Daytripper

Just got back from seeing it. Outstanding film! One of the year's best, for sure. Edward Norton continues to astound me. Such a great actor. And Paul Giamatti just gets better and better too.

Was this really filmed in the Czech Republic? I need to go research this. Because after seeing it, it made me want to go to Vienna.

B.A.

My parents and grandparents saw this last night. All four enjoyed it. My dad said that Norton and Giamatti were in top form and that Jessica Biel was easy on the eyes.

Crashnburn

The Illusionist has a great story, great costumes, great cast, and great preformances... however this movie is suffering from sloppy boom mic and camera work, and piss poor editting.

I went with my wife and two of our friends today. We lost count (we got up to ten before we stopped bothering to count) how many times the boom mic was in the shot. Sometimes you would just see the tip of it other times it was just blatantly there hanging over the actors' heads. As if that wasn't bad enough in a lot of scenes they have a black bar running across the top of the screen to block out the lighting rig. One scene actually was missed and the rig was completely viewable. It's extremely irritating watching a good story with good actors and having all these careless mistakes show up. It took me out the story everytime it happened. And I kid you not, friends, it was not once or twice, it was at least fifteen to twenty times that the boom mic dropped into frame and remained, following the actors about as they spoke.

If you are the type of person who this does not bother then I encourage to you to go see the movie because it is a good tale. If you are the type of person who is easily bothered by this then don't see it. If you are a student of film go see it as an example of how a rush production and some careless mistakes can ruin an other wise good movie.

TomOpus

Sounds like you should complain about your projectionist.

mdc3000

Yeah, boom mic is the projectionists fault, not the Illusionists fault. You should have complained.

MATT

Crashnburn

How is it the pronjectionists fault when the boom mic is on the film hanging a 1/3 of the way down the screen? There is no way he could of hidden that and nor should he have to. Just poor film making.

Daytripper

It is NOT poor film making. I didn't see a mic hanging down once. If you did, that's a framing issue. Which is indeed the fault of the theater. And poor editing !? Are you kidding me? Did we see the same movie?

johnnysd

Quite possibly the most anal objection to a movie I ever heard. I never noticed a mike, and the movie was LOVED by the crowd I was with. It was a terrific film. I thought the editing was terrific actually.

Peep

Got back from this about an hour or so.

As others said, Giamatti was great. The locations were great also. Norton was fine with flashes of a better than fine performance, but lacked the depth that I would have expected from his character.

Biel's acting was blah, and she was underused if they wanted her as eye candy.

The story, however, was painfully predictable. Painfully.

Peep

I wouldn't consider that anal at all if the projectionist where I went screed up that badly and exposed that much. Truely a case for demanding one's money back!

Dr. DVD

Just saw it. Let me say that I love the subject matter of magicians and illusionists. It just flat out fascinates me, so I have a bias. That said, I really liked this movie a lot and while the swerve at the end was predictable, the path to it never once lost my interest. Biel wasn't that great, but she wasn't in the movie enough to really bring it down IMO. Giamatti and Norton were both remarkable, as always. My only gripe is that aside from the swerve, they never really revealed how the other magic tricks were done, but I guess that's part of the charm of seeing a movie called "The Illusionist." I give it a B+/A- . Great acting and pacing, but it could have done without the scene of Norton and Biel's hanky panky, not to mention I did not buy into them being the same age one bit.
Can anyone point me in the direction of some places that might answer how those tricks/illusions were pulled off? I know stuff like that was done back in the day, and a lot of modern illusionists do material that is just as astounding.

mdc3000

I was a projectionist for years, it was the projectionists fault... there is more information in the film image than is actually supposed to be projected on screen (the film is FLAT ratio, where this is a problem)... if they had moved the frame UP on the screen, you would have seen what you were intended to see.

I saw The Illusionist last night, and even though it was very predictable and kind of "by the numbers", I enjoyed it for the most part. Giamatti and Norton were great, Biel wasn't given much to do though and in this kind of film, I'd much rather see an interesting piece of casting as "the bad guy" rather than the wholey uninspired choice of Rufus Sewell (I like the guy, but you look up "typecast" in the dictionary, you'll see his face). Overall it was light and entertaining.

The biggest complaint I have about the movie actually has nothing to do with the movie at all...it's that as good as The Illusionist was, I couldn't get the perfection of the trailer for "The Prestige" out of my head. This was a good movie about a magician, but boy, come October people won't remember it much after Nolan, Jackman and Bale have had their way....

MATT

Caliking

The movie was predictable...But AWESOME! A good movie does not have to be "tricky" or whatever. It was great story telling and had superb acting. I knew what was going to happen (at least the main "twist") but coud not wait to see how it got there and thought the telling of the story was amazing.

The Titanic was predictable and everyone loved it (I hated it). The Illusionist was a very good movie. It was my favorite of the year so far (followed closely by Little Miss Sunshine). Go see this flick and don't get caught up thinking it is supposed to be a M. Night movie.

Dr. DVD

For the record, I never once saw a boom mic.

RichC2

The boom mic is definitely the projectionist's fault, we had the same thing happen during The Ring. Should have complained to the management.

Peep

A good movie doesn't have to be tricky. My point was that this movie tried to be tricky and failed. And I found it even more insulting that it feltthat it had to recap the entire "trick", because we obviously never saw it coming a mile away.

Geofferson

I saw this tonight and liked it quite a bit. Ed Norton was the best part (wonderful performance). Very well done period piece with a solid story.

movielib

This film had the most predictable and telegraphed "twist" since The Lake House but I still found it quite enjoyable. Fine and earnest acting plus unrushed, deliberate and fairly elegant pacing were mostly what saved it. I appreciated the recap at the end even though it had been obvious from the moment, well, if you've seen it you know. It was perhaps not entirely necessary but it did fill in a few details.

I saw no boom mics. It looks like the people who buy the full screen version of the film, though, are going to see them a lot. Serves them right!

DVD Josh

Saw this tonight, and while it was "okay", it certainly was a let down. I like the way the film was shot, and the effects were great. But to me, Giamatti was the only convincing role. The others just seemed to be phoning it in. And yes, the ending was contrived. The film dragged in places, and Norton's flat performance didn't help advance the story.

I'd give it a B-. Definitely worth a rental, but I have a feeling that The Prestige will be the better "magic" movie this year.

Peep

I agree. And it didn't help "The Illusionist" that the trailer for "The Prestige" preceded it. "Here's the movie that you're going to wish you saw instead."

Daytripper

I didn't feel that way at all. Instead, it said to me 'Here's a movie you're going to like just as much". And who knows? Maybe it won't be any good. Everyone is foaming at the mouth (myself included) just by the trailer.

toddly6666

A good and entertaining, yet predictable movie, but....

SPOILER QUESTION:


Did anyone else consider this movie as a symbolic reinvented Jesus Christ story with a happy ending or at least was thinking that the director was trying to throw off the audience to think that it was symbolic of the Jesus Christ story and ignore the obvious predictability starting right at Beil's staged death? Consider these interpretations:
1. Norton and Jesus can be interpreted as excellent magicians or super-powered beings.
2. Norton and Jesus were sons of a carpenter.
3. Norton and Jesus whereabouts were unknown from young teen til about late 30s.
4. Mary was considered by the masses to be a prostitute but she and Jesus were lovers
5. Beil was considered unfaithful by prince and police but she and Norton were lovers
6. Norton and Jesus have distrustful sidekicks only interested in money - the manager and Judas. In the movie though, the manager redeems himself, unlike Judas.
7. Jesus and Norton both act modest, say they aren't special, and have followers that spread the gossip of their powers/magic.
8. Giamatti is like a heroic Pontias Pilate that saves Jesus from getting arrested/killed.

I thought the director was trying to say that if Jesus Christ came back today, he would be considered a magician by the masses.




END SPOILER

DVD Josh

All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.

movielib

Congratulations. You must be about ten feet tall now because that was the stretch of the year.

Giantrobo

I really liked this movie. One thing I really liked was how the Director used the quiet moments during the magic. I mean most modern filmakers feel the need to fill every scene with music instead of letting the actor's performace set the vibe and that sucks.

Here's my comparison, and I know many here will flame me but oh well...bite me.

The Illusionist = Deep Impact... A decent film with less flash but overshadowed by another movie(Armageddon) with similar subject matter and more A-list actors.

The Prestige = Armageddon... The 800 lbs. Gorilla with A-list stars/Director, flashier sfx, and possibly more over the top storyline. But still a likeable movie.