Illusionist

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Illusionist

    I was going to go see the Black Dahlia today but wasn't impressed by its Tomatometer rating of 30%, so I went to see The Illusionist instead, which has a 75% rating. Incidentally, The Convenant has a 2% rating—must be total ****.

    I liked it a lot and haven't been this intrigued by a movie in what seems like a long time. I probably would have liked it more if it was directed by Mike Leigh and had a slightly different cast. A few little things bothered me like Giamatti's voice, which sounded great, but didn't match his face; I'm thinking an actor like Terrence Stamp would have been better as Uhl. Norton was good, but not brilliant as Eisenheim. I would have preferred Terrence Stamp in that role too. The ending where Uhl euphorically pieces together Eisenheim's grand deception wasn't necessary.

    Overall, a very satisfying film.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Illusionist

      Just rented this on DVD. I loved it. Norton is always fantastic, and he proves to be so again.

      I don't often watch a movie with the running commentary function on, but did so the second time around. It was excellent.

      Great film.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Illusionist

        I like it. I didn't feel cheated at all that they didn't explain the ghosts trick, and mostly because of the "explination" of the orange tree trick.

        also, he did say that he never claimed to have magical powers, and he did say to the crowd it was all an illusion.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Illusionist

          Michael Bay's got nothing on 19th Century illusionists for intricate spectacle.

          Here's an account of the famous orange tree illusion from
          http://www.automates-anciens.com/eng...automatons.php

          Fascinating article.

          The fantastic orange tree : Robert-Houdin borrowed a handkerchief from a lady in the audience, rolled it into a ball which he put besides an egg, a lemon and an orange. Each of those four objects disappeared into the others and once they were all gathered together in the orange, this one was used to make a magic liqueur. In order to do this, Robert-Houdin pressed the orange between his hands and its size decreased to a powder which was then put into a small bottle filled with wine spirit.

          Then someone brought the orange tree without flowers or fruits. Some of the magic and flammable liqueur was poured into a vase which was then put on the tree after fire had been set to it. One could see the branches blooming, then succeedingly loading with fruits which were shared between the members of the audience, except a single orange. It was left on the tree and it opened into four parts showing the handkerchief. Two butterflies took it by its ends and unfurled it while fluttering high in the air.

          This piece of work was controlled by pedals. Genuine oranges were driven in points and remained hidden by the foliage which spread open at the required moment to make them visible. The flowers were concealed in small tubes where they bloomingly appeared from with the help of a pedal. The final orange, a metallic one, spread open in four parts mounted on hinges. As soon as the orange opened, two artificial butterflies mounted on invisible steel wires were thrown in the air giving every appearance of flighting.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Illusionist

            Yeah, the flashback part bothered me a bit too. Especially when he flashed to things he could not have been present for.

            I guess that was for the "stoopid" people.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Illusionist

              (Not that everyone didn't already see it in theaters, or has rented the DVD, but ...

              SPOILERS:

              Loved the visuals, loved the characters ... amazingly annoyed by how the movie never explained the "spirit" trick

              If they'd left the question OPEN "was it a trick or supernatural?" ... then that would've been another movie, another type of tale, but playing fair with the audience ...

              As is, it's a rip off to have the Inspector Uhl "flashback" about how the Illusionist did it ... but then NOT show the one actual mystery (the spirit-trick)

              The "twist" that Sophie wasn't dead ... please! There was no surprise, no mystery ... Was there even a foreshadowing of a drug that could FAKE DEATH? The Inspector inspected her corpse, felt for a pulse, looked at her fatal wound: he was educated to trickery ... there's no explaining how he thought she was dead.

              If there was, please tell me how ... because I'd love to love this movie! Norton conjuring the spirit was creepier than 99% of all 'horror" movies I've seen!

              But here's the issue that hit me later, and troubles me worse: the two lovers are freed ... by tricking an innocent man (Crown Prince Leopold) into believing he's murdered a girl, so that Leopold kills himself.

              We're TOLD (by an audience which is gullible enough to believe they're seeing ghosts) that Leopold killed some other woman ... but why believe them?

              We're TOLD by Inspector Uhl that rumour has it he beat a woman then pushed her off a balcony -- hearsay -- from the same Inspector who later cannot tell if Sophie is dead or not?

              The Illusionist's greatest trick is to drive a man to kill himself from guilt. The Police Inspector thinks it's a grand trick and smiles at their escape.

              I'm left not liking the two heroes. I'm left thinking Sophie has traded a charmless man guilty of wanting a political marriage (which fits the times and politics of the era) and (yes) striking women ... for a charming murderer.

              Yeah, the movie is full of illusions: the stage tricks are dramatic (but a cinematic cheat) ... the character illusions leave bad taste in my mouth and memory!

              Great movie, empty core?
              sigpic
              "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
              that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
              -Mahatma Gandhi.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Illusionist

                Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
                The Illusionist's greatest trick is to drive a man to kill himself from guilt.
                I thought it was convincing the world he didn't exist.

                The spirit illusion is documented as thoroughly as the orange tree. It's smoke and mirrors (that's where that phrase comes from).

                Your critique is sound, Tabby (if I may call you Tabby) -- not a great movie, but has some fun in it if you're not spending the whole time trying to peek behind the curtain. I didn't love it but didn't feel it was a waste of time, either.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Illusionist

                  i just watched this a couple days ago, mostly b/c ive become obsessed w jessica biel () and thought maybe she got a real role here so i might as well go check her out. there's only so much 7th heaven on mute you can watch.

                  the acting was great overall, but tab's critique is spot on.

                  SPOILERS

                  i saw the "big reveal" a mile away - they really showed their hand w that one. things like having eisenheim explain the plot on the train near the detective just made this very obvious and contrived.

                  and like tab, i felt extremely weird about rooting for a guy who drove someone else to suicide.

                  that wasnt very "clever" or fun to me.

                  meh.

                  just couldnt get into this movie (and way too lil was seen of jessical )

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Illusionist

                    Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
                    (Not that everyone didn't already see it in theaters, or has rented the DVD, but ...

                    SPOILERS:

                    Loved the visuals, loved the characters ... amazingly annoyed by how the movie never explained the "spirit" trick

                    If they'd left the question OPEN "was it a trick or supernatural?" ... then that would've been another movie, another type of tale, but playing fair with the audience ...

                    As is, it's a rip off to have the Inspector Uhl "flashback" about how the Illusionist did it ... but then NOT show the one actual mystery (the spirit-trick)

                    The "twist" that Sophie wasn't dead ... please! There was no surprise, no mystery ... Was there even a foreshadowing of a drug that could FAKE DEATH? The Inspector inspected her corpse, felt for a pulse, looked at her fatal wound: he was educated to trickery ... there's no explaining how he thought she was dead.

                    If there was, please tell me how ... because I'd love to love this movie! Norton conjuring the spirit was creepier than 99% of all 'horror" movies I've seen!

                    But here's the issue that hit me later, and troubles me worse: the two lovers are freed ... by tricking an innocent man (Crown Prince Leopold) into believing he's murdered a girl, so that Leopold kills himself.

                    We're TOLD (by an audience which is gullible enough to believe they're seeing ghosts) that Leopold killed some other woman ... but why believe them?

                    We're TOLD by Inspector Uhl that rumour has it he beat a woman then pushed her off a balcony -- hearsay -- from the same Inspector who later cannot tell if Sophie is dead or not?

                    The Illusionist's greatest trick is to drive a man to kill himself from guilt. The Police Inspector thinks it's a grand trick and smiles at their escape.

                    I'm left not liking the two heroes. I'm left thinking Sophie has traded a charmless man guilty of wanting a political marriage (which fits the times and politics of the era) and (yes) striking women ... for a charming murderer.

                    Yeah, the movie is full of illusions: the stage tricks are dramatic (but a cinematic cheat) ... the character illusions leave bad taste in my mouth and memory!

                    Great movie, empty core?
                    Leopold didn't kill himself out of guilt. He killed himself because he was going to be charged with treason. He had plans of overtaking the King and they were coming to get him!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Illusionist

                      Originally posted by Pencey View Post
                      Leopold didn't kill himself out of guilt. He killed himself because he was going to be charged with treason. He had plans of overtaking the King and they were coming to get him!
                      Hmmm. I remember that comment now that you mention it. I'll have to rent it again and see which point they emphasize (I guess I was thinking in terms of the love story and Jessica Biel and missed the other angle, so I don't doubt you're right, the Inspector commented on his treason)

                      What evidence did they have of his treason then?
                      sigpic
                      "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
                      that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
                      -Mahatma Gandhi.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Illusionist

                        Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
                        Hmmm. I remember that comment now that you mention it. I'll have to rent it again and see which point they emphasize (I guess I was thinking in terms of the love story and Jessica Biel and missed the other angle, so I don't doubt you're right, the Inspector commented on his treason)

                        What evidence did they have of his treason then?
                        The chief of police mailed them a letter, informing them of what the prince was up to.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Illusionist

                          Originally posted by Pencey View Post
                          The chief of police mailed them a letter, informing them of what the prince was up to.
                          Um? But they'll believe the common-born Uhl against the word of royalty? I thought Uhl's thing to Eisenberg was: we're not even of that world, you and I etc. He even doubted that Leopold was serious about really making Uhl anything more, when he ascended the throne.

                          Again, I need to re-watch the movie more closely; but I recalled the letter had been sent. I was assuming the focus was somehow on the "murdered" girl ...

                          Otherwise, might we agree that it's poor dramatic focus, if the Prince's suicide (and the outsome of the story) is totally unrelated to the love story/supposed murder that IS the focus of the story?

                          Hero goes through ingenious plot twists, which are resolved by ... something totally unrelated? hmmmmm.
                          sigpic
                          "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
                          that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
                          -Mahatma Gandhi.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Illusionist

                            Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
                            Um? But they'll believe the common-born Uhl against the word of royalty? I thought Uhl's thing to Eisenberg was: we're not even of that world, you and I etc. He even doubted that Leopold was serious about really making Uhl anything more, when he ascended the throne.

                            Again, I need to re-watch the movie more closely; but I recalled the letter had been sent. I was assuming the focus was somehow on the "murdered" girl ...

                            Otherwise, might we agree that it's poor dramatic focus, if the Prince's suicide (and the outsome of the story) is totally unrelated to the love story/supposed murder that IS the focus of the story?

                            Hero goes through ingenious plot twists, which are resolved by ... something totally unrelated? hmmmmm.
                            Well, I would guess that since everyone in town knew that the Inspector was pretty much his "right-hand man" and due for a promotion to mayor, that he wouldn't have a motive to go against the Prince...thus he must be telling the truth in his letter.

                            As for the dramatic focus being on the Prince's suicide, I think the writer chose to go that way for increased dramatic effect. But if what I wrote in the above paragraph is true, then yes, I would agree that the dramatic focus should not be on the Prince's suicide.

                            Somehow though, it all worked for me and I'm usually picky when it comes to unexplained contrivances and plot holes and other such things us screenwriters notice.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X