fine score by Johnny Dankworth (which, in keeping with the film's theme, seems oddly unsuited to what's going on); the star cast responds competently to the mystifying plot (structured like a Chinese box - where past events are constantly re-enacted, identities exchanged and, of course, nothing is what it seems). Still, while Anthony Quinn may be everybody's idea of a Greek larger-than-life character, here he is saddled with an unbecoming Picasso hairstyle and, underneath it all, Michael Caine may well have been mirroring the bewilderment felt by his character since, in his autobiography, he singles out THE MAGUS as his worst film ever (though I personally would beg to differ and choose THE ISLAND [1980] for that unenviable spot)!
Actually, it all reminded me of L'INVENZIONE DI MOREL (1974) - another obscure island-set drama where a man intrudes upon a remote community sharing an exclusive fantasy existence: incidentally, that film was partly shot in my native country and also featured Anna Karina (who in THE MAGUS has the rather thankless role of Caine's jilted girlfriend - though her performance is quite good and his callous treatment of Karina has a strong bearing on the main character's ultimate personal growth) as the mystery woman who captivates the hero; with this in mind, as I lay watching the film under review, I wondered at the possibilities had Karina exchanged her role with that of Candice Bergen (who's too young for her role but great to look at nonetheless).
Then again, the subject matter was far more congenial to a Joseph Losey rather than the journeyman Guy Green...and one can only surmise how different - and more significant - the film would have been in the former's hands! As it stands, there are some undeniably compelling passages but also a lot of shallow modishness (the skin-flick with Bergen and Julian Glover[!] at the climax is plain risible) and lame moralizing (the WWII flashback scenes, featuring a bizarrely but effectively cast Corin Redgrave as the Nazi Commandant, being especially maudlin).
At several points towards the end, it feels like the story is coming to some sort of conclusion but it just goes on and on, peeling off yet another layer to the meandering enigma; to get an inkling of what the film is like, just imagine watching two of the more cerebral episodes of the cult TV series "The Prisoner" (1967-68) back-to-back! In hindsight, the film's epitaph may have been delivered by none other than Woody Allen who once remarked that, if he had to live his life all over again, he would do everything exactly the same...except watch THE MAGUS. As for myself, I wouldn't mind taking another look at it in future: by then I'd be over the initial "shock" and could perhaps appreciate it better... -
This movie received a critical mauling. Even the celebrities hated it, one of them (possibly Woody Allen) saying that if he had to live his life again he would do everything the same except he wouldn't go to see The Magus! However, I don't think it is that bad. It certainly isn't particularly good, but it carries a certain fascination in the way that it unpeels a multi-layered plot in a gleefully playful way. The main shortcoming is that some plot points are dealt with unclearly, making it a bit tricky to figure out exactly what is going on. The ending in particular seems to be a bit confusing. However, on the plus side, there are some powerful visuals. There are also strong leading performances from Michael Caine and Anthony Quinn, as well as a memorable turn from Anna Karina as one of Caine's ex-lovers. Candice Bergen gives a terrible performance, but perhaps the character she is given to work with was unplayable anyway. Don't listen to the critics. See this one for yourself and judge it on your own terms.
-
JasparLamarCrabb28 October 2006Since THE MAGUS is a confusing puzzle that really has no solution, one should sit back and enjoy the scenery. Set on a "remote Greek island," it stars a very uptight Michael Caine as a teacher working at a school for boys who gets caught up in mind games with local wacko/mystery man Anthony Quinn and his daffy girlfriend Candice Bergen. Quinn, looking like Pablo Picasso with white hair and striped sailor shirt, is actually pretty good but Caine looks like he's ready to explode. Bergen, although stunning, should NOT put on a British accent EVER. She's not very good at that type of thing. Guy Green's direction is fine, but unless you have infinite patience with the circular logic of the film, you will not enjoy it. A real sour note is the casting of the effervescent Anna Karina in the completely joyless role of Caine's girlfriend. After seeing her in the likes of A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and A BAND APART, her presence here is quite jarring.
-
pninson20 October 2006John Fowles's novel is a long, dense, complex work, and trying to compress the story into a two-hour film seems foolhardy, at best. Having read the book six months ago, I was expecting something really bad, especially considering the earlier reviews I've read here.
I found the movie fascinating. It's very late 60s (especially the musical score, which is quaint, to put it politely), and the ending is unsatisfying, whether or not you've read the book. However, I can overlook these flaws because the movie does, incredibly, succeed in conjuring up some of the mystery and magic of the book --- the forceful character of Conchis, the tempting sexuality of "Julie", the jarring shocks when the story seems to suddenly change direction.
I can't think of two actors better suited to play the roles of Urfe and Conchis than Michael Caine and Anthony Quinn. Candice Bergen is a good choice as "Julie".
It's beautifully filmed, which helps to reinforce the atmosphere.
Anyone who watches this movie expecting everything to be explained at the end is bound to come away frustrated. Many people felt the same way about the book, but I started it knowing that it probably wouldn't all make sense, so I was prepared when it ended somewhat ambiguously. The very end of the movie does seem like a cop-out (after all, there's a good 150 pages of plot that are dropped from the novel) but perhaps it's as good as you can expect from a theatrical feature.
Now that the film is available on DVD, beautifully remastered with an excellent anamorphic picture and sound, I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys surrealism and doesn't mind a certain amount of ambiguity. This film does give you an idea of what the book might be about (something I'm still pondering). Nice to have it on DVD. -
beltezam13 January 2007I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.
-
maxmiller426 July 2013Not a bad movie, but please do not watch this until you have read the book. The book is much better, very readable, and much deeper and richer. This is like eating fish sticks when you could spend a little time and eat sashimi. The entire point of the story is muddled in this movie and becomes lost. The point made by the movie is nothing like the point of the book, which must be thought about and considered in different contexts to understand the main character's final actions and motivations. John Fowles is a master, give him the benefit of the doubt. This movie can be watched after, as a fun way to see a novice's understanding of the sex and lies in the book.
-
I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.
The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.
The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one. -
tomsview15 February 2017I love a tricky movie. However, over the decades, we have been prepared by the work of filmmakers such as David Lynch, Denis Villeneuve, Jonathon Glazer and others to expect the unexpected. I can see how "The Magus" would have left many in a 1968 audience wondering if the projectionist had mixed up the reels.
Although "The Magus" is a pretty light workout compared to "Lost Highway" or "Vanilla Sky", in a way it was getting us ready for those films. Its greatest influence at the time was possibly the films of Ingmar Bergman.
Nicholas Urfe (Michael Caine) takes a teaching position on the Greek island of Phraxos. When he encounters the wealthy, reclusive Maurice Conchos (Anthony Quinn), he experiences events that seem at first like practical jokes, but as they become more bizarre he isn't sure if he is losing his mind. He seems to be caught in re-enactments of the events in the life of Maurice Conchos, which also relate to his own.
Apparently Michael Caine hated the film lumping it with "The Swarm" and "Ashanti" as his worst films. Candice Bergen didn't understand it at all although she was one of its major attractions.
Maybe they were responding to a movie that was a little ahead of its time as far as structure was concerned. "The Magus" is anything but linear and I have to admit I'm not sure I understand the end. Although it probably isn't the most definitive of the 'is it real or is it imagined' genre, I think the journey is an absorbing one.
The cast is just about perfect. Anthony Quinn eats up his role as the Magus - magician, illusionist, physician or faker. Michael Caine, despite his doubts about the film, gives an arresting performance, informing his role with a lack of emotion that plays about right for the hedonistic and selfish Nicholas.
Possibly director Guy Green's straightforward approach to every scene including flashbacks whether real or imagined is a little heavy-handed, but it also adds to the obscuration - we are never sure about what we are seeing.
John Dankworth contributed an effective score - capturing a sense of mystery and infusing it with a hint of Greek music along with some trademark jazz influenced themes - without overdoing any aspect.
"The Magus" is a fascinating attempt at something different, and it's definitely a lot better than "The Swarm" and "Ashanti".
As Albert Einstein once said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". -
kentwarrenmcdonald1 October 2014I saw The Magus in 1968 in Tokyo, Japan where I was stationed in the Air Force. I was with four other airmen who were bored looking for something to do in one of the world's largest cities.
One of the guys in our group had apparently read the book and suggested we go see it. "It will be a wild ride!", he said. By the time we walked out of the cinema we were,
1. In love with Candice Bergen.
2. Totally confused what point the movie was trying to convey.
The guy who had read the book? "I, uh, didn't really understand the book either. I was kinda hoping the movie would clear up my confusion."
It failed. -
jparranto16 October 2005This movie, contrary to the Woody, Allen, is extremely testy and requires that you understand the title. It is only magic if you let it, and try to follow it, rather than just enjoy it as a prank. From that perspective, it really catches you entirely off guard and it cannot be made sense of - kind of like most magic tricks. I saw it in 1968, by accident, and being the type to always be looking for "meaning" to most things, got completely taken in. If you just watch it without trying to find a plot, you see rather quickly, that there is none and none will be found and THAT will drive you and Woody and the previous teacher, mad. I loved it because it got ME, and I did not get IT. Not until years later!
-
I started watching this picture waiting for something like Zorba, but l have to confess l found it too hard to understand and complex screenplay, nevertheless apart all amazing greek and spanish landscape keeping alive the movie, gave us a relief with such boring time to reach an epic ending which seems make sense the the previous wasting time, the cinematography is great by Guy Green but the plot is too confusing and fictional which stays a lack of more realism!!
Resume:
First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7 -
christopher-underwood2 May 2017This looks so good. Majorca, in the main, standing in for Greece. And it should have been good. The novel was a rite of passage for those of a certain age and this little picture is what we get. Pretty picture, pretty poor. I thought watching this and seeing nothing, not only not make sense, but not even be involving. Surely the director has some vision here because surely Fowles in adapting his own novel, will have some vision. But, no the more it goes on, the more it goes on. Poor Michael Caine looks lost wandering through this bland and meaningless landscape of pretentiousness. He is lost, as are we and the suspicions I had as I watched aghast was that maybe nobody knew what was going on or what they were doing. The plentiful extras supplied with the Blu-ray confirm this with the contribution of the director's son who apparently got to help with the filming, particularly helpful. Majorca was beautiful and largely unspoilt but nobody least of all Fowles seemed to know what they were doing there. So sad because we have a very pretty Anna Karina and Candice Bergen falling over themselves to look silly as Anthony Quinn prattles on, seemingly the only one who has any belief in the project that was clearly dead even before the cameras began to roll.
-
Threedee27 February 2002I've read the Fowles novels-- including the original and the "new, improved" versions of The Magus (BTW the "new, improved" version was a bad move John, you should have left the damn book alone with its ambiguities intact), so it ain't like I are illiterate or somethin'...
Seems to me a lot of people expect a movie to be a book, and it doesn't happen. If you have a deep connection with the print, you have to be able to temporarily wipe the preconceptions from your brain and deal with it as a distinct presentation of material, or you're not going to like it.
I'm pretty sure this is what happened amongst the literati who were expecting to see the book version of The Magus on screen. So they did a snobbish hatchet job via criticism.
IMHO, this is one of Anthony Quinn's best screen appearances. I can't think of anyone else who could have filled the role as well. Green's direction keeps the film moving right along. The location settings are wonderful. Got no problems with the script. Michael Caine plays a terrific self-serving exploiter of women and relationships-- but in fairness Anne is a gutless wimp asking to be exploited-- incapable of making her own decisions (at least as rendered in the film). Candice Bergen does a very credible job in the schizo role of Lily.
This movie deserves restoration into its original aspect ratio and re-releasing on DVD. And maybe, like Eliot said in the bit from Little Gidding used in the flick, you might arrive where you started and know the place for the first time. -
Let's begin with a pertinent issue. Some reviewers say that you need to have read the book before seeing this film. Some say the opposite, and some haven't read the book, so they are unable to draw comparisons.
Well, I have read the book (a few years ago, so I must admit I don't remember all the details very well) and it was a long read, which, like the film, starts off intriguingly enough but tends as it progresses to become more and more unbelievable. I did however read right to the end, and the end is quite different from in the film. The book does lead to something of a conclusion where the protagonist is subjected to a kind of occult judgement, and ends with a scene in Regent's Park where a meeting is engineered in which Nicholas gets to meet and talk to his former lover. This return to London is missing from the film and it finishes merely with him smiling to himself as we again hear the quote from Eliot about returning to where we begin.
As several reviewers have pointed out, the cinematography in this film is often gorgeous and makes you feel as if you are there. But, having read the book, it's immediately difficult to accept Michael Caine as being Nicholas Urfe. Now, I'm a huge Caine fan, but he just doesn't feel right for this part. He's too blond and tall and has too much presence. I was trying to imagine who (from this era) could have played him and I came up with Alan Bates and Tom Courtenay - and rejected them both. Now I read a reviewer who suggested David Hemmings and yes, he would have been perfect, not too tall, and with the combination of intelligence and intrepidness and weakness and charm that seems to typify Nicholas Urfe.
Another casting mistake was the role of Julie. It seems obvious to me that Candice Bergen is here little more that a poor-man's Julie Christie. They are so similar in looks, and they make her speak with an English accent, so I very much suspect that they really wanted Christie, but couldn't get her.
Again, the lovely Anna Karina seems wrong for the role of the jilted girlfriend. Honestly, who would want to leave Anna Karina to run away to a Greek island to teach English at a boy's school? Unless you were a bit, shall we say, weird..? (This is not obvious in the film, although I seem to remember that Urfe expresses derision for his pupils in the novel and indeed I read that Fowles once said that he had caned boys in school and derived gratification from it!). No, Australian Alison, in the book, is not presented as such a beauty as Anne in the film.
Then we have Conchis. My impression of him in the book was of a far less prepossessing figure than Anthony Quinn, who we can't help but associate with his many larger-than-life character roles. He is a dynamic actor but not a very subtle one, as can be seen here by the rather amateurish way that he does the shifty looks that are, I suppose, intended to convey that he is being a trickster.
One of the big questions that arises when you read the book, and again when you watch the film, is: why would anyone go to so much trouble in order to stage the many scenarios with which Urfe is presented? These involve a large number of operatives and presumably huge expense. In the novel, these extend even to England; we learn, for example, that the newspaper report showing Ann's death has been faked. Furthermore, how do Conchis and his minions know about Urfe and his history?
It must be said, at this point, that the book delivers a great deal of information, in the form of Urfe's own thoughts and memories, which supply us with the background to his personality, including the morally questionable actions of his past.
This all leads to the question, is all of this just a sort of dream in the mind of Nicholas Urfe? Or is it a sort of hermetic mysticism, such as is openly presented in Hermann Hesse's novel, "The Journey to the East", where the narrator, after losing his faith and falling into a mundanity in which he denies the very existence of the wonders in which he had previously participated, finally finds his way back to the mystical world and is then led to a building where he is judged and found wanting.
Seeing the dream sequence/drug-induced halucination that Urfe experiences (which, by the way, happens for real in the book) there are, for me, clear parallels to the denouement of Hesse's novel. Urfe is also put on trial, but the scene is very different. Where in Hesse the judge is actually the simple, kind and gentle servant, Leo; for Urfe, who is first tied to a cross, and then tempted to whip the figure of Julie, the judges are a large and intimidating motley of grotesques and soldiers with the complicated figure of Conchis at the forefront.
All in all, despite its drawbacks, I would recommend seeing this film, even if only once. As for the book, well, that's up to you; maybe the film is enough. -
boogsie227 August 2021I read The Magus when I was about 15...I'm 69 now.
I read it over a few successive weekends anchored in a cabin cruiser off Big Island at Lake Minnetonka so the environment was perfect to absorb Fowles.
3 years later the movie was released...the settings, the actors, are spot on. At best to condense this novel into a script is a challenge similar to David Lynch's attempt at Dune. Great books...a challenge to translate the stories into a script but both capture the essence. -
This film adaptation of John Fowles' acclaimed novel, scripted by the author, is sumptuous, presumptuous--and dead. Michael Caine alternately looks suspicious and confused as a British poet-turned-teacher, newly-arrived on the Greek island of Phraxos, who is 'summoned' to the seaside estate of Anthony Quinn, who claims to be psychic. Quinn's mysterious Maurice Conchis may be alive or dead--but don't call him a ghost. He tells the young man of his childhood--a life that may never have happened--and of a test he underwent during the war, perhaps a time that is intersecting now with the present. Conchis' long-deceased true love suddenly appears and flirts with the teacher, though she tells him she's an actress hired by Conchis, who is really a movie producer. Gorgeously-presented film is a curiosity that soon loses its captivating sheen (it doesn't so much fall apart as it does roll over). Caine's past love affair with a volatile, apparently promiscuous French airline hostess is full of melodrama (and a coy sex scene) which keeps intruding on the narrative; we are, of course, to see that the teacher's path in life will always lead back to the beginning, but with this rocky affair it only seems like a dead end. Candice Bergen is the otherworldly seducer, and she certainly speaks like one (almost as if she were dubbed). If all the world's a stage, the curtains come down on this charade after about an hour. ** from ****
-
gridoon202418 October 2023At first it's easy to get hooked on "The Magus": who wouldn't want to have a possibly magical adventure surrounded by the iridescent Meditarrenean sea waters? The film begins from that starting point and proceeds through a series of reversals, rug-pullings, and curtain-liftings. It never quite hangs together, but it fits the bill when you're looking for something outside the norm. It does have some startling images and mind-expanding concepts. Anthony Quinn is either hilariously or frustratingly cryptic, take your pick ("For once, will you tell me the truth??" - "What is Truth?"). **1/2 out of 4.
-
A puzzle within a paradox of a film - as was intended by the author.Caine dismissed it as one of his lesser films.Central is a quote from T.S.Elliot's Little Gidding reflecting on the meaning of existence ( We shall arrive at where we started from,and yet know the place for the first time)The film spirals around the central character's convoluted conversations with the Magus (Quinn)without obvious resolution.Yet once reported ( supposedly by Fowles) that Bergen's character was the sister of Ann and the meeting with the Magus intended to highlight to Caine's character his selfish treatment of her which led to her demise.
-
truerock230 January 2021Take top tier acting and combine with a compelling plot... you are off to making perhaps a very good movie. Combine that with very bad directing, very bad editing (both video and sound) and a very bad musical score and you have a very bad movie.
Some have called The Magus one of the worst movies off all time. Nevertheless, I recommend watching it not for its entertainment value - but, as an opportunity to see great acting talent struggle with directionless directing.
And - oh - very bad 1960s clothing - gag.
Much of the supporting actors were actually pretty good. The cinematography was also very good.
Watch this movie and learn why it has a cult following. -
mark.waltz12 April 2022Great Greek location footage doesn't mean a good movie, and this film version of the novel is very badly constructed, with a weird character played by Anthony Quinn playing games with Michael Caine that are rather aggravating to watch unfold on screen. Perhaps this is one of those books that was better as a novel and couldn't possibly be filmed to make any sense, and as Michael Caine it has stated, it's one of the worst movies he ever made. Quinn is allegedly throughout the film a magician, a clairvoyant, a psychiatrist, a survivor of World War II and one of the most despicable characters to ever appear on screen. He's certainly as far from Zorba the Greek as he could possibly be, and the way he plays Caine like a fiddle is annoying to watch.
The beautiful Candice Bergen is a lady of mystery, first seen in a flashback as the young wife of the younger Quinn (fortunately played by another actor in those flashbacks), then all of a sudden appearing as an alleged patient of Quinn's oh, that is until the game Quinn is playing is revealed. But by this time, you begin to wonder if this is the last game that will be played and if more confusion or manipulation will be thrown into the mix. As a result of Quinn's manipulation, Caine losses the woman he loves, Anna Karina, and a cruel twist towards the end makes this infuriating. Its efforts to resemble a classic Greek tragedy fails miserably, and had it not been for the locations, I would have rated this a bomb. It still is one of the worst films of the 60's, that issomething not to be proud of since the sixties had a lot of truly lousy movies that thought they were being artistic and hip. -
bce11128 October 2000I love this movie. I remember seeing it on the big screen when it first came out and how heightened my state of awareness was on leaving the theater. I've read other professional reviews other than the one by Leonard Maltin that thought it was excellent. For those who find it confusing, perhaps you've missed the whole point of the film itself which seeks to push you to a state of awareness beyond your rational thinking mind. Like a zen koan. Do you remember the lines that Nicholas reads from the book he finds which are from T.S. Eliot's "Little Gidding"?
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
Does anyone know where I could get a video tape of this fine film or where I could rent it?
P.S. The film "The Game" which failed miserably in it's attempt to rip off the premise of this film is horrible. -
aleXandrugota14 September 2021When you read the book you try to imagine as accurately as possible the main place of action the island of Phraxos (actually Spetses). I am glad to watch it so that on a simple documentary film I can discover the places described in the book. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to have changed much compared to the year the book was written. And the movie isn't that bad either.
-
HotToastyRag10 January 2022After Zorba the Greek, Hollywood called on Anthony Quinn to star in every subsequent movie set in Greece. Not really, but he certainly made a lot of them. In The Magus, he plays a weird magician who plays mind games on a young schoolteacher, Michael Caine. Tony lives on a remote part of the island, with caves and mysteries around every corner. Candace Bergen also lives on his estate, but her identity (and mental health) gets called into question more than once.
How does Tony know so much about Michael's past, to be able to torment him with his mind games? Why is he wearing a skullcap? Maybe he'll have some flashbacks, in which he gets to sport his regular black hair and play his younger self. Maybe Michael will also have some flashbacks, to try and explain why he's traveled to Greece and why he's so drawn to Candace.
This movie has a reputation of being extremely weird, and it is. Explanations merely lead to more questions, and very little is clear at the very end of the film. But if you like Greek scenery, and looking at two beautiful, young people falling into bed together while not knowing anything about each other, you'll probably be very happy with this movie.
DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There are some canted angels and weird tilt/zooms throughout the movie, and iIt will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"