Don't listen to the negative reviews

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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 ****

Don't get me wrong. I've never tried the drug myself, but what I've read and learned about LSD is that it's a dangerous psychedelic drug. It produces hallucinations. Users see, hear and feel things that seem real to them, but don't really exist. So, this movie is like a big LSD trip. Or, it's plot, if one can call it that, is imaginary but it isn't. Or is it real and not imaginary? I've never read any of John Fowles works. He was writing around the time I graduated from high school, served in the Army and went to college. I've heard and read about him, but his writing style and topics never appealed to me. So, I wouldn't be able to compare this film to his novel by the same name. But, I've always thought that a movie should stand on its own – no matter how faithful it is to its source material. That closeness or diversion from source material, of course, is one area of criticism. But, a film (or play) is based on a plot (or so we're taught in traditional theater) and much more. It's the story, the sets and scenery, the technical works, and most importantly, the directing and the acting. "The Magus" seems to be "plotless." Unless one considers that the message or conclusion is that Nicholas Urfe, played by Michael Caine, is a self-centered, selfish, uncaring, pleasure-seeking, and otherwise heartless waste of a human being. But, I got that much in the first few minutes of the film – before all the machinations in the Mediterranean materialize (or, do they?). I can't really say much about the acting because the roles are multi-faceted parts in a segmented plot that doesn't really exist. I know – it really doesn't make sense, does it? But, it's called art. I chuckle, and hope you do too. So, Fowles wrote in the 1960s. That was the time of the hippies, the so-called sexual revolution, and the emerging drug culture. Timothy Leary was expounding on the merits of LSD. He taught at Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley. He surely had considerable influence with the young generation of that time (many of us excluded, of course). Perhaps he influenced Fowles in his writing. Or, was it the other way around? Or, perhaps mutual?Whatever influences there were in the time of this film (also made in the 1960s, you will note), one today might choose between watching this movie or taking some LSD (is that the correct term?) to achieve the same effect. That is, minus any euphoria, if there is such associated with LSD. But, of course, I recommend neither. My three stars are for the beautiful scenery and camera work. I would have given one more, but the musical score was so bad and out of place that it even detracted from the scenery. Incidentally, the movie is misleading on the meaning of the title. Anthony Quinn or Michael Caine's character explains that it is Latin for magic. That's a very minor definition. A Magus was a hereditary member of a pagan priestly class in ancient Media and Persia. The word is more commonly applied in modern times to sorcery. That's quite different from the tricks and illusions associated with modern magicians.

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.

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.