Directed by:
Neil BurgerScreenplay:
Neil BurgerCinematography:
Dick PopeComposer:
Philip GlassCast:
Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell, Eddie Marsan, Jake Wood, Tom Fisher, Karl Johnson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Eleanor Tomlinson (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
The acclaimed illusionist Eisenheim (Norton) has not only captured the imaginations of all of Vienna, but also the interest of the ambitious Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). But when Leopold's new fiancée (Jessica Biel) rekindles a childhood fascination with Eisenheim, the Prince's interest evolves into obsession...and suddenly the city's Chief Inspector (Giamatti) finds himself investigating a shocking crime. But even as the Inspector engages him in a dramatic challenge of wills, Eisenheim prepares for his most impressive illusion yet. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (11)
Quite an interesting subject. I've always liked wizards, and setting it in the era of Franz Joseph is quite fitting. There are interesting actors involved, and the magic is connected to a death case. It's not bad at first glance, but it's all done inconsistently. It's neither a proper thriller nor a proper romance, and even the magic feels overly reliant on special effects. Edward Norton is excellent, as always, and Giamatti, he's consistently great. Overall, though, I have mixed feelings rather than enthusiasm.
()
I wouldn't have expected such a bland performance from Norton (another Italian Job?), and maybe he didn't even know what ear-splitting lines the script would force him to let out of his mouth. The only thing that keeps this below-average fable afloat, with the look of a slightly more expensive TV production, is the great (and better from film to film) Giammatti, while the final Shyamalan-like twist stands on very shaky legs. And I might rename the whole film to "Hologram Man" – Eisenheim's stunts in the second half were closer to science fiction than to illusory shenanigans (nasty nitwit Lima).
()
The illusionist is not as good as The Prestige. While Nolan throws the viewer into an indescribable atmosphere, visual precision, and script sophistication, The Illusionist relies on the captivating backdrop of Prague and the Czech countryside. The result is naturally not the same, and it is clear who comes out on top. Edward Norton doesn't play a great role, and Jessica Biel is more of an ornament. Some parts movie bored me outright (surprisingly, including the ending) and the deficiencies in terms of unfinished sets and not always fully optimal production design are all too evident. What sets The Illusionist completely apart from The Prestige is the concept of the story. The former has its greatest weapons in originality and being “different”, while the latter film, in a relatively solid yet still quite unexplored realm of magic, only shows classic and well-worn values without anything extra, which is by far not enough. So, if I were to rate the first film only based on its relative drowsiness and tediousness, I cannot do otherwise than give it a below-average rating.
()
A well executed mystery film that is one big illusion with a meticulously crafted plot and a surprising ending. There is nice music, beautiful costumes and period atmosphere. And most of all, perfect illusions whose explanation is just another illusion. In short, a film to get swept away with a lovely cast and a great story.
()
Surprisingly more entertaining than The Prestige for me. Edward Norton steals the whole film for himself, he is intelligent, charismatic, insightful and a very talented illusionist. The period in which the film takes place suited me very well, the romance is apt and not annoying and the overall flow of the plot is very brisk and not boring, so for me I'm satisfied, I don't even know why I put the film off for so long. Very good. 80%.
()
Ads