Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

tedg Fowles' first novel became the darling of the emerging counterculture of the 60s. It fit a handy niche of layered narratives, connected in ways that emulated the emergence of "secret" cosmologies. By itself, it created a little stir because of the way it was folded by a certain kabbalistic technique while including reference to that technique. The history of this makes it essential viewing. Its Fowles' first novel, partially autobiographical, taking over a decade to write. Its grand, risky, sloppy. It is perfect in its way, being as confusing in how it is written as the narrator within is. Its a happy accident that its deficiencies increase the effect.The screenplay is quite a bit more incompetent and at the same time leaving out most of the ambiguities in the story. So the film is a disaster. Fowles would later straighten up the narrative in the novel and issue what in the film world would be a "director's cut" which tries to keep the ambiguities in the story but reduce them in the narration. Its far less effective than the original.So why should you see this? Because it is a historical document that changed things significantly. Its based on two sources: one was a then little-known set of Kabbalistic lessons on Tarot ambiguities. The other is a piece of literary theory from the thirties: "Seven Types of Ambiguity." (Don't search it out: it is far less interesting than the title implies.)Fowles simply conflated his own life (and remorse over handling a romance) into these two notions, deliberately trying to capture the seven types — which incidentally inform my study of narrative folding.In September of 1966 while in Spain for the filming of "How I Won the War," John Lennon, who hardly read anything, read this (twice, once heavily rugged) and it changed his life, the direction of The Beatles and hence enfranchised a new form of narrative. (He called and later visited Fowles while this script was in development. There is no artifact of that in the script.) Its not Joyce, but it is the child of what he envisioned, dumbed down, but still raising the bar for narrative structure and affecting — I assert — nearly everything.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

pi511 an excellent fantastic movie shot 40 years ago cast is great. Michael Caine fits the most. I think Woody Allen is just jealous thinking that nobody else should see such a private fantastic movie. No computer effects, only puppets. Hey dudes, it's 40 years before today! And it's a hard thing to comment at least 10 lines. I think this one will be my first and last. And maybe none of both. Because it will be erased. Nor approved. Writing 10 lines without spoiling how? See you OK. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.

pninson John 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.

james-flynn-1 As an underage Coast Guardsman on liberty in a strange town I found the big screen version of this film a fantastic relief from the confusion of the era. Candice Bergen knocked my socks off, Anthony Quinn was my favorite actor. Michael Cain's character was my alter ego. The cinematography is better than outstanding. Sex, violence and horror were equally balanced by beauty, love, courage and integrity. You know how there are scenes in movies that stick with you long after the film is over, like Sixth Sense with "I"m ready tell you my secret..."? There is one scene on the Veranda of the Greek Estate where Anthony Quinn summarizes the meaning of life with one sweep of his hand. During the past thirty-eight years I have thought of that scene frequently and it helps transcend cynicism from feeling defeated. Several weeks after my first viewing I went to see The Magus again with a woman who was experienced with Tarot and had studied Greek and Egyptian mythology. It seemed even more interesting when she explained the meaning of the symbolism as it related to the flow of the story and added a great deal to the meaning, and the fun. People who often wonder, "What would God want me to do?" may find this film troubling. A previous commenter mentioned the TV version with ads and I couldn't agree more. I would like to get this on DVD and watch it again. Any thoughtful person would like The Magus.