A series of cheap tricks does not equal magic...
Written: May 10 '07
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Bang For The Buck |
 |
|
|
Pros: Paul Giamatti
Cons: Script.... Script.... Script....
The Bottom Line: Read Review...
|
|
|
| CoyoteWoman's Full Review: The Illusionist |
Let it be said that Edward Norton is, in fact, the man. He could star as a man who was obsessed with the mystery of the extinct dodo bird and dressed in a giant potato sack and I’d still consider him one of the greatest actors of modern times. Having said that, I do not believe that “The Illusionist” was one of his better choices of movie roles. In fact, it is Paul Giamatti that steals this film and makes it shine, Norton’s character, Eisenheim, takes a backseat to the endearing Chief Inspector.
The film is a luscious period piece that begins with the tale of young love. Our hero is a poor boy from the wrong tracks and he falls in love with the daughter of an aristocrat. Throw in a crowned prince who has his sinister sights set on wedding said belle and you have the makings of a story that’s been told a thousand different times, a thousand different ways. The opening is very sweet; almost maudlin in fact as we watch young love blossom and bloom. The cinematography is breathtakingly beautiful. Shot in glossy pastels, the first quarter of the film felt like a fantasy, like an inside into the lover’s dreams. I was astonished at how beautiful it was.
Like all beautiful things, the beauty eventually fades in the face of poor script work. In comparison to the dark, murky world of magic and magicians, as seen in last year’s “The Prestige,” the “Illusionist” is light, fluffy. Not just in the script, which is more about romance than mysticism, but also, the entire tone of the film. I wondered if the real illusion wasn’t about how Eisenheim performed his tricks but was perhaps on deceiving us, the viewers, on what type of film we would be getting altogether.
The bottom line is this, there were adequate performances by all, namely, as I stated before, by Paul Giamatti who played, Uhl, the wicked Prince’s primary pawn in disposing of his … indiscretions. Inspector Uhl was dispatched to keep an eye out on this self-proclaimed illusionist, not because Eisenheim was truly suspected of sorcery, but mainly because the Prince was a spoiled brat who just didn’t like to lose any attention, and Eisenheim, with his antics, was bewitching the entire kingdom. Then there is, of course, the fact that Eisenheim basically stole his girl. That was the last straw and now the movie turns away from the romantic trysts of the duo to become this battle of wits between the two men. In fact, Sophie (Biel) at this point becomes so insignificant that it is clear she only exists to further antagonize the new, rivalry between Prince Leopold (Sewell) and Eisenheim.
Pretty much, the film is painfully formulaic. Every single thing that happens is foreseen, expected, and so obvious that I rolled my eyes more than a few times. It was ‘Hollywood;’ clearly the film had absolutely nothing to say or offer, save its beautiful, luscious costumes and set designs. The characters were underdeveloped. If Norton was not playing Eisenheim I probably would have fallen asleep early into the film. This is a pure testament to Norton’s charisma and not to any actual depth of character. The only person who seemed to remember that, despite being given an awful script, life could still be infused into the character was Giamatti (“Private Parts,” “Sideways”).
Inspector Uhl was a seemingly simple man with a simple task. All he had to do was keep the Crowned Prince satisfied and he would be ensured job security, and even possible promotion to mayor. Unfortunately, the Inspector was a moral man (despite the fact that he was basically the Princes hired gun) faced with a dilemma… continue to be the Princes paid bootlick and brute, or, sacrifice his ranking and position to aid the young lovers in this dilemma. Again, this is eye-rolling material for certain but Giamatti’s suffering expressions really convince you that he is torn between duty and his newly budding friendship and loyalty to Eisenheim.
As far as the magic tricks go… there is one particular trick that Eisenheim performs repeatedly that is so ingenious that it really seems simply contrived by the writers rather than truly mystical. The writers hint that the trick is being performed via a series of carefully placed lanterns and via the use of lighting, but, in the end of the film, it is never truly explained. To add insult to injury, what is explained, in an embarrassing recap of the entire events of the movie, is the trick that didn’t fool anyone in the audience. Not only that, but the patronizing way in which, step by step, we have the events reenacted is so infuriatingly anticlimactic that it left a sour taste in my mouth.
If you are looking to watch a film about passion, magic, with good directing, acting, and screenplay… rent Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige.” It was a much more detailed, thoughtful, all around well-crafted film. Unless you are a hardcore Edward Norton fan, or enjoy nonsensical romance, skip this one and wait for cable.
Recommended:
No
Worst Part of this Film: Script
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
CoyoteWoman
|
|
Location: Philly - USA
Reviews written: 95
Trusted by: 57 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.