MetaChat - Spoilers Ahoy: I just saw The Illusionist and...

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

20 August 2007

Spoilers Ahoy: I just saw The Illusionist and... I think it pales in comparison to The Prestige.→[More:]In fact, it's safe to say that TheDude and I Did Not Like It - it's currently the lowest-rated movie in our Netflix history. I'm surprised at how well it is rated by critics and non-critics alike.

Since the whole plot seemed to hinge on whether or not Eisenheim's magic was "real" or an illusion, I thought the director could have made an attempt to really do the illusions, instead of relying on CG. In effect, the magic wasn't an illusion, which made the ending rather unbelievable.

Also, I found the whole thing to be rather morally bankrupt. Ultimately, what crimes did the villian commit, that we should root for his bad end? a) He was a realist and did not believe in magic, b) there was gossip that he was cruel to women, and c) he was an imperialist (or something like that). On the other hand, the "good guys" destroyed everything in their path so that they could fulfill some childhood crush; I couldn't dredge up any sympathy for them.

Furthermore,
1) The cinematography was a blatant rip-off of the work of Jeunot (director of Amelie and A Very Long Engagement) and Delbonnel (cinematographer of same).
2) The ending was predictable.

Do I just watch too many movies, that I can't enjoy a mediocre one when it comes along? Can someone explain the allure of this film, especially in comparison to The Prestige?

post by: muddgirl at: 11:47 | 20 comments

I saw it on a plane. It sucked, like many other movies I've seen on planes.

posted by grouse 20 August | 11:51

Also, their accents were terrible. And, There was more chemistry between Rufus Sewell and Paul Giamatti than between Norton and Biel.

Ultimately, I would have liked this movie if Gilliam was directing it, and the two lead actors were replaced.

posted by muddgirl 20 August | 11:51

I also didn't like it. Was horribly bored, didn't care about the characters, and, yes, the ending was obvious from the moment she "died".

posted by mike9322 20 August | 12:24

That was a really good summary and review, and now I know not to waste 2 1/2 hours of my life watching it, so thanks.

I really enjoyed The Prestige, in no small part due to the fact that my future baby daddy (CB) is in it. And David Bowie was marvelous.

posted by iconomy 20 August | 12:37

I liked the illusionist but I saw it before I saw the Prestige which is a much better movie. Maybe I just liked it because I was watching it in a 70 year old single screen movie theater.

posted by octothorpe 20 August | 12:45

i haven't seen the Prestige or any comparable movies and am not familar with Jeunot et. al.

that said the Illusionist was a netflix rental a couple months ago, and all i can recall is that it made absolutely no impression on me. that's actually a pretty damning movie review from me, because i have extremely low standards and can be entertained by just about anything.

posted by lonefrontranger 20 August | 12:51

I saw The Illusionist first, thinking vaguely that I was seeing what I'd read about when what I'd read about was in fact The Prestige (which I saw later, and enjoyed immensely).

I was kind of frustrated with it, yeah. I love Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti to death, which helped, but the whole thing did feel kind of sleepy and unfocused, and the sudden meh resolution of the illusion question was really unsatisfying.

As for the morality of the villain vs. heroes—that didn't bother me so much, taking it as a folk fable more than a literal drama, but that makes the whole illusion denouement all the more frustrating. Bah. For all that, though, I did like it.

But The Prestige was really fucking great. Just all around. Man.

posted by cortex 20 August | 12:53

I liked the Illusionist more, go figure. Neither is a good movie, though

posted by matteo 20 August | 13:01

Neither is a good movie, though

Oh believe me, matteo, I had problems with The Prestige. However, those were mostly some thematic and plot errors, and I try not to be too "nit-picky".

You know, I read a (somewhat maudlin) article claiming that romance movies are dead, and that moviegoers see strong friendships on screen more than they see strong romantic relationships. If I think about it, we generally see more strong male-male relationships than any other kind, whether that relationship is antagonistic or friendly. The Prestige relied heavily on the mutual hatred of the two magicians, which was much more "real" to me than the puppy-love relationship between Biel and Norton. The article made the point that the latter is much more likely than the former, which makes my disbelief all the more strange.

posted by muddgirl 20 August | 13:23

Another vote here for The Prestige (which was fun, at least) over the duller, predictabler The Illusionist.

posted by misteraitch 20 August | 13:30

Um, the big problem with The Illusionist is that it wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan.
*wink*

posted by chuckdarwin 20 August | 14:01

Ultimately, what crimes did the villian commit, that we should root for his bad end? a) He was a realist and did not believe in magic, b) there was gossip that he was cruel to women, and c) he was an imperialist (or something like that). On the other hand, the "good guys" destroyed everything in their path so that they could fulfill some childhood crush

That's the only part of the ending that I kind of liked, that the "heroes" were bigger bastards than the "villain", the only drop of anything resembling originality in the ending. Otherwise it was too much "The Usual Suspects". I also watched it based on the very positive reviews, and while I think Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are great, the movie sure wasn't. The Prestige IMHO was much better, though it too had its flaws, including one last question that Hugh Jackman's character should have asked, but did not.

posted by King of Prontopia 20 August | 14:28

The only problem that I had with The Prestige was that I couldn't help thinking through the whole thing, "Who would win in a fight, Batman or Wolverine?"

posted by octothorpe 20 August | 15:20

octothorpe: You have no idea how tempted I have been to write "Batman vs. The Boy From Oz"

posted by muddgirl 20 August | 15:30

"Who would win in a fight, Batman or Wolverine?"
Birdman, duh!

posted by King of Prontopia 20 August | 15:33

Oops, how foolish I feel about the post above, putting the end quote in the wrong place. The "Birdman Duh" should have been after. Now I will never get to sit next to my ancestors in Valhalla.

posted by King of Prontopia 20 August | 15:35

I liked both movies. I saw The Illusionist first. The Prestige I liked better.

posted by danf 20 August | 15:57

I fell asleep while trying to watch the Prestige in a hotel. But that has more to do with the bed than the movie. I saw the Illusionist in the theater and was mildly entertained. I thought it looked pretty and Paul Giamatti was entertaining. The thing I remember most about seeing it was when I saw, during the end credits, that it was based on a Steven Millhauser story--I had just purchased a couple of his books from Amazon, so it was an interesting coincidence.

posted by mullacc 20 August | 17:35

Okay, I'm going to go against the grain here. I hated The Prestige. It was too science fiction-y, and I absolutely didn't like how they made up a completely bogus story about Tesla. You can't just randomly make shit up about real people, let alone someone as incredible as Tesla. It takes away from his real accomplishments, and that angers me. Last I checked, he wasn't busy making cloning machines in the mountains of Colorado for the sake of an unhealthily obsessive and childish spat between two magicians.

On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed The Illusionist. It flowed smoothly, and while it was somewhat predictable, I think it was a well written and well structured plot. Plus, it has Ed Norton in it (whose movies I tend to prefer), and was set against music by Philip Glass.

posted by spiderskull 21 August | 01:56

I liked them both fine enough, but for different reasons. I was expecting to hate The Prestige, given that I didn't at all like Batman Begins and haven't felt the need to see Memento again. But I liked The Prestige.

It's worth noting that the love-story arc of The Illusionist is almost entirely an invention of the screenwriter--in Millhauser's short story Biel's character appears and leaves in roughly two paragraphs. (In a perfect world the filmmakers would have stuck more closely to the short story, but the film based on it would have cost a squintillion dollars.) That said, its predictability makes it no different than most other movies, and as spiderskull suggests above, Nolan et. al. have to break a deal with the viewer by inventing a black-box plot device device in order to generate the surprise at the end of The Prestige.

So, yeah, they're both fine enough. But Millhauser's short story is better than either of them.

posted by Prospero 21 August | 07:23

← Scary... || Wing has landed. →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN