This period piece set in turn of the 20th century Vienna, promises much, delivers less. Edward Norton is the big name, but the big performance is turned in by Paul Giamatti
the lead of recently released "Lady in the Water." Don't get me wrong, I like the movie, just not as much as I had hoped, and certainly not as much as the subject, the actors, and the story lead me to expect.

With turn-of-the-Century magic as a central piece, the beginnings of World War I as a backdrop, and class struggles and romantic complications as coloring and flavor, how can a film seem so bland? I came in expecting to be mesmerized, to be fed a rich broth of the intrigue and clash between long-standing customs and beliefs of traditional Europe and the scientific and spiritual renaissance of Modernism. Instead, I was asked to swallow a thin gruel of cardboard cut-out characters moved around with such clumsiness that I swear I could see the strings and hand shadows.

"The Illusionist" is a funny movie. Though I am about to slam it for what it is not, I am also going to recommend it for what it is. It is one of the better movies of the season. It is, a movie that has chosen a short story rather than a novel to portray (a pet peeve of mine, since even 300 pages translates into about 200 pages of cuts to create a 90-120 minute film). It is even a decent film that I enjoyed watching and will probably watch again--on video or at the dollar movie.

Here is what the movie is not, and what it is not is enough to cause me to caution anyone who is not a die-hard romantic, a lover of the period in particular, or of period pieces in general, or a lover of Paul Giamatti to find dis-illusionment from spending the time and emotional energy investing in this script and these characters. The movie is not what one would expect. It is not, certainly what one would hope, and it is not what one can follow. It isn't that the movie is so overwhelmingly clever as to fool everyone. Rather, it is that the narrative style is meant, like the illusionist, to make us look one way long enough so that we don't see the secret behind the trick. It is that this movie both within itself and in and of itself, seems smugly determined to prove that we are all dupes and can easily and happily be misled. The movie drags us through actions that lead to one conclusion, then drag us back through the mud afterward to see how we were foolish not to have noticed the machinations that the writing and editing of the actual film would not allow us to see.

In other words, without giving away the secret, everything is illusion, and you would be well-warned to keep that in mind. Doubt everything and just see what happens. Also, be ready for a Penn & Teller moment, one long moment that lasts through the last fifteen minutes of the movie. We are told that magic is all deception. Norton reassures an angry mob of his supporters of that fact. He glibly refuses to divulge secrets, then goes ahead and does it. Where's the magical love? Where's the adherence to the First Law of Magic: thou shalt not spill the beans on how a trick is done. He chides a fan for asking, then later tells him anyway. Do we have to have our noses rubbed in the fakeness of the doggy doo? Because Norton and his character are jaded, must we be too? What ever happened to the suspension of disbelief? Not in this town.

Norton plays the adult incarnation of Eisenheim, the eponymous Illusionist. As a poor boy, he meets the girl of his dreams, and he is told he can only dream of her because of the class differences that divide them. She is a princess, he is a furniture maker. They find a way to meet, and despite being smart enough to get away from multiple adult chaperones, they are not smart enough to realize that, if they go to the same hiding place all the time, they greatly increase the risk of getting caught. They are caught. They are separated. Norton stays gone fifteen years perfecting his story for why he couldn't perform, magically-speaking, when the moment demanded. When he sees his love after all that time, he does not even let on that he knows her--Mr. Cool huh? Then again, Mr. Cool can't seem to remember who he is, when he first antagonizes his old flame's current boyfriend, the angry and vindictive Prince, and he cannot remember himself when his love, played by Jessica Biel, shows up at his place. He is brooding, confused, and confusing. Edward Norton is immensely talented and has shown his skills invery difficult roles. He is not asked to do so in this film, so he does not.

Rufus Sewell has shown his propensity if not his skill, for playing in period pieces, including "Tristan & Isolde," "The Legend of Zorro," "Helen of Troy" (TV version), and "A Knight's Tale." In this movie, he plays the egomaniacal and sadistic Prince Leopold, plotting to overthrow his father and to unify Austro-Hungary under his rule. Sewell bulges his eyes in rage, deigns to share scenes with Norton and Giamatti, and overdoes an underwritten and almost parodied part.

Jessica Biel, a stunner whose credits include "Elizabethtown," is given far too little opportunity to rise to the occasion of female lead opposite Norton. The supposed romantic fireworks between she and Norton suffer what appear to be both a script looking for PG rating dealing with adult sexuality, and a lack of on-screen chemistry between the two. Sure, they make love...because the script says so, but do we believe it? Barely. And do we believe that their love kindles a fire that extends beyond the body to encompass and bind the soul--not bloody likely! Amidst a setting of sexual openness and depravity among the regal classes, this film chases after chaste and catches upon kitsch.

Enter Giamatti, the saving grace of the film, though with an admittedly flawed character that can only be threadbare screenwriting leading to frequent revisiting of facial expressions, including wry grins, knowing smiles and nods, and eye-rolling exasperation. Still, we depend upon Giamatti. He narrates, confusingly, albeit, with intent from the screenwriter. He lends tone, shading and dimension to what otherwise becomes a two-dimensional production. Giamatti, as the inspector, connects the strange peroidicity of the movie to present-day expectations. As he investigates, he crosses jurisdictions, he uses logic, intuition, and keen observation to uncover clues. In short, he goes back to the present future to channel investigators we know and love in order to help us identify with a time, place and system that prove to be disconcertingly unknowable to us. When, at one point, Norton asks the good inspector, "Are you completely corrupt," and Giamatti deadpans, "Not entirely," we are not sure whether to laugh, to take note, or to ignore the exchange altogether. When Giamatti first seems to act perfectly corrupt in pursuit of promotion when his Prince succeeds, then acts to the contrary later, it seems he is winking at us stage right and saying, "Hell, I don't know if I'm corrupt or not either."

Still, Giamatti does bring welcome depth to a movie that seems bored with itself as it passes in sepia tones into a kind of dreamland that makes us wonder if the illusion of this film is that is was in fact a film, and not just a fleeting dream of the possibility of a film.

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Method: Other