New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Illusionist - Page 2

post #31 of 86
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.
post #32 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

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...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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?

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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.
post #33 of 86
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.
post #34 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by khyron View Post

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.
post #35 of 86
hun: I'm sorry if I offended you in any way and I totally accept what you are saying.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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.
post #36 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

hun: I'm sorry if I offended you in any way and I totally accept what you are saying.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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".
post #37 of 86
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
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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
post #38 of 86
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.
post #39 of 86
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:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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
post #40 of 86
I can accept that but still:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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..
post #41 of 86
i couldn't believe it was him (uncredited, I believe..) in Kingdom of heaven...!

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

post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

I can accept that but still:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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
post #43 of 86
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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?
post #44 of 86
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
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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...
post #45 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

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
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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.
post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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?

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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
post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

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
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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
post #48 of 86
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
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Eisenheim was employing trickery, rather than having any mystical powers.
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

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.
post #50 of 86
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.
post #51 of 86
The flickering was an effect, just as the oval border. It was as if you were looking through an old nickelodeon.
post #52 of 86
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.
post #53 of 86
I thought both the prestige and the illusionist were equally good.
post #54 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakesh.S View Post

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.
post #55 of 86
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
post #56 of 86
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?
post #57 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybradley View Post

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..
post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

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
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
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
post #59 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakesh.S View Post

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.
post #60 of 86
The Philip Glass score for The Illusionist is one of the film's selling points, IMO.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home