free counter with statistics Illusionist, The | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

norton.png
A Question of Transformation

The Illusionist / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | August 31, 2006 | Comments (35)


You can never trust a magician. You know from the outset that he’s bent on deceiving you, something that only grows clearer despite his repeated promises that there’s nothing up his sleeve. But he insists his hands are empty, and the audience willingly complies for the sake of the show. At their best, filmmakers attempt to pull off the same kind of trick: They propose to tell you the truth, but do their best to work in a few surprises and a revelatory ending. And we go along with it, too, since the whole point of being amazed is to act — to believe — that the story will be ordinary, only to feel that familiar rush of excitement and gratitude when the filmmaker pulls a whole warren of rabbits out of a battered hat. And if all that sounds way too cornball for you, well, tough rocks. Writer-director Neil Burger’s first feature, The Illusionist, is a dazzling display of textured storytelling, a moving tale of romance and political strife, and the rare period drama that doesn’t bore you to tears. And did I mention the magic?

Set in Vienna at the turn of the century, the film begins with a controversial performance from Eisenheim the Illusionist (Edward Norton) that leads to his arrest onstage by Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti). Uhl briefs Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) on the event later that evening, and here the film folds into a flashback that will last until the final scenes. Uhl begins telling Leopold of Eisenheim’s personal history, narrating the story of how young Eisenheim, the son of a carpenter, fell in love with a girl named Sophie, a member of the aristocracy, and of how their furtive relationship was ended, as always by the grown-ups. By this point, Burger and production designer Ondrej Nekvasil have already beautifully established the scene, but Burger begins to really show his chops with the artfully composed passage of Eisenheim’s youth, burning the edges of the frame and giving the picture a slightly flickering quality as if it’s playing on an old kinetoscope. It’s a gloriously effective shorthand that submerges the viewer not just in the story but the feeling that the tale is old, almost ancient. Burger even uses iris-in and -out techniques to transition between certain scenes. It’s tempting to just write off the devices as a lazy take on how everything old is new again, but Burger makes it work.

Eisenheim leaves home and returns an accomplished master of legerdemain, whose astonishing performances — his act includes growing an orange tree from a seed — soon draw the attention of Leopold. The prince and his entourage attend one of Eisenheim’s shows and, when the magician asks for a volunteer, Leopold sends up his fiancee: Sophie (Jessica Biel), now all grown up. There’s a heartbreaking moment when she mounts the stage and Eisenheim recognizes her but hides it quickly: Norton’s eyebrows raise and his face breaks slightly, then he returns to business as usual. It’s the moment that changes everything after it, and that takes the story to the first of many new levels.

Soon enough, Eisenheim and Sophie begin seeing each other behind Leopold’s back and, under ordinary circumstances, this is the part where I’d change the channel to see what’s on HBO. Period romances just aren’t my thing. At all. And yet, Burger’s script, adapted from Steven Millhauser’s short story “Eisenheim the Illusionist,” keeps the plot moving at a brisk enough pace without getting bogged down in turgid, ruffled-shirt declarations of undying whatever. Before long, Eisenheim and Sophie are swept up in a plot involving Leopold’s desire to rule the empire, which includes his assigning Uhl to investigate Eisenheim after the magician pokes fun at the prince during a command performance at the castle.

That’s as much as I can freely discuss, except to commend Burger for giving his film a feeling of life and growth. Instead of beginning with an interesting premise that peters out around the middle of Act Two, The Illusionist constantly shifts its focus, evolving into a new and grander story with each plot turn, until the final frame reveals a deeper meaning to the entire story. Edward Norton’s performance is predictably stunning throughout, a fully realized character drawn from the most basic descriptions. But he really stands out in in the performance scenes. Norton even learned a few tricks to minimize the amount of computer aid in the illusions, thanks to consultant/magician/actor Ricky Jay, probably best known as the narrator in Magnolia. Giamatti will always be himself, to a degree, but with his beard thicker than usual and his voice restrained to a lower-register growl, he slips believably into character as a cop struggling between the temptations of power and a desire to pursue justice no matter the cost. Most surprisingly, Biel does a capable job as well, though her accent is the most inconsistent of the three. It’s refreshing to see her away from projects like the horrifying London; I’m starting to believe she can actually act. Not that the film is flawless by any means; Giamatti’s narration, as is usually the case, is spotty, and disappears for so long that it’s reinstitution toward the end is a little jarring. And Burger probably could have at least used a title card to set the time frame, since history morons like me need all the help we can get.

The heart of the film isn’t the love story, or it isn’t just that. It’s about the gray area between the willful suspension of disbelief and the reluctant acceptance of something that defies the laws of nature. When Eisenheim performs for Leopold and other young royals at the castle, Leopold stops the show and mounts the stage with the intention of discovering the truth of what the audience has seen. His friends cry out complaints, to which Leopold replies, “He wishes to entertain you, but I wish to enlighten you. Which is more noble?” He can’t see that Eisenheim is actually enlightening the people by pushing their boundaries of belief. In fact, the practice of referring to the performer as an illusionist and to his act as a series of tricks is itself a safeguard against the kind of belief the film itself encourages. Despite Eisenheim’s admission that his works are nothing but illusions, they still carry a weight and inspire his followers. Burger’s film, likewise, though it cops to being a flawed bag of tricks that makes several head fakes at resolution on the way to its ultimate climax, still manages to entertain and uplift. Burger makes the film much more than the sum of its ordinary parts. It’s a trick well worth watching.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Claiming the Millennium ... and the Word | Idiocracy



Comments

I hadn't heard *anything* about this movie other than an excited sister with a slight Ed Norton crush, but...damn, now I really want to see this. I just want to see a period drama that isn't boring as hell.

Posted by: anaxa at August 18, 2006 9:56 PM

This looked like the weaker of the two "Magician" movies despite Norton and Giamatti, but I'm glad it turned out well. I'll definatly check it out.

Posted by: Kevin at August 18, 2006 10:57 PM

I just started hearing about this in the last few days and I am getting EXCITED! I love me some period drama that doesn't suck!

Posted by: Anne at August 18, 2006 11:19 PM

Same as Anne above, I'm a sucker for period dramas, especially with a fantastic cast such as this, and magic. I'm very excited, and am prepared to drive out of town for it.

Posted by: grace at August 18, 2006 11:46 PM

I hadn't read anything about this yet, but "Eisenheim the Illusionist" sounds startlingly similar to Eisengrim, the illusionist in Robertson Davies' novels. Lousy mooching screenwriters.

Posted by: Tsori at August 19, 2006 12:06 AM

I gotta agree with you Kevin.

Posted by: Justin at August 19, 2006 1:22 AM

I tried to see it last night, but it was sold out! Will definitely go sometime this week, though. Thanks for the wonderful review!

Posted by: lexie at August 19, 2006 3:36 PM

I was interested in this just because Ed Norton was in it, and then Entertainment Weekly gave it a great review (but it was Entertainment Weekly...), but now I definitely want to see it.

Posted by: Joe at August 20, 2006 1:14 AM

I hate living in Oregon because of the hillbilles, the meth, and the fact that no one here can fucking drive.

But at last, a reason to love it! We are so far outside any reasonable market that movies like this never reach us. No one here has ever heard if it so I'll never get dragged to it.

But, just in case, thanks for the warning.

Posted by: Nora at August 20, 2006 3:41 AM

Nora, what?

Posted by: Vince at August 21, 2006 10:47 AM

Vince,

I can't find this movie listed near me in OR. And since I hate OR, I think that that might be the best thing here.

Sorry if you're in OR, but if you were born here I hate you, and I already know you hate me too.

Posted by: Nora at August 23, 2006 10:35 AM

Nora, in all honesty, your second post makes even less sense than the first one. What the fuck are you talking about? I get that you hate Oregon... do you hate this movie? Do you hate Oregon for showing it? For not showing it? Quit freebasing all that meth and write something coherent.

Posted by: TK at August 23, 2006 2:29 PM

The movie sounds great, but I really want to see Nora, Vince and TK in a road movie. Angry, addled Nora's the driver, with Vince and TK along for the ride. Nora's sort of the Oregon version of Alex in "Everything is Illuminated", but instead of brimming with malapropisms that come from ingesting a thesaurus, she mangles the limited vocabulary she has, often with hilarious results. There's bound to be a love story here, a lost puppy, a kindly waitress, a crusty county doctor and at least one long lost relative.

Working title: "A Fine Meth". Come on, all you filmmakers out there!

Posted by: BitterB at August 24, 2006 10:11 AM

Tsori: The credits at the start of the film states that this was based off a short story called, "Eisenheim The Illusionist". Tho' the Davies novels are lovely.

Yes the accents are spotty and Rufus' beard is horrible, but the movie is good old fashioned entertainment-no quick jump cuts or flashy camera tricks. Quite impressive for a 1st time director.

Posted by: pkitty at August 24, 2006 12:20 PM

Fuck you BitterB, TK and Vince.

I'm not an Oregonian, they fucking suck.

I'm a published author, and I won't give you my pen name. I have been on the NYT Bestseller list, so I know for a fact my vocabulary can kick yours' ass.

Meth is for assholes, and since there is so much here that's why I'm moving out of the state.

Yes, this movie sounds like it blows. I was creatively thanking Daniel and yes, using any opprtunity to tell people that OR sucks.

Too bad you idiots couldn't figure that out, but that's why you'd rather comment on other people's comments than ever refer to the original review.

You all must be fat and unnatractive losers, and I can read you like the menu at Denny's.

Go ahead and flame this post, I'm not coming back to this page so I'll never see it, so feel free to make yourselves feel better by flaming me.

Posted by: Nora at August 26, 2006 9:25 PM

Gee, I really liked this film, am I nuts? I think it was sexy and romantic and there was actual chemistry between the male/female lead, and I liked the magic, hey how did they do that?, I found myself thinking now and again. I was entertained for a short time on a Saturday afternoon, taken away from the day-in/day out of my mundane life, and what else should a movie do, anyway? I cared that these young lovers would actually fall into each other's arms eventually like they did in childhood, and the cop/wine connisseur would turn out not to be evil and corrupt but would reach down into the straw and find a tiny shiny jewel, hey how easy is that to do?, that would cook that bad crown prince (who was kind of sexy but with an obvious fake mustache) 's goose, and he would not get his way to take over the Empire in a kind of Naziesque manner, and never get to beat up the pretty blonde girl after all, whew, I was worried for her! And even though I never really got the Courtney connection,that Eddie Norton is a cute fella and can act good too, but never really sounded like he was from somewhere Europey, oddly. But I think it was an A-OK movie, yup!!
So maybe everyone should all just kind of hug it out, huh? Really, so much aggro over...what???
Nora, dear. You perhaps need your meds adjusted.
Love, Devildoggie

Posted by: devildoggie at August 27, 2006 1:33 AM

I saw this last night and enjoyed it. Edward Norton was great as always, and Paul Giamatti was better than I expected him to be. Jessica Biel's faulty accent wasn't too distracting, and was easily forgiven on account of her physical... attributes. She's gorgeous and had chemistry with Norton (who managed to pull off a goatee and retain his understated good looks), though one of the men I was with remarked that her look was far too contemporary for a period piece. He also called the ending. Overall it was a good movie, but I wouldn't go into the theater sleepy (as I did); although the hazy darkness in which most of the film is shot lends itself to the theme of illusion and the rift between demanding the "how" and enjoying the spectacle, it made me all the more groggy. So, have a cup of coffee and enjoy the movie.

Posted by: Bec at August 27, 2006 1:52 PM

The film sounds pretty good. I hadn't heard of it beforehand either, but I suppose they might get round to promoting it in the UK when they release it here. If it has even a hint of Robertson Davies, I'll go and see it.

Was yours a picture book, Nora? You can't spell, and you whine like a petulant adolescent. The sheer arrogance of blaming other people when you can't express yourself clearly, then making offensive remarks, seemingly on the grounds that they don't agree with you, is disgusting. For the record, best-selling doesn't mean well-written. I give you Dan Brown and Dave Pelzer as sterling examples.

Posted by: Lucy at September 1, 2006 10:09 AM

What's with all the Oregon hating? Say what you like about the hinterlands -- Portland fucking rocks. And, wonder of wonders, this movie will be playing in Portland, so there goes Nora's point. Oh well.

Personally, I think the movie looks awesome, and I'll be seeing it tomorrow night. Great review, Daniel!

Posted by: Kathleen at September 1, 2006 10:29 AM

Ahahaha, what the fuck? Nora just blazed through twenty outraged-blog-commenter cliches in three posts. She called everybody fat AND she's never coming back here again (presumably she's too busy perusing the fare at Denny's to bother with us)

I'm not a fan of period pieces or plot-twist movies, but this review and Ed Norton have convinced me to give it a chance. Thanks for the review.

Posted by: karenology at September 1, 2006 2:04 PM

Plus we're unnattractive losers. Don't forget those cliches.

Posted by: Cosmic Bob at September 1, 2006 2:50 PM

Just saw the movie, and was impressed with the acting, the scenery, and above all, the story. And we have the movie in Utah of all places, so I can't figure out why they can't get it in Oregon.

Posted by: babyeatingdingo at September 1, 2006 3:03 PM

Great review and I want to see the film, but I have to ask-does anybody else find the idea of Jessica Biel and Ed Norton as young lovers, well, impossible? Ed Norton is 37. Jessica Biel is 24. Thye weren't young at the same time. Why would you cast actors with a thirteen year gap between them as characters who are close in age? I realize we're supposed to suspend disbelief and all but I am sick and tired of my movie going experience increasingly including a need to believe that women do not appear to age past 25. Batman Returns, anyone? Katie Holmes and Christian Bale were apparently the same age. WTF? It won't stop me from seeing the movie but gosh it sure does irk me.

I love your movie pitch, BitterB. I'm all for it. Can there be a hooker with a heart of gold, too?

Posted by: Jessica at September 1, 2006 5:56 PM

I completely hated this film, despite its appearing to be everything I normally like. Other than the special effects and costumes, the "mystery" was clumsy, the story poorly executed, and the "solution" was stupid and obvious. There was a strong feeling of disingenuity about the whole thing. I felt it was extremely shallow and flimsy, though stylish, of course. If only someone would make a really clever piece like this that didn't speak down to its audience.

Posted by: beth at September 3, 2006 9:48 AM

Just saw this. Must say that I agree with Jessica about the age thing... I think the only reason it actually worked for me was because Jessica Biel looked a lot older to me (and very average, to boot, not gorgeous at all- so much for Maxim!). Anyhow, the ending was very obvious (duh, just look at the title of the movie) but I found that I really enjoyed the pace of the movie and was entertained enought to stick around and see if my assumptions were right. I would call this a renter. Save the $6 (or however much it costs where you live- we got this in Alabama, so I'm not sure if Oregon is the 'new' Alabama...)

Posted by: Brooke at September 3, 2006 8:39 PM

This movie wasn't being played in many theaters in New Jersey, which I find very odd. But anyway, I read this review last night and saw the movie today and I have to say that I loved it. Edward Norton is my hero and I could watch this movie endlessly. Oh and I also thought that the score was fantastic.

Posted by: Queen Lena at September 3, 2006 11:10 PM

Saw this in Houston after reading a glowing review in City Paper there. I thought it was great. As has been said elsewhere, its a good old-fashioned "grown-up" movie. Edward Norton is hypnotic. I've been a little Paul Giamatti-ed out, and dreaded another whiny schlub from him as in "Sideways" or "American Splendor", but his Inspector Uhl was a totally convincing mix of ambition, curiousity, sycophancy, and rebellion.

Posted by: hwest at September 4, 2006 10:44 PM

Beth,

Could you give some idea about where, when, and how the movie "talked down" to the audience? I don't see that.

Posted by: Steve Lee at September 5, 2006 10:11 PM

Everyone I know liked this movie, but I just thought it was boring, toothless, and totally predictable. What am I not getting? To me, this film (let's say in comparison to a really interesting period film like "Angels and Insects" to show you where I'm coming from) had a stick up it's ass. Like Ed Norton's acting style. He's in serious danger of becoming another Sean Penn (gag!) -- takes himself WAY too seriously. And, yeah -- I couldn't help thinking, "She's supposed to be the same age as him?" Right. Would it really KILL these guys to play opposite a love interest even NEAR their own age? Does it always HAVE to be some 20-something raving beauty with huge inflated collagen lips? (my husband said it looked like she'd been punched in the mouth) Is it so difficult for Hollywood to imagine that a 36 year old man could be attracted to a 34 year old woman with normal-size lips? Especially since they were supposed to be childhood sweethearts... Okay. I know. I'm fighting a losing battle. *Sigh* Got that off my chest, anyway...

Posted by: bitterend at September 6, 2006 2:00 PM

Bitterend - maybe they meant *her* childhood ;). Let's not even get into the fact that Norton's just not that attractive. I will give you cute and charismatic, but nothing more.

I am with you on all fronts. I have no interest in seeing this movie for lots of reasons, but that's one of them. I'm waiting for the day when we see Jake Gyllenhall play opposite Diane Lane and have it not passed off as a May/December romance. I think I'll be waiting a long time.

Posted by: Samantha T at September 8, 2006 1:04 PM

Just saw this movie last night and really loved it.

I give that the movie was predictable, but I think that the point. Like anyone who enjoys a magic trick, you know what's coming, you might even guess how it is done, but the execution, the style is what counts.

I didn't think it was condescending to the audience, I really felt as viewers we were asked to participate in the plot, there were so many tells in the film letting you in on how they were doing the "trick."

There was actually a scene where the police inspector theorized they were pulling off the illusion using film.

To me, much of the movie's charm was the exploration of why people choose to participate in fantasy.

Posted by: ecp at September 9, 2006 11:59 AM

I really enjoyed this movie. I'm not a huge fan of romance films but when they're well done, I can bear through them and this one happens to be a marvelous triumph. Not to mention that, as always, Norton is fantastic. The slow panning of the opening scene is excellent and I have doubts that anyone could have held that much emotion in so little movement.

Posted by: themarina at September 13, 2006 5:52 PM

Just saw this last night with a buddy of mine. Both of us left very pleased. A well done movie, intelligent movie that did not feel too long Pirates.

Great collection of mustaches throughout, but the Princes beard look kind of silly

Posted by: Brian at September 14, 2006 11:09 AM

Just saw the film and i was really impressed. Edward Norton shouldn't win an Oscar, he should give the academy a big fuck you and start his own award ceremony based on actual acting in well made films. In any case, "The Illusionist" will be on my "to buy" list of DVDs, a list upon which few choice films reside at the moment.

Nora of course has earned special place in my heart with her bashing of my beloved state, and my pity for those so hopelessly delusional, that the use of the New York Times Bestseller list is used to indicate an ability to write well. Didn't Jose Canseco strike the top of that list? I rest my case, and hope Nora can rest her twitchy hands and worn crack pipe.

Posted by: Elon at September 27, 2006 3:33 AM

Not that anyone will read this, but I just watched this on DVD. I thoroughly enjoyed it, although I think that Giamatti completely stole the show. I like Edward Norton, but unlike Giamatti, I felt keenly aware that I was watching Edward Norton as a magician rather than Eisenheim himself. Not the strongest of Edward's performances, and I thought he was quite close to phoning it in. The illusion was fairly clear from the moment the two lovebirds decided to be together. However, I think the twist in The Prestige ruined me for this movie, as I was eagerly anticipating it. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the ride.

As for Jessica.....perhaps I'm too hard on her, but she was hardly in the movie long enough to determine any acting ability. She barely made facial expressions, and when she did express emotion, I felt no poignancy in them. It may be indeed that she can act, but I've yet to see the vehicle of a film in which I've been convinced of it. At least she's low-key, though, unlike many actresses her age.

Biel and Norton have the chemistry of doorknobs in this movie, IMO, so I'm clearly not seeing what others are. And I have to agree with the poster upthread who mentioned how average-looking Biel is. Girlfriend has a banging body, but I never thought she was all that pretty.

As for the age difference, Norton has never looked his age to me, so the knowledge of it it didn't take me out of the movie. Although I would like to see more older women/younger men inconspicuously in film, I don't know if it can be done - it seems to be easier, perhaps, to make a younger woman look believably older than it does a younger man. Just my perception.

Posted by: Daphne at February 11, 2007 2:14 AM