The Illusionist

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
The Illusionist

83% Liked It
liked it

The Illusionist

Aaron Johnson, Brian Caspe, Dusan Fager, Eddie Marsan, Edward Norton

Set in early 20th-century Vienna, a stage magician uses his magic to win back the great love of his life from a brutal enemy, her fiance, who is also the powerful crowned prince of Austria.

Id: 10890900

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

The Illusionist Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

The Illusionist Recent Reviews
  • Galeocerdo
    December 13, 2009
    Galeocerdo
    This is a beautifully shot, well-staged, and well-acted show of theatricality and deception, but it is a little too fatuous and predictable and less cerebral than it should be.
  • organgrinder136
    November 6, 2009
    organgrinder136
    i remember "the illusionist" came out around the same time as "the prestiege". while "the illusionist" fails to be quite as good it's the first time i've seen norton in a serious film for ages... and at last!!! how long i've been waiting... he can still act too! it's better than ...( read more)christian bales poor english accent anyway which consists of him talking in a slightly deeper voice, or was that his batman voice? oh wait...

    yes... edward norton acting again is great but the film itself is marginally less great
  • SirPant
    September 16, 2009
    SirPant
    Flawed. It asks big questions and gives you no real answer. Lazy film making!!
  • JohnSilver
    June 6, 2009
    JohnSilver
    Un homme très propre avec une « belle gueule » qui fait de la magie, qui fait se que tout jeune enfants rêvent, c'est admirable. On s'attache à ce personnage. On veut tout comprendre, tout connaitre les trucs. On veut surtout savoir si c'est possible dans la vrai vie. Ce que j'ai...( read more) aimé plus que tout dans ce film, c'est la fin. Comme dans la musique, la première et la dernière note font la beauté d'une pièce. Dans les films, on critique souvent la fin, mais celle-ci est à tomber debout ! (c'était voulu en passant :P) Excellente fin ! Deux minutes avant la fin, on pense que toute est fini, mais ... la solution de toute l'histoire entière y est relié. Seul bémol, un peu long selon moi. Aurai pu être plus court, surtout pour le contenu.

    « La vie n'est qu'une illusion ! »
  • FangsFirst
    May 31, 2009
    FangsFirst
    After a long hiatus from film-watching, I came back and finished watching this. Of course, it came out at the same time as The Prestige and will likely be forever entwined in the public conscious with that other film. Maybe not "forever," I guess, but certainly for a long ...( read more)time. I've seen The Prestige, saw it in theatres, in fact, and heard long ago that the films really oughtn't be compared. That's not going to stop me, of course, but I am going to note the reasons I don't disagree with the idea that they aren't to be compared, per se (even as I'm doing it). I took interest in the film mostly for Edward Norton, Rufus Sewell and Paul Giamatti, though I'd heard mostly disappointing or middling reviews of the film.

    A young Edward, also known as Eisenheim (Aaron Johnson) finds himself friendly with young Sophie, also known as Duchess von Teschen (Eleanor Tomlinson) despite their class differences, and even find themselves drawn instinctively to love with one another. It's not to be, though, and the Duchess is taken away from him before they can escape together. Eisenheim disappears, too, and learns more fully the arts of illusion, returning to Vienna later to practice this art on stage (and now played by Norton). At a show, his volunteer is none other than Duchess von Teschen (now played by Jessica Biel), though she is volunteered rather than choosing the role herself, by her future husband, the Crown Prince Leopold (Sewell). The two recognize each other, and Eisenheim begins to trade wits, pride and shame with Leopold, who is arrogant and cold in his actions, holding pride over all else. Police Chief Inspector Walter Uhl (Giamatti) is set on Eisenheim's trail to disgrace him as fraud, only for everyone's plans to be tripped up by an unexpected accident, leading Eisenheim to act even more outwardly aggressive toward Leopold, who attempts to hold his grown out of his stubborn belief in his own worth.

    The similarities between this film and The Prestige are passing and simplistic: both deal in magic and illusion, are period films and work on competition between two male leads. There are other connections to be drawn, certainly, but in general they are entirely dissimilar films. The Prestige--an irony considering its title--is less interested in spectacle and more interested in morality and philosophy, character motivation and depth, setting aside story as the vehicle to examine these things. The Illusionist is all about spectacle; it is entertainment in its entirety, a story told to tell a story, with devices and bells and whistles to give it character and identity. This isn't to say it's utterly shallow or without any thought behind it, but rather that it is not interested in wrapping itself too tightly in such ideas. There is flirtation with the idea of enlightenment and retaliation against this rather pragmatic approach to life and reality, and on the absurdity of class division, but it primarily centers on the idea of illusion or magic (and which Eisenheim practices), and on the story of the love he and Sophie share. It's almost a fairy tale in this respect, a simple love story wrapped behind a simple story spiced with the fantastic.

    There's a strangeness to the entire film, being as the real stumbling block of the film is the script. It's not a bad story, nor is the dialogue stilted in terms of word choices, but it is rather bare. Norton and Giamatti actually come off a bit lost with this, trying to bring character to roles that are not written up enough to contain much. Both have strong and clear presence physically, but suffer the De Niro-Period-Effect (which I first discovered watching The Mission, and consists of a feeling of inherent anachronism when some actors perform in period pieces) to a degree whenever they open their mouths. Both maintain their (admittedly light) accents rather solidly, but seem to be a bit too focused on keeping their words short and clipped to match the feeling of the language they are mimicking by accent. Sewell and Biel actually do best in their roles, Sewell simmering and feeling just shy of explosion as the conceited and proud Prince, sure of his own worth and the lack of worth of others. Biel shows a defiance and independence that is matched by her devotion and love for Eisenheim--nothing terribly fancy or complex, but well performed (in spite of my previous impression of Biel, which was probably most coloured by Marcus Nispel's terrible remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre--leading me to write her off as a hollow pretty face).

    What makes the film, though, is the experience of it. DP Dick Pope was Oscar-nominated and deserved it, with a very rich, thick feeling of colour throughout the film, often very dark but lit well enough to hold the lines of all the important details, and with little nudges toward elder silent film via iris lens transitions and the occasional circular frame that mimics the darkened corners of the inferior exposure process used in early film, as well as even flickering for the scenes of the young lovers. There's a fantastic mix of stage, screen and painting in many scenes, in the sense that the world feels constructed and planned like a stage show, artfully balanced like a painting and near-real like film. It's quite beautiful, and often just shy of distractingly so. Behind this we of course have the sound of a Philip Glass score, which caught my ear before I even saw his name, and began waiting to see who it was--and was reminded that I, in fact, did actually know this but had forgotten. It matters not, though, because Glass' music is fantastic as usual, and that's more relevant than the fact that it was him who wrote it. It bears that signature repetition of Glass' work, but with that lovely building of permutation that seems almost mathematical and yet perfectly organic--perhaps like the rigid but natural formation of crystal (or maybe the prisms on the cover of his Glassworks are just stuck in my head).

    Director Neil Burger has very astutely assembled the parts to make a beautiful film, and one that I didn't see as focusing on plot--though this is harped on most by critics--because it seems consciously hollow of this based on its focus on the visual and auditory experience, which is only enhanced by the feeling that Norton and Giamatti's best work in the film is all visual. Don't watch hoping for or expecting a transcendently original plot, because it isn't about that. Keep that in mind and you ought to enjoy yourself thoroughly.
  • yulisugarplum
    December 20, 2009
    yulisugarplum
    no un favo movie mas hopi master e story aki ta wa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mal konjo
  • arpz
    December 19, 2009
    arpz
    I felt it is dragging and more like drama
  • davidbowieroxsox
    December 18, 2009
    davidbowieroxsox
    A pretty predictable plot, but the effects were good--favorite would be the duoble Jessica Beil in the red cloak
  • MissMarvel81
    December 17, 2009
    MissMarvel81
    i just couldnt get into it i mean it wasnt bad just wasnt in the mood i guess :P
  • devilsdisciple
    December 16, 2009
    devilsdisciple
    very predictible from start, acting and direction also not impressive considering that plot could have been impressive if some dark element would had been introduced
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD