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.

I 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.

Since 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.

This 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!