tomsview I 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. It's 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".

magus4444 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.

cutterccbaxter A couple of years ago someone I worked with had a copy of this film and I dubbed a copy for myself. He mentioned the Woody Allen quote about the film which made me laugh, but I guess it also made me a little wary about watching it. I finally pulled it out last night and popped it my VCR. When I wasn't confused there were certain scenes that grabbed my attention. Oddly enough I have a copy of the novel which I haven't read (I say oddly because there are very few books that enter my sphere that go unread, so I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually). As the movie was playing I'd pick up the novel and think, "Boy this sure is a thick book. I bet there are all sorts of thoughts and ideas the characters have in it that aren't finding their way into the film." This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I don't think movies based on literature have to be a dedicated recreation of their source material, but the film had an overall vague feeling to it. I'm guessing that many people who detest "The Magus" probably don't care for the ending. I know it left me feeling less than satisfied in relation to all the scenes that preceded it. It seemed like what with all that Michael Caine experienced during the course of the movie that a more profound conclusion was in order.

Pzippity This film came out when I was a senior in college, and I loved it at the time. I thought it was really innovative and thought-provoking. It was also my first introduction to Eliot's famous fragment, which remains a particular favorite. It may be a difference in perceptions that is the root of the film vs book controversy because personally I can't stand Fowler as an author. I think he's extremely pretentious, not to mention boring. But that's just me. Other's like the book and hate the film because of their own perceptions. See the film and judge for yourself. I think it's definitely worth it.