The Magus [DVD]

I've been hooked on this film since its release, and the book before that. You have absolutely no idea as to what is real, what is fake, what is staged, what might be hallucination. The story poses many questions about absolute right vs absolute wrong, about reality as fact or perception. Urfe, the immature narcissist, treats his girlfriend, Anne, shabbily, then runs off to teach English at a school in Greece. There he is treated to a dream or nightmare, a reality or hallucination involving love and hate, loyalty and betrayal. Whos is the betrayer? Who is betrayed? The movie doesn't answer these questions. The book, however, ended with Urfe reconciling with Anne believing that they had been the victims of an almost sadistic manipulation. It's almost perfect, even if Urfe is, perhaps, paranoid. The movie ending, meh. In the book the couple moves on. In the movie it becomes a circle where Urfe comes back to a place and sees it for the very first time. It's a deep movie and a deeper book and, IMO, requires several exposures before things start to fall into place ... except they don't.

There are certain works of art that are enormously flawed, because their creators take ridiculous risks that don't always succeed, glorious leaps that sometimes end with inglorious splats on a very hard floor. Yet at the same time, that willingness to fail on such a large scale also leads to something dazzling & compelling.And so it is with "The Magus."Let's agree that the film is so much less than the book -- how could it be otherwise? So let's simply look as the film as a film. It's a sun-drenched puzzle with a few crucial pieces missing, and others that never quite fit together. Granted, that's not entirely a bad thing, as the god-game of the trickster Conchis is to constantly unmoor Nicholas Urfe's sense of mundane reality & then expand it. Urfe is left confused, bewildered, angry, but eager to learn more -- and so are we, although we also want more when the film ends. Again, not entirely a bad thing.The film has to walk a narrow line, and it stumbles on occasion. If it gives too much information, lays out things too explicitly, it succumbs to rigidity & mere didacticism. But if it lets things get too loose & fluid, then it can't do any better than disconnected glimpses that don't cohere on a deeper level. The film never quite reaches the perfect balance between the two. To be honest, I don't know that it ever could.So is it worth watching?I think so ... with a couple of caveats. It's definitely a film of the 1960s, which may be the deciding factor for some prospective viewers in itself. For those who want to understand how the 1960s felt, how some people viewed & experienced the world, it's a kaleidoscopic window on a disorienting landscape. For those who enjoy Big Questions & surreal situations, you'll certainly get your fill ... if not complete satisfaction. For those who want specific answers, though, or a stronger narrative hand at the wheel, it's likely to be disappointing -- and with just cause for complaint. And those who loved the novel will need to lower their expectations considerably!Michael Caine has said that nobody on the set understood what the film was about, which is why it failed. Even so, he gives a wonderfully befuddled performance as a very smart (but emotionally shallow) man, one who learns that he isn't quite as smart as he thought. Anthony Quinn is bursting with energy, laughter, menace, and hidden wells of sorrow -- he's a presence that overflows from the screen. And Candice Bergen, while in an underwritten role, is the right choice for an impossibly beautiful figure of desire & mystery.Not for everyone, obviously -- and even those who like it will have some reservations. But if you're in the mood to try something different, this is a great place to take a chance!

Michael Caine plays Nicholas Urfe, a shallow, vain English teacher who leaves England to assume a teaching post on the Greek island of Phraxos. Here he encounters the mysterious Maurice Conchis (Anthony Quinn), who initiates him into a series of bizarre experiences which test his capacity for truth, love, and integrity.Also in the mix are Ann (Anna Karina), an air hostess (this was the 60s, before we ever heard of "flight attendants") whom Urfe has used for his own sexual gratification and callously cast aside, and Lily/Julie (Candice Bergen), a mysterious companion of Conchis who is alternately presented as a mental patient and an actress. Which is the reality?And who, or what, is Conchis - psychic, magician, psychiatrist, film producer, madman, charlatan, war criminal, God? We are kept guessing.Conchis relates life-changing events in his own past to a skeptical Urfe, who then finds these events inexplicably recreated in his own life. What is real, what is dream, what is hoax?The answer, says Conchis, is in the smile, the mystery of life. The movie is bracketed between a quote from T.S. Eliot's "Four Quartets": "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." I am not convinced that the shallow Mr. Urfe actually learns this lesson, but it is quite entertaining to see Conchis trying to teach it.Yes, it is a movie for thinkers and philosophers, but much more accessible than the mysteries of David Lynch. And - I must disagree with some reviewers - although this is in many ways a movie about ideas, in no way are the characters stick figures for those ideas. Anthony Quinn has way too much charisma for that.

While John Fowles is a greater storyteller with his novel writing, this film which he wrote the screenplay for, suffers greatly from being too pretentious of itself as being an "new wave art film." If you can get over that fault, it can be a fun romp of mental confusion, 1960s filming techniques, and what stars today looked like when they were younger. That said, there are plenty of other better films to watch unless you are interested in the filming location of Majorca which is why I primarily watched it.

I've read a lot of negative press about this film of John Fowles' novel THE MAGUS over the years which, perversely, has made me want to see it all the more!It begins in a fairly straightforward fashion, as wannabe poet Nicholas Urfe (Michael Caine) relocates to a Greek island to take up a post teaching English to local children in an effort to get over his failed relationship with French air hostess Anne (Anna Karina). After encountering a bookmarked poetry anthology on the beach, Urfe is then drawn into the realm of the enigmatic Maurice Conchis and his equally mysterious companion, Lily/Julie Holmes (Candice Bergen), both of whom appear to take him on a journey through their own lives to ultimately force Urfe to confront his own personal demons in a surreal and dramatic denouement - well, at least that's my take on the film!Though Michael Caine is the ostensible star of the film, it's Anthony Quinn as the titular protagonist who tends to command the eye when he's on screen: is Conchis a magician, a psychiatrist, a film director? Meanwhile, Candice Bergen also acquits herself well in what was a far from run-of-the-mill role for a beautiful young actress to tackle at this time, one minute playing a prudish and proper sweetheart to a youthful Conchis; the next a seductive gold-attired Greek goddess; and finally an object for Urfe's own sadistic impulses tied to a whipping post. Keep an eye out too for Trigger (Roger Lloyd Pack) from ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES, who appears in a mute flashback sequence with Candice Bergen as the young Conchis in Edwardian London.Putting all of the narrative ambiguities aside, there's no doubt that this dual-format transfer of THE MAGUS looks very impressive indeed. I still detected the odd speck of dirt here and there, but the restoration has otherwise brought out the cinematography of Billy Williams to superb effect. Though set in Greece, political issues at the time meant that the location was changed to Majorca, where director Guy Green spent a lot of time with his family, and the shots of the coastline and Conchis' villa - built specially for the film - look dazzling. Extras on the discs include interviews with the late Guy Green, his son Michael and Billy Williams, although Michael Caine - whose dislike of the film is common knowledge - is conspicuous by his absence.Overall, I rather enjoyed THE MAGUS. It's certainly a conversation piece and, at least from a visual perspective, this high-definition restoration showcases it as a beautiful piece of '60s cinema.

A good example of the weirdness of some late 1960's cinema. I have been wanting to see this for literally years and it has been a long wait. Was it worth the wait? I don't know. It is certainly different. The quality of the transfer on the Signal One blu-ray is very good indeed.

Very good

This movie is the worst adaptation of a book we've ever seen. We had both just re-read The Magus after many years and thought it would be interesting to see the movie. Bad idea. We turned it off after fifteen minutes ~ couldn't take any more. It was absolutely terrible.

The book was so much better than the film. It left room for imagination. The music was horrible loud and brassy. I bought the movie because of the book.