I had not seen anything about this movie but was able to see it last night. The film stars Ed Norton, Paul Giamatii and Jessica Biel.........yes Jessica Biel.......

Ed plays an illusionist in early 1900's Austria who becomes involved in a love triangle with a Duchess(Biel) and a tryranical prince (Rufus Sewell). Giamatti plays the police chief who is loyal to the Prince and trying to keep the peace whilst the prince plots to overthrow his father.

This is love story thru and thru with the title characters occupation just being that, what he does. I am all for the love and romance as this world certainly needs good stories about it but more often than not it is not done well but they played out just the right amount of passion and intriuge and the emotions involved in loving and being loved to keep me interested in the story.

I must say that I enjoyed the film. The performances by Norton and Paul G. and I must admit Biel(altough I also must admit I do root for her to do well) where very strong, the story although hard to really discuss without spoliers was also very tight and very strong as well....This was a film that took a bit to sink in and allowed for some discusion between my wife and I and the other couple who saw it with us.

If you are interested in a good story that allows for some escapism and fairytale played out with some very strong performaces than I indeed recomened this movie. It is well played out and very tight in its storytelling.

I would hesitate to say all must rush out and see as I think its audience appeal to the masses, will be small, in these days of Snakes on A Plane and Ricky Bobby, but I would be interested to hear anyone else opinions of it if they see it. The group we saw it with actually gave it a standing O which was a first in a long time for me.

I would like to say again this is a movie that really can not be discussed in depth without spoilers so please DO NO POST them if you offer up a review or opinion. The spoilers are not be any means critical to ones enjoyment of this movie but with any good magic show.........its always better not to know how they did it

"The Prestige" looks more interesting.

Is Rufus Sewell becoming typecast? "We need an overbearing royal for this story; let's get Rufus!" (See, for example, "A Knight's Tale," "Tristan + Isolde," and now "The Illusionist.")

"The Prestige" looks more interesting.

Read the book(interested to see what Nolan does with it), its a totally different story than this one although both set against the backdrop of magic.........though the Prestige will certainly be the alternative for those who dont want to mix in love stories with their magic :)

Does Jessica make her clothes disappear? Or would that be a spoiler?

If she did, it sure wouldn't be a spoiler for me. ;)

Im really looking forward to this one...

I want to see both The Illutionist and The Prestige. I haven't seen anything for the Illutionist yet, I have just read stuff about it, but the trailer for The Prestige looks awesome.

This is playing in only about 4 theaters in the Dallas area. We saw it this afternoon at the North Park AMC, and we both liked it. It's PG-13, one discreetly-filmed lovemaking scene (no nudity), no bad language, some violence - but it would likely bore kids. As for adults, it's an enjoyable film and deserves to be on more screens. The Philip Glass score complements the film quite well, evoking the proper mood of drama and mystery; it sounds like a score for a "classic" horror film, like for something like Dracula or The Phantom of the Opera. I think it's a better film than the trailer makes it appear to be, so don't judge it by the trailer.

And, yes, EchoBaseGeek is quite right that to discuss this movie or even (...) nope, I'm not even going to write what I was going to write is to risk giving away too much.

Enjoy!

Thanks for posting Eric. I'm definitely going to check this out now.

This is only playing in 51 theatres in the country. It goes wide Sept 1.

It's now in wider release, I see, or will be as of tomorrow, per the movie section in the Dallas Observer.

Enjoy!

Is Rufus Sewell becoming typecast?

I could go for another Dark City.

Seth

Saw it last night....ok movie shot well but only 1.85:1 the subject seemed better suited to 2.35 1 (probably cost cutting?).....figured out well before the ending.....fun movie but the Prestige wil destroy it.

Edward Norton is brilliant and sadly seemed underused despite being the main character....too much focus on the bumbling Sideways inspector.....likewise Jessica Biel had a cameo turn and (gasp) only implied nudity it could easily have been someone else and would not have mattered.

VIVA LA PRESTIGE!!!!! Bale Jackman and Tesla (Ziggy Stardust er Pontius Pilate er David Bowie)!

This movie is well worth the effort to see, it's a refreshing change from the usual fare. The trailer for The Prestige ran prior to the movie, and yes it does look really good, but other than the subject matter, these two movies have little in common.

This is not an M Night movie, so 'figuring it out' isn't really the point. Enjoy a well made movie, relax and enjoy the story.

Even though it is now in wide release, this movie is only playing in art house venues out in the hinterlands.

Is Nascar the future of all red zone entertainment ?

I just watched the DVD. Beautiful transfer and a very enjoyable movie. For a moment, I thought the transfer had some pulsating lighting, but I do believe it was by design. I almost thought I was watching HD-DVD - the transfer was that good. Often times, dark colorless movies look bad on DVD...this one was nearly perfect. I was quite surprised how well Jessica Biel acted in this movie. I'll never think she is just a dumb actress again.

I watched part of the DVD, and it looked good - the reviewer at DVDTalk had gotten a pre-release copy which he was not impressed with, but he figured/hoped the final release would be better-looking.

It was a nice little movie. I appreciated ENs understated performance, as well as, the illusions, which were fantastic and subtle at the same time. Obviously, this short story based script was a romantic fantasy, as were his abilities, but taken in that context, the movie worked. The plot was telegraphed, but my wife didn't catch it and was rewarded at the end. I just thought it was well done.

"The Prestige" looks more interesting.

I kind of thought so too, but after seeing both I felt like this was really the gem of the pair and in fact The Prestige was the also ran that wished it could be as good a film. The whole "paired" studio thing is really annoying, two flood movies, two volcano movies, two meteor movies, the summer of monkey movies, the talking bugs movies, etc. But in this case both flicks were pretty decent, and this one really excelled IMHO...one of my favorite flicks of last year.

Prestige=A-

Ilusionist=Bi-


the B- might be in part to my falling asleep and waking up to the spin shot of Giamatti smiling.

DVD was above average for picture, average for sound.
B- for the movie. Giamatti stole the show.

Has Giamatti ever stunk in a role (aside from the unsaveable)??He was flawless in `Cinderella Man' (best sports movie I've ever seen!) as well!

Has Giamatti ever stunk in a role (aside from the unsaveable)??He was flawless in `Cinderella Man' (best sports movie I've ever seen!) as well!

Don't forget "Sideways".

never seen it...most say he was great...

I meant `unsaveable Lady-'

My wife and I enjoyed the film, but I found the style of the film to be distracting at times. This is from a HT stand point, the blacks were murky (at best) and the flashback sequences were at times too soft to the point of losing detail. Though the style enhanced the period and storytelling...from a PQ standpoint it was below par. This certainly could be the transfer that Fox provided the public...since I didn't see it in the theaters, I don't know how true to the director's intent the transfer was for home video.

Ron

Not the best I've seen this year, but thoroughly enjoyable.


The twists were easily predictable such that the big reveal scene of flashbacks was just a confirmation. But, it seems like that was the intent. I did enjoy how you are never privy to the secrets of the illusions until the final notebook. You're kept at the same level as the characters in the film.

The prestige got the attention but the illusionist is way more enjoyable as a movie. No contest.

we saw this last nite. Enjoyable little film. Norton as usual is good even if his accent wavers at times. Sewell is intense and Giamatti definitely plays the most interesting character IMHO. Some VERY cool spooky old school "spiritualism" sequences too.
Worth checking out but not tremendous.

:) d

The payoff wasn't worth the extended buildup for me, plus the "twist" is not something you want to think too much about because it will all fall apart. There's just too many things that have to happen just so for the plan to work...

And what exactly did the crown prince do that justified his dying? The morality of what Ed and Scarlett did seems a little shaky-you don't disgrace someone and drive them to suicide just to get what you want...but I guess we were supposed to be in such awe of the revelations at the end we don't bother with such trifles. But I kinda felt sorry for the poor shlep.."we're so clever its okay if we kill you" seems to be the message of the film-or am I missing something?

I really enjoyed this. I wasn't really trying to figure out the ending but I had a good idea that it may go the way it did. Still a good picture.

The payoff wasn't worth the extended buildup for me, plus the "twist" is not something you want to think too much about because it will all fall apart. There's just too many things that have to happen just so for the plan to work...

And what exactly did the crown prince do that justified his dying? The morality of what Ed and Scarlett did seems a little shaky-you don't disgrace someone and drive them to suicide just to get what you want...but I guess we were supposed to be in such awe of the revelations at the end we don't bother with such trifles. But I kinda felt sorry for the poor shlep.."we're so clever its okay if we kill you" seems to be the message of the film-or am I missing something?

Other than a penchant for hitting women, attempting to usurp his father's throne, being extremely egotistical and offended at the least slight to his person, and being a dictator-in-the-making a la Saddam Hussein, he was probably a nice guy. :) On the other hand, it does seem that Norton and Biel did an evil deed.

Lonwolf,
being a Hungarian myself I have little sympathy for any Habsburg tyrant being in a movie or in reality. The atrocities they committed for over 3 centuries to our people are beyond redemption. He got off easy.

I kind of thought so too, but after seeing both I felt like this was really the gem of the pair and in fact The Prestige was the also ran that wished it could be as good a film. The whole "paired" studio thing is really annoying, two flood movies, two volcano movies, two meteor movies, the summer of monkey movies, the talking bugs movies, etc. But in this case both flicks were pretty decent, and this one really excelled IMHO...one of my favorite flicks of last year.One poster said a few years back (regarding Antz and A Bug's life) "I guess that's what happens when you pitch a story-idea to competing movie studios." I'm not saying that's what happened, but it sure looks like it could have.

BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed The Prestige but never even heard of The Illusionst until last week.

hun: I'm sorry if I offended you in any way and I totally accept what you are saying. And the evil of the rulers of that time and place may have been so great that the makers of the film didn't feel like they had to spell it out, that everyone would know the CP was bad by his very nature. Still, his father was probably just as bad, and the Prince did speak of changes he tried to make before he killed himself. As far as beating anyone, it was told almost like gossip, and we never actually saw him mistreat JB, outside of their final meeting, when he had been drugged. Overthrowing his father..well, he's a Prince, what else is there for him to do?:) Seriously, I just found the morality of it disturbing, especially when it wasn't even questioned in the movie that it might have been a bad thing they did.
I will admit that my wife liked it quite a lot and said she liked it even more after thinking about it. Just hit me wrong, I guess.

hun: I'm sorry if I offended you in any way and I totally accept what you are saying. And the evil of the rulers of that time and place may have been so great that the makers of the film didn't feel like they had to spell it out, that everyone would know the CP was bad by his very nature. Still, his father was probably just as bad, and the Prince did speak of changes he tried to make before he killed himself. As far as beating anyone, it was told almost like gossip, and we never actually saw him mistreat JB, outside of their final meeting, when he had been drugged. Overthrowing his father..well, he's a Prince, what else is there for him to do?:) Seriously, I just found the morality of it disturbing, especially when it wasn't even questioned in the movie that it might have been a bad thing they did.
I will admit that my wife liked it quite a lot and said she liked it even more after thinking about it. Just hit me wrong, I guess.


lonwolf,
I'm not offended at all but thanks for your concern. I uderstand where you are coming from. Let's put it this way I was offering a"flip side to that coin". :)

I thought the movie was pretty good. I always try not to figure out what the movie is leading up to so as to maximize my viewing pleasure :), but I've been so put off by the crap from hollywood lately that I figured that the movie has to have a happy ending or else they never would make it and with a title of "The Illusionist" what else could the ending possibly be. :) But I still enjoyed the move. I'm a Paul G. fan and he did a good job.

larry

My wife and I watched it the other night and after it was over we viewed one of the extras where he was interviewed and she said boy is he a good actor! I said who and she said Edward Norton... look at him he's a wimp. I just had to laugh.

For me the plot was far too much a given after she said "As long as he's alive he will hunt us..." and especially after he picked up the bottle of "blood" Not bad but after those two scenes it was on auto pilot.

My wife and I watched this movie tonight, and we both enjoyed it a lot.

All of the actors were very good in their roles, and I thought the stylistic filming choices really complemented the era it represented. While sound wasn't a major element, there were some nice touches, such as the Prince's target practice.

Thematically, I was surprised to see just how well the movie contrasted the power held by a monarchy over its people vs. that of a populist entertainer. Weaving all of that rather seamlessly into the plot, without bogging down the story was a tricky little feat that was really well executed.

As far as lonwolf615's question: I don't think you can blame Eisenheim and Sophie for the prince's suicide. While the events were set in motion by them (or at least we are lead to believe they are), there were a number of events that were outside their direct control.

There couldn't know that the inspector would actually turn on the Prince, and they wouldn't know that the Prince would actually take his own life.

At worst, you could say that they were trying to prevent him from usurping his father's crown and righting other injustices, while also freeing themselves from his far-reaching tyranny.

As a side note, the director's commentary was quite interesting. One thing that he mentions, is that the end of the movie is intentionally ambiguous. The movie is really told from Uhl's point of view. What he pieces together may, or may not, be what actually happened.Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie, and it exceeded the expectations I had set for it.

Scott

I can accept that but still:

At the very least they were framing him for murder, and planned to have him put away for a long while. Otherwise he would hunt them down, as SJ pointed out. I guess my problem comes because for me they implied the Prince was evil but nothing in the film really spells it out. Most of the comments in reply to mine are reading into the film to justify what happens to him-nothing on screen shows him deserving his fate, which I find a fatal flaw in the film for me...In other words, nothing he does to anyone equals what was done to him, and yet we are supposed to accept it as justified in order to have a happy ending...
And since everyone has mentioned Paul G. so much, let me put in a good word for Ed Norton. Always gives an interesting performance, and if you pause to consider the variety and quality of the roles he's portrayed, from the choirboy in Primal Fear to the cocky thief in The Score or the villian in The Italian Job, he's proven he can do almost anything and do it well-and I didn't even mention Fight Club..

i couldn't believe it was him (uncredited, I believe..) in Kingdom of heaven...!

on a lighter note, "hungarian Goulash" is my favorite dish!

;)

I can accept that but still:

At the very least they were framing him for murder, and planned to have him put away for a long while. Otherwise he would hunt them down, as SJ pointed out. I guess my problem comes because for me they implied the Prince was evil but nothing in the film really spells it out. Most of the comments in reply to mine are reading into the film to justify what happens to him-nothing on screen shows him deserving his fate, which I find a fatal flaw in the film for me...In other words, nothing he does to anyone equals what was done to him, and yet we are supposed to accept it as justified in order to have a happy ending...Well,even though we don't actually see him kill his prior love interest, we do see him slap Sophie in nearly-unhinged anger when she dares to defy him. This lends credence to the story of him being a murderer.

Besides, his motivation for killing himself doesn't come from being implicated in murdering Sophie. It was already established that the law has no jurisdiction over him for what is done at the castle. That was only an ancillary matter.

His real fear was that his father found out about what he was plotting in Budapest, which we know was true. His suicide wasn't a foregone conclusion, but being stripped of power or even imprisoned was extremely likely. That would have been enough to allow Eisenheim and Sophie to live in peace, albeit anonymously.Scott

So, was her whole family in on the scheme? Where was the body? What did they do about a funeral? Would they tolerate their daughter, a duchess, scheming to give up the crown to marry the guy they dragged her away from at the beginning of the movie (i.e., Eisenheim), a guy with a Jewish name, Abramowitz?

We seem to have gotten caught up in reading into the characters actions in order to justify them. And maybe I'm just nitpicking but Am I the only one uncomfortable with the actions of our "heros" and the message it sends? Whether the Prince deserves it or not, was what they did justified because they loved each other? I can't help thinking it would be like Bogart killing Bergman's husband in Casablanca so they could be together...:)

We seem to have gotten caught up in reading into the characters actions in order to justify them. And maybe I'm just nitpicking but Am I the only one uncomfortable with the actions of our "heros" and the message it sends? Whether the Prince deserves it or not, was what they did justified because they loved each other? I can't help thinking it would be like Bogart killing Bergman's husband in Casablanca so they could be together...:)

That would have been the beginning of a beautiful friendship between Eisenheim and the Inspector, eh?

Remember, though - the ending/resolution/solution is all in the Inspector's mind. It may be what happened - and it may not be.

So, was her whole family in on the scheme? Where was the body? What did they do about a funeral? Would they tolerate their daughter, a duchess, scheming to give up the crown to marry the guy they dragged her away from at the beginning of the movie (i.e., Eisenheim), a guy with a Jewish name, Abramowitz?I also wondered about the body. I don't see any way that her family was in on it. They would never have allowed, much less assisted her, in bringing down the prince and settling for a commoner.

There are only two things I can think of for the body. Either he slipped her some more of the potion, so she appeared dead during the funeral, and then recovered her body later, or she really was killed by the prince.

Another problem I had, was that the locket and gem were still in the stall when the inspector went back there. At least a couple of weeks (if not months) had passed, and that stall would have been cleaned out multiple times since then. The only explanations I could think of to cover this, is that the stall was never used since she was "killed," Eisenheim went back an re-planted them, or he had an accomplice that planted them whenever the inspector would show up.

And, here's one final one. The illusion he produced that had the little boy actually walking down the aisle, close enough for audience members to actually touch, seemed to be way beyond the technological capabilities available at the time. Two explanations for that would be that the kid wasn't actually walking down the aisle, but that was simply the inspector's (faulty) recollection - similar to the reaction of the observers in the street. The other explanation is that Eisenheim isn't really an illusionist, but was actually able to summon the dead.

The way that the movie is structured, either is possible.Scott

We seem to have gotten caught up in reading into the characters actions in order to justify them. And maybe I'm just nitpicking but Am I the only one uncomfortable with the actions of our "heros" and the message it sends? Whether the Prince deserves it or not, was what they did justified because they loved each other? I can't help thinking it would be like Bogart killing Bergman's husband in Casablanca so they could be together...:)I don't know if I would call it nitpicking, but I think we have two different interpretations of what occurred in the movie.They couldn't be together, because the Prince would never allow it.

The Prince was also guilty of bad things, namely accusedly murdering a former love interest and plotting to overthrow the king)

For the first, there was no justice to be had. No one had jurisdiction over it, and the evidence had been lost and/or covered up.

The second is the more serious threat.

The only action taken by our heroes were to create a situation that would convince the Inspector that the Prince must be stopped from his power-hungry quest. The tipping point was the "murder," but what really motivated the Prince's suicide was knowing that his planned coup was revealed to the King.

Our heroes didn't kill the Prince. They probably didn't even guess that he would end up killing himself. All they wanted to do was have him out of the picture and without power.

At best, you could say they were protecting the country by stopping a dangerous man from obtaining even more power. A selfless act, which would also allow them to spend the rest of their lives together.

At worst, you could say they acted selfishly. But, the Prince was to be punished for what he actually did, so I don't find that uncomfortable.

I'm voting for the first one.Scott

I just watched this one last night. I enjoyed it, even if it falls into the trap of so many movies (the protaganists must have too accurate an idea of other characters' future actions and responses to certain things).

Paul Giamati is a very fine character actor. He is able to portray a wide range of individuals, and adds to every cast he joins.

Rufus Sewell seems destined to play the same role in every movie. Too bad.

The nickelodeon vignette look of the film, particularly in the childhood flashbacks, worked well enough, but I thought the film would have been equally enjoyable if the director had not used that gimmick.

Although I could not explain most of the illusions, I concluded Eisenheim was employing trickery, rather than having any mystical powers.

i couldn't believe it was him (uncredited, I believe..) in Kingdom of heaven...!

on a lighter note, "hungarian Goulash" is my favorite dish!

;)


He was credited.

I can almost be sure that you never head a real "Hungarian gulyas" in this country, which is actually a real soup, not some kind of stew.

The flashback scenes had severe flickering in them on the DVD. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing iris issues based on the dark circular border and bright inset colors.

The flickering was an effect, just as the oval border. It was as if you were looking through an old nickelodeon.

I was a huge fan of The Prestige when I saw it at the theater. Honestly, I don't think I ever saw a preview for The Illusionist. I didn't read any reviews, but some co-workers said it was great, so I picked it up and just finished watching it.

I figured this one out early on in the movie. Maybe I didn't know some of the 'details', but I figured out what was going on. Then, the more I watched of the movie, the more it reinforced that I was correct, so the movie bored me throughout. It wasn't 'Bad', but nothing I'll watch again.

The Prestige, however, will be a must own for me.

I thought the PQ was quite bad on this as well.

I thought both the prestige and the illusionist were equally good.

I thought both the prestige and the illusionist were equally good.

If I had seen the Illusionist without seeing the Prestige first, I may have a different opinion. They aren't really anything alike, other than the magic shows, but the Prestige had me thinking a great deal. This one just seamed to simple in the Plot line. But, I thought was an OK movie.

Not bad but the Usual Suspects-type ending and illusions that I thought were just way over the top (ie the kid that walks outside) kinda bummed it for me 7/10

Victor

Yeah, the kid walking down the aisle made the claim that most of the tricks were recreations of actual illusions (they explain how the orange-tree trick was a combination of a real mechanical trick + CGI for the fruit) a bit farfetched. I don't think there is any way to do an illusion of that kid walking down the theater aisle, even with today's technology. Maybe there is, but 100+ years ago?

If I had seen the Illusionist without seeing the Prestige first, I may have a different opinion. They aren't really anything alike, other than the magic shows, but the Prestige had me thinking a great deal. This one just seamed to simple in the Plot line. But, I thought was an OK movie.

i didn't say they were the same movie

all i said (or meant to say) was that they were good in their own right. the previous poster was comparing both movies..

Yeah, the kid walking down the aisle made the claim that most of the tricks were recreations of actual illusions (they explain how the orange-tree trick was a combination of a real mechanical trick + CGI for the fruit) a bit farfetched. I don't think there is any way to do an illusion of that kid walking down the theater aisle, even with today's technology. Maybe there is, but 100+ years ago?I kind of touched upon this in a previous post, but one way of explaining this is to remember that the film is seen from Uhl's point of view. The actual illusion may not have been anywhere near that spectacular, but his memory of it may have been "enhanced."The other, non-spoiler, perspective is that all of the illusions were upgraded to fit the expectations of today's movie-going public.

Had the film stuck to actual, practical magic tricks, the effects would be totally unspectacular to today's audience. To have today's viewers relate to what is shown, the effects needed to be on par to what today's viewers expect and are used to.

Another opinion would be that the filmmakers cheated. Kind of the same way that the villain in the Scooby Doo stories was always revealed as a living person, even though the effects we saw would not have produced the incredible illusions that had the appearance of supernatural origins.

Either of the first two will work for me, or even a combination of the two. If it were just the filmmaker cheating, I would not have been satisfied with the movie.

Scott

i didn't say they were the same movie

all i said (or meant to say) was that they were good in their own right. the previous poster was comparing both movies..


Sorry, wasn't trying to say you said that. I was talking outloud as to why I preferred Prestige over the Illusionist and why I didn't think they were equally as good. I wanted to stress to others that I knew they were completely different movies, before I made that statement.

The Philip Glass score for The Illusionist is one of the film's selling points, IMO.

The Philip Glass score for The Illusionist is one of the film's selling points, IMO.
Any film can have a Phillip Glass score. Just get a hammer. Now pretend that hammer represents a short, banal musical phrase. Hit yourself in the head with it at precise 3 second intervals. After a minute, add a second hammer. Eventually you will pass out. Viola! :D

(To simulate earlier Glass, repeat the phrase "ahh-AHH! ahh-AHH" in time as you hit yourself.)

I think Phillip Glass scores work well for movies and lend them a certain amount of dramatic tension (Koyaanisqaatsi, The Last Emperor). But musically there isn't much going on there besides a repeated phrase. Say "doodily-doodily" over and over again, and you're singing a Phillip Glass score.

I thought the movie was a nice underappreciated gem.

I must say I enjoyed this more than I did The Prestige, which was overhyped.

Ok now I've seen both movies recently.

My gf and I watched this movie a couple of nights ago. She enjoyed it perhaps a bit more than I did. Like many movies I'm frequently dissatisfied with how movies show the connection that fuels falling in love. The connection was there as children but we never really had a chance to see why or revel in the qualities of each that caused the love to blossom. 15 yrs later we have the reunion and again the love blossoms but why?

Rufus Sewel plays a good nemesis but his power was ameliorated by the presence of Giamattis character. You sensed that he could get wicked if he wanted to but abstained from such action. This IMO dimnished the power and influence of the Prince.

The ending was satisfying to me although a bit predictable. I enjoyed both "prestidigitator" movies although I rank The Prestige an A- and the Illusionist a B. I'd gladly own both movies as the acting was superlative.

This movie made a PERFECT Valentine's day flick.

Very good acting all around, story keep me intrigued. Still wish I had seen it sooner.

Well,
I enjoyed the score. And this movie was much 'cleaner' than prestige. I thought prestige was just dirty and the characters were so base that it wasn't pleasant to watch them. Here the scenery and plotline were much more enjoyabe.

Seth

Terrific movie, one of the best in the last few years. Music score was perfect and I enjoyed meeting all of the characters.

the real magician movie comes out tomorrow!

Over in the Plasma forum, on the Panasonic PX6 etc. thread, we're having a discussion about false contouring, smearing, and clayface that some of us are seeing. One example several of us have noticed is in the DVD for the Illusionist, where we see a lot of false contouring in dark scenes with large dark backgrounds.

Has anyone else, either with a Panasonic, or with any other kind of display, noticed it on this DVD?

Thanks,
Doug

Over in the Plasma forum, on the Panasonic PX6 etc. thread, we're having a discussion about false contouring, smearing, and clayface that some of us are seeing. One example several of us have noticed is in the DVD for the Illusionist, where we see a lot of false contouring in dark scenes with large dark backgrounds.

Has anyone else, either with a Panasonic, or with any other kind of display, noticed it on this DVD?

Thanks,
Doug

57" here and I thought the PQ was nice. CRT-RP dont know if that helps any :confused:

a better title for this film is the anesthesiologist....because it will put you right to sleep.

my goodness what a bore. even though the prestige was contrived and hard to follow it was at least engaging and interesting.

a better title for this film is the anesthesiologist....because it will put you right to sleep.

my goodness what a bore. even though the prestige was contrived and hard to follow it was at least engaging and interesting.

Filter out the Philip Glass score and turn up the dialogue real loud!! :)

The wife and I watched it this weekend and both really enjoyed it. We haven't seen The Prestige yet, so don't know if we'll like it as much or not, but it'll have to be excellent in order to surpass The Illusionist in our view. A different type of movie than we usually watch, but well worth it.

I'm surprised by all the tough posts on this one! I saw it just after watching "the Prestige", and liked it so much better. I could see what was coming, but loved how it played out.

And YES...The technology WAS there at this time to do these illusions in the film. They would have been difficult, but possible with the use of projectors and the "Pepper's Ghost" stage technique (like those used in the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland/World).but I give the film tremendous credit for the ambiguity and not trying to spell out the secrets. For once a movie assumed it had an intelligent audience.

This is near the top of my list for best movies I've seen from 2006.

And YES...The technology WAS there at this time to do these illusions in the film. They would have been difficult, but possible with the use of projectors and the "Pepper's Ghost" stage technique (like those used in the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland/World).I don't see any way thathe could have produced an illusion of the boy walking down the aisle, with people reaching out and passing their hands through him. Illusions on the stage are one thing, but moving past and through people isn't something that could have been done back then, or even today.

Pepper's ghost requires a plate of glass, and projectors require something to be projected against. To have either of those two move through an audience would be impossible to do without discovering the secret or looking obviously fake. Not to mention someone putting their hand right through the illusion.I do agree that it was one of last year's best films, though.

Scott

My wife and I saw this last night. The Cinematography was beautiful. The cast was excellent and I really enjoyed the story.
Edward Norton certainly is a chameleon. He exudes the confidence of a highly skilled magician and appears to be one. Jessica Biel is beautiful (no surprise there) and delivers a completely believable performance. Rufus Sewell is great as the antagonist; I do wish he could be allowed to portray someone who is not "evil at heart". His work in Dark City was not a presage of what roles awaited him, he was excellent in that.
Paul Giamatti, as always, completely grounds the movie with a strong sense of reality.
The Phillip Glass score was perfect. I never noticed that it was a "Phillip Glass score". It was no Koyanniqatsi. (BTW, I liked his score of Koyanniqatsi, but I don't want to listen to it w/o the visuals. :eek: )

I was glad they kept the look of the film as one of "legendary past".
All I will say about the ending was that I was satisfied. I think this movie did have magic. It was one of best movies I've seen in quite some time.
What's so bad about feeling good?

I'm looking forward to The Prestige now.

I'm looking forward to The Prestige now.

FWIW, these are 2 very different movies, and I myself enjoyed the Illusionist more, precisely for the sentiment you put in spoilers.

This was a beautiful movie and although it is a love story it is also a drama/mystery with plenty of tension and it keeps your attention. Unless you are a Grinch and a nitpicker you will enjoy it greatly :).

people keep saying how good the cinematography is in this film. im sorry but most of the film looked as if it was filmed at knotts berry farm.

??? :confused:

It was filmed (quite beautifully, I thought) in Prague.

Yes, the video was quite good but "stylized" to portray the era and that will probably turn off some people.

larry

Yes, the video was quite good but "stylized" to portray the era and that will probably turn off some people.

larry
True. I thought he meant the "surroundings".
There have been some films lately (can't think of them right now) that have done something different during processing to bring out the silvery-blues inherent in Film stock. It can look striking, almost metallic.

Of course with digital processing any look is possible.

the real magician movie comes out tomorrow!

If you're talking about "The Prestige", I hardley think that movie qualifies as a 'magician' movie. The injected 'Sci-Fi' aspects put the movie over the top in my book.

Over in the Plasma forum, on the Panasonic PX6 etc. thread, we're having a discussion about false contouring, smearing, and clayface that some of us are seeing. One example several of us have noticed is in the DVD for the Illusionist, where we see a lot of false contouring in dark scenes with large dark backgrounds.

Has anyone else, either with a Panasonic, or with any other kind of display, noticed it on this DVD?

Thanks,
Doug

Saw the movie over the weekend, agree that the DVD's video quality is not very good when comparing to many recent releases. On my 42" Samsung plasma (1080i upconvert via HDMI), the picture is soft, dark and lacks detail...but the movie is pretty good.

I gave The Illusionist 2 1/2 stars and The Prestige 3 1/2 stars. I never really bought into the magic within The Illusionist and knew the ending from the first clue... which doesn't happen often with me! However with The Prestige I played along the entire time and the ending actually created interest.

I just saw this and rather enjoyed it. I agree that the ending is telegraphed fairly clearly, but the performances and direction are well done and worth watching. I especially liked:the "sword trick" performed in front of the prince's guests. The prince considers himself too smart for Eisenheim, but it's here where he realizes the man is actually a threat. The interplay between the two was wonderful to watch.I was slightly distracted by Phillip Glass's score. I thought his style was superbly suited to the "Qaatsi" films, but the same style of repeating rythmic patterns occasionally lifted me out of this movie by reminding me of those films.