The Illusionist (2006) 7/10Eisenheim the Illusionist (Ed Norton) was once a young peasant named Edward in turn-of-the-century Vienna. A chance meeting with a young Duchess (Jessica Biel) was the beginning of a forbidden childhood friendship. Torn apart as children, they meet again as adults when Eisenheim performs his illusions before the Duchess’s fiancé, Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). Now the Prince has the Chief Inspector (Paul Giamatti) investigating Eisenheim for reasons unknown.
The Illusionist is one of those films bound to disappoint because it staggers under the weight of its own buzz. It’s a good movie; a bit slow, a bit clunky, a bit self-important, but lovely to look at and with yet another bravura Norton performance. Giamatti is also receiving much praise for a performance that reminds me of Keifer Sutherland’s bizarre turn in Dark City.
The buzz would have you believe that the illusions of the title are all a metaphor for life. Or love. Or something. But actually, they’re just stage trickery. The film’s intention appears to be to integrate the illusion of films themselves with the illusion of audience hopes with the illusions created on stage. But this is pretty ambitious, and it doesn’t quite get there.
When people ask me what I thought of The Illusionist, I generally start with “Ed Norton was amazing” and the reaction is generally “Yeah, so?” Ed Norton has already had a career of such virtuosity that one shrugs off the brilliant performance and asks about the movie. Yet, in the months since I’ve seen the film, Norton’s performance haunts me. I’ve just about forgotten Sewell’s unforgiveable scene-chewing, and Biel’s merely adequate effort, but I can close my eyes and see the sorrow and anger in Norton’s eyes like I’m sitting in the theater. I’m inclined to say it’s worth seeing the film for the performance.
I should also add that Arthur loved the movie. Being sixteen, he’s a less jaded viewer than I, but he’s not an uncritical one. He views films fairly thoughtfully and I respect his opinion.
In conjunction with the DVD release of the Illusionist, I was sent a review copy and asked to review the film (since, y’know, I review films). They’re also having a contest.
I have to say, unless you’re a passionate DVD collector, this is a rental. The disk has nothing but two very brief and repetitive featurettes and a director’s commentary (that I haven’t listened to yet). I was really hoping there would be something getting into the history, either of stage illusion, or of Hungary in that period, or both. Perhaps something about how the tricks for the film were constructed. But nothing of the kind is offered. Just tiny little featurettes.
We were knocked out by it in the theater, and bought it as soon as it was released last week. But we haven’t watched the DVD yet, although that may change this afternoon……
I’m going to watch it again, but I wanted to get the review up in time to make the contest meaningful.
Getting review copies free = waycool…….
I have it on my list simply because Edward Norton is in it
Which is definitely reason enough.
Ed Norton fans will be very happy with this. He smoulders.
i enjoyed a movie set in someplace besides 1800 Britain or its empire or the american west or that great staple the confederacy. For a group of people who practiced the owning of other people I see no romance in or among the ante-bellum south. It was nice to see the true nature of monarchism and paronoia of imperialism as shown in this movie. It spoke volumes about the classs strucure in europe of that time. Something the British or Americans rarely touch on when doing movies about the 1800’s. Although anti-semitism was not touched it was hinted at in the real name of Essenheim.(Abramowitz). It showed restraint not to add that to the film in a attempt keep film viable to a large audiance.
I saw it this weekend with Joe, and I was underwhelmed. Loved Norton, loved Giamatti, thought it was gorgeous to look at, but nothing grabbed me.
Good ending.