prestige1.jpg
I Myself Have Found a Real Rival Within Myself

The Prestige / Daniel Carlson

As if talking about what makes a film good or bad isn’t job enough, I’ve now been tasked with tackling The Prestige, which adds the realm of magic to the mix. Magic and movies are a lot alike, notably because some essence of the thing is inherently lost in the dissection. On one level, it’s disappointing to find out the magician’s secret: That’s all? He palmed the coin? He forced the card? Then again, I never was one to subscribe to Mark Twain’s sad belief that learning to pilot a riverboat robbed the Mississippi of its beauty; to me, learning the trick only enhances the showmanship used to pull it off. However, people are often tempted to carry that sense of letdown, of betrayal, over into cinema, especially when it comes to movies built upon misdirection and a killer twist, as with the works of M. Night Shyamalan or David Fincher. Similar complaints have been lobbed at director Christopher Nolan, who became a household name with Batman Begins but made his bones helming complex stories that defied linear narratives in pursuit of an emotional storytelling thread. Nolan made his debut with Following and then crafted Memento, two extraordinary little films that were long on imagination but short on presentation. But his success with the Caped Crusader has finally given Nolan license to wed the intricate stories he tells so well with the grand scale demanded by The Prestige, a tale of magic set in London at the turn of the 20th century. It’s a fantastic film, marked by nuance and a devotion to craft, but that’s damning it with great praise. No, like any good magic trick, The Prestige needs to be seen to be enjoyed.

Based on Christopher Priest’s novel and adapted by Nolan’s brother, Jonathan (who also wrote the short story that inspired Memento), The Prestige begins with Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), two low-level magicians working as shills for Milton (Ricky Jay), who each dream of becoming the star of his own show. Borden is antsy and reckless, anxious to push the envelope and show crowds something completely new, and he boasts of having such an ultimate trick to Angier and Cutter (Michael Caine), a technician who builds various apparatuses required for illusions. But that all comes later: Nolan first plunges us into the story in medias res, with an accomplished Angier performing a dazzling trick built around displays of electricity, not noticing Borden sneak backstage to discover the method of the illusion. A series of wrong turns puts Borden on trial for Angier’s murder, and he spends his days in prison reading a journal of Angier’s he’s acquired, at which point Nolan cuts back in time to Angier’s story. But it gets even better, or worse, depending on how much work you like doing at the movies: Angier has acquired Borden’s private diary, and in reading it thrusts us back to another timeline. The necessary ungainliness of that recap is no match for the fluidity and grace with which Nolan weaves between the threads of the story, unfolding events one glimpse at a time, matching the spirit of Priest’s largely epistolary novel.

Angier’s and Borden’s careers begin to bloom, but their rivalry is enhanced by Borden’s masterpiece illusion, The Transported Man, in which he steps into a cabinet and then instantly emerges from a matching cabinet across the stage. Consumed with discovering Borden’s secret, Angier begins obsessing over beating Borden, even going so far as to send his assistant, Olivia (Scarlett Johansson), to work for Borden in order to spy on Borden’s performances and hopefully attain the key to unlocking Borden’s trick. Angier even travels to America to meet Nikola Tesla (David Bowie), whose pioneering work with electricity opens a door to a new kind of illusion that will do Angier both good and harm.

I know this is an awkward place to stop, or at least to change the subject, but that’s really all I can reveal in good conscience about the story. Its intricacies work much better in the moment, and attempting to parse them for the sake of a regurgitated logline would do the film damage.

As Borden, Bale exhibits the charisma he often brings to his roles but mixes it with a brave amount of distastefulness. Borden is a watchable and engaging character, brooding and temperamental, but it’s hard to root for him. Jackman, likewise, brings a weird energy to Angier, who starts out as the clear moral superior to Borden but whose consuming passions drive him to the gray middle of the ethical road. The two men, as is the case with the greatest enemies, are more alike than they’re willing to concede, each living a different brand of lie in order to become the greatest performer of their generation. Johansson is solid enough, but her accent occasionally wanders into murky territory. Still, playing a character who survives by her looks, she manages to hold her own, given the talented company she keeps onscreen. Johansson is pretty and popular, but not much of a standout performer. Then again, she’s pretty and popular, which I guess is all you need to have an acting career. Caine is on autopilot most of the time, doing a slightly altered version of the Alfred he played in Batman Begins: Sly, calm, saddled with a thick accent, and just hanging around for comic relief. It’s a shame he doesn’t get to do more than that, but Nolan’s focus never strays far from Bale and Jackman, who deliver in every respect.

In addition to reuniting with Bale and Caine, Nolan relies upon several crew members he’s used before, especially cinematographer Wally Pfister, who was responsible for the gorgeous grays and ambers of Batman Begins. Pfister plays with light and shadow so well it’s almost easy to overlook it, but there are some shots that are downright stunning, including a brief but beautiful scene in a whitewashed crypt. David Julyan’s score wrings the scenes for tension, and Nolan uses it to good effect, often broadcasting the result several minutes in advance and then letting you squirm in anticipation.

After the quick shots of whiskey that were Following and Memento, Nolan has finally allowed himself to take adequate time to unfold the story: The Prestige clocks in at more than two hours and is in no hurry to reveal any trick before its time. Nolan has necessarily altered several aspects of Priest’s novel, notably confining the action to a specific time period instead of stretching it into the present day. But he retains the story’s heart, particularly its surreal flirtations with the border between illusions and actual magic. Yes, the film is built on deceptions, and yes, it features a series of interconnected twists, but like all good movies and magic tricks, it doesn’t lose any glory in a repeated performance or viewing, only gains it.

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.


Marie Antoinette | | Pajiba Love 10/23/06 |



Comments

Goody. I'm so happy this got a positive review on here. I'm also glad that there is finally a standout director from my generation (although he's a bit older than I am). Chris is on his way.

Posted by: Candy at October 20, 2006 10:21 PM

I saw this tonight, and it really is amazing. It mirrors a magic act (as Mr. Carlson points out), and like a good trick, it gives away a bit of a hint of what might be going on - enough to make one feel like they might be smart enough to know how it is done, but not so much to spoil the surprises. I highly, highly recommend this one.

Posted by: Lollygagger at October 20, 2006 10:26 PM

Hell yeah! The calvary has arrived! I thought I had to go through the year with one mediocre movie after another. The Presteige is great, lots of teeth, twisted-ness, and great lines. What a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: vik at October 20, 2006 10:34 PM

I knew this movie had to be worth it just for Christian Bale. I can't wait to see it.

Posted by: em at October 20, 2006 10:36 PM

Just saw it, amazing, beautiful, and aside from everything else worth going to see this for, it has Tesla (one of the greatest minds ever) in it, played by David "The Sovereign" Bowie.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 21, 2006 2:02 AM

I loved this movie! I'm still convinced there's a hidden meaning in Cutter's last words.


and YES... Kevin rocks because he knows of The Sovereign!

Posted by: Kat at October 21, 2006 3:18 AM

I went to see this last night at its midnight premiere and came away deeply impressed, so it's gratifying to see it get a good review from my favorite movie review website. I had forgotten it was directed by Christopher Nolan until the end credits rolled and when I saw his name it immediately clicked - so THAT'S why it was so good, and why the timestream switches reminded me so much of Memento. The movie was far, far darker than I expected it to be, but deliciously so, totally grey, not a shade of black or white anywhere. I'm sure many comparisons will arise between The Illusionist and this movie simply because of subject matter, but I think it's doing a discredit to both movies to make them compete. Let them coexist! They're both great.

Also, mad props for the Wilco lyric in the review title; it's one of my favorites.

Posted by: Katie at October 21, 2006 4:09 AM

The best movie I've seen this year, no competition :)

I was thinking about this one for hours after I saw it, in fact it was still on my mind leading up this review.

Incredible, incredible movie, and extremely well-done. Worth the ticket price! ;)

Posted by: AD at October 21, 2006 8:36 AM

As em said,
"I knew this movie had to be worth it just for Christian Bale. I can't wait to see it."
Exactly. No matter what it looks like, any movie is worth a shot if it has Bale in it. He's such a great actor; I love him! As I read other critics movie reviews, I'm starting to realize that Pajiba is the only one I can trust. I love you Pajiba!

Posted by: bits at October 21, 2006 8:45 AM

But is it better than The Illusionist?

Posted by: cris at October 21, 2006 11:31 AM

I saw that it was only getting some lukewarm reviews and was slightly discouraged by it, but how could I miss the combined efforts of Bale, Nola, Jackman and Caine (Scarlett Johansson's impressive talents mostly located in her corsets aside)? It's still with me the next day, and I can't help but pick apart all the clues in plain sight. The acting was tops, and I marvel at how complex a story could be so easily and logically told. Brilliant review! Mostly because I agree with you completely. ;)

Posted by: macheath at October 21, 2006 12:11 PM

I read the book and was wondering how they would translate the story onscreen. It's sounds novel and interesting. I can't wait to see it.

Posted by: ecp at October 21, 2006 1:16 PM

@cris: Yes, it's better than The Illusionist. While The Illusionist was definitely a spectacularly acted film (I'll watch Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti in whatever they do) I found the plot pretty simplistic by the time it got to the end.

While I think The Illusionist will be remembered as a good movie overall, I think The Prestige will be talked about for years. It's probably one of the most ethically deep mainstream movie releases in years, including modern-day scientific issues that I can't divulge without giving away the trick.

A lot of reviews I've read of it said that it was too complex, too confusing, etc. While there are certainly some unanswered questions at the end, anybody who's paying attention will want to see it again. And probably a third time.

Posted by: Binary at October 21, 2006 1:38 PM

Just saw this today. I really liked it. As the review said, Bale and Jackman were truly outstanding, and man oh man -- easy on the eyes. Even the uber-ubiquitous ScarJo with her bad accent couldn't ruin it for me, because what woman could even see her when she's sharing the screen with those guys? But you know how she's in, like, every movie now? Why can't Christian Bale be in every movie? Or at least, more movies. In various states of undress. I mean, godDAMN that man is fine! Also, a really good actor. The person who suprised me the most was David Bowie doing a rather understated Tesla (whom I understand was quite eccentric in reality). My husband didn't even realize it was him!

Posted by: Vivian Girl at October 21, 2006 6:34 PM

Why has NO ONE yet mentioned that this movie brings us to the climactic Wolverine/Batman showdown we comics fans have been hungering after for years?

Posted by: PenDragon at October 21, 2006 11:04 PM

I just saw it today. Yes, it was very good, however, I thought the movie dragged a lot. Mostly because I figured it out halfway through (the curse of being a writer!)... however, Hugh Jackman is just incredible. Oi. Take off your shirt again!!

Posted by: Sharla at October 21, 2006 11:46 PM

"Why has NO ONE yet mentioned that this movie brings us to the climactic Wolverine/Batman showdown we comics fans have been hungering after for years?"

Because bale and jackman just play these characters, theyre real people will real lives...unlike some people

Posted by: shameless, sorry at October 21, 2006 11:46 PM

And 'shameless, sorry' steps up, breathes deeply, readies the bat, and misses the joke by a yard.

Great review - will definitely see this one.

Posted by: Smith at October 22, 2006 8:12 AM

I love Christian Bale. But is my love of him enough to get over my hatred of ScarJo?

I must be strong, soldier on...

Posted by: beka at October 22, 2006 9:48 AM

Why is it that the Western is "dead" and nothing in the world can destroy the staying power of the dreery British-based costume drama? When am I going to learn? You'd think I would have learned my lesson with "From Hell"...
I have a theory: I believe Mr. Carlson's hair - falling from his scalp - is either blocking his view of the films he is charged with reviewing OR these tiny lifeless hairs escaping from his scalp to a better life on his broad shoulders is distracting him from paying attention to the films...either way: I'm guessing the only thing missing from making this film the Year's Best in Mr. Carlson's book was if it had been directed by Scorsese. Oh and kudos once again to the sheep out there that now have the "all-clear" from Danny to see this film!

Posted by: Wynn at October 22, 2006 4:01 PM

Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan appear to be unstoppable when paired. Perhaps they will become what Tim Burton and Johnny Depp used to be, because (though I love them still) those two are becoing stale.

Posted by: Maddy at October 22, 2006 5:18 PM

Does Micheal Caine remind anyone else of Jeeves from the P.G. Wodehouse stories? And why do ScarJo's breasts have to be pushed up so suffocatingly high in every movie she has ever done? And holy whatsit was that David Bowie? All of these questions plagued me after leaving the theater. But none of that matters, because this movie was great and Christian Bale is a fox.

Posted by: Maddy at October 22, 2006 5:26 PM

Damn, this movie has everyone fooled because of the pedigree behind it. Nothing more than two magicians (bad one's at that) taking passive aggresive stabs at each other's tricks. Completely uninteresting and devoid of feeling for a revenge film. Will be remembered as a series of red herrings that never add up to anything worth while.

Posted by: C-47 at October 22, 2006 6:27 PM

Does Bowie play an old or young Tesla? The young Tesla was quite a "fox", and was friends with the likes of Mark Twain.

Posted by: Hmmm... at October 22, 2006 6:54 PM

Old Tesla

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 22, 2006 7:07 PM

Now the only question is:

Do we prefer young Bowie or old Bowie? :)

Posted by: Hmmm... at October 22, 2006 8:21 PM

[WARNING: HORRIBLE, ILL-ADVISED SPOILERS AHEAD. FUTURE POSTERS WOULD BE WISE TO AVOID SPOILERS. --Ed.]

This movie was lame in so many ways. Honestly people, you didn't have it wrapped up as soon as you saw the pile of hat? And no crap it was his brother. Great actors caught in a messy plot.

Posted by: Lady K at October 22, 2006 10:11 PM

I refused to read your review before seeing it, because I -knew- even what little you would reveal would prove too much (but then, I refuse to watch movie trailers even).

That being said, reading it now, I must agree wholeheartedly and wish I could've put it so well, rather than shrieking 'BRILLIANTFANTASTICAWESOME! ILOVEIT! IWANNAGOAGAINNOWNOWNOW!' and so forth, like I did to any of the poor souls who asked about it.
Alas.

Posted by: the hel at October 22, 2006 11:12 PM

Why are so many viewers so snarky about Scarlett? I think she's a good actress, and it's not just because I find her unbelievably beautiful. I find it amusing that more than one person here (presumably horny women) slammed Scarlett and then praised Christian in the next sentence for how dreamy he is.

Anyway, I loved the movie. Yes, you can figure it out, but the power to me wasn't in the twists themselves. It was in the level of characterization and the depth of the characters' obsessions. Simply pondering what they went through and what they sacrificed for the sake of a trick and for the sake of the rivalry leaves my mind reeling. Both Borden and Angier are detestable, but I also found both of them very relatable. It's nice to see Nolan is back on track, as I was not a fan of Batman Begins at all. He has successfully combined the sensibilities of his independent work with the big budget of the studio.

Posted by: Rob at October 23, 2006 3:03 AM

I was pleased with your review and with the movie itself.

Bale + Jackman + Johansson = slightly delusional fantasies while trying to follow movie.

Posted by: Maria at October 23, 2006 10:10 AM

Lady K - I fucking hate you, you worthless cow. Thanks for ruining it.

Posted by: TK at October 23, 2006 10:12 AM

saw it yesterday.
the stories were so beautify interwoven!
amazing.

Posted by: urs at October 23, 2006 10:21 AM

Lady K, I agree with TK. You are a cow. Go eat a dick, ok?

To answer your stupid, bitchy question, yes, I had it "wrapped up" long before the twist was officially revealed, but that didn't make the movie any less enjoyable. In fact, it didn't seem to me like the twist was supposed to be hidden. It also didn't seem like the point of the movie was to make you go, "ohhhhhhh, I did NOT see that coming." To me, it was more about the characters, their relationships, and their interactions.

Now, seriously, go choke on something.

Posted by: MDA at October 23, 2006 11:34 AM

This movie bit (past tense for bites? I'm tired of the colloquial "sucks," but it does that, too.) The flashbacks were confusing, the motivations of the supporting cast were completely outlandish, and the ending was a cop-out. But the blame lies with the storyline. I will admit that Jackman was a joy to watch, and Bale was pretty as ever. I'd say, watch the first half (the length of a full movie anyway) and allow yourself to continue to wonder what really happened.

Posted by: Habi-Bees at October 23, 2006 1:10 PM

P.S. David Bowie - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Posted by: Habi-Bees at October 23, 2006 1:13 PM

I enjoyed this movie. No, it wasn't difficult to figure out, but I don't think they meant for you not to get what was really going on. It was, as MDA said, about the characters and what drove them and how they reacted to each other. And I loved Bowie as Tesla. Good looking movie too, and no I'm not talking about Boobies Johanssen and Christian "I really don't get it but it seems a lot of my fellow ladies dig him" Bale.

Posted by: jerkygirl at October 23, 2006 1:42 PM

Come on people- if you are a reader of Pajiba, you must have an interest in movies, whether or not you agree with the reviewer or other readers. Can we at least all respect the NO FUCKING SPOILERS code? It's so lame and childish and pretty much ruins the experience for others, after the reviewer has so carefully avoided doing just that. After all, we are all here because we enjoy watching and discussing movies. Don't be a twat.
And yes, Darth Vader is Luke's father.

Posted by: gobigred at October 23, 2006 2:11 PM

Is there something wrong with being a 'horny' woman who loves Christian but hates ScarJo? I ain't jealous--I'm happy and I got a good man--I just don't like her "acting" style. That's all. Good boobs, bad acting. Is that better?

Posted by: em at October 23, 2006 2:57 PM

i thought the movie was dreadful. if i hadn't been on a date, i would have left the movie shortly after the tragic "bullet catch" trick. i'm NOT a writer, yet was able to figure out the ending very quickly. overall, i thought it was poorly paced and the art direction suffocated the more essential elements to this particular movie: plot (first and foremost) character.

Posted by: daniel at October 23, 2006 3:14 PM

oh come on, it wasn't that easy to figure out, especially since you're looking so hard...I actually ended up thinking it was much more complicated than it was (like, hey tesla is an anagram for 'steal'!, which ended up being a completely random fact - I had no idea how it was fitting into my theory for bale's scheme anyway ^_^). Great movie, engaging characters and storyline, although I will say that I've never thought Scarlett Johanssen was incredible - plus it's become impossible to think of her as whoever she's playing, took me five minutes just to remember her character's name in this one, much less care what happens to her. She was a little off though, I much preferred Sarah. Oh, and death monologues should officially be banned. Eesh. Otherwise, loved it.

Posted by: boo at October 23, 2006 3:44 PM

I like ScarJo, I think she's just being cast in every movie even if she's not the best for the part.

She's this year's Jude Law.

Posted by: ecp at October 23, 2006 5:10 PM

Why must they continue to cast this wretched woman, along with K. Holmes, K. Bosworth and K. Dunst?

That said, of course I will see this -- your word is good enough for me.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at October 23, 2006 6:27 PM

With $15 million to show for their efforts on premiere weekend, here's another British-y, costume-y, piece of junk-y churned out by the studios. What in the world are these guys smoking? I must have serious amnesia because I can't remember the last one of this ilk that made back its $$$ just in U.S. release. How many times do you guys have to hear the words "no thanks" before you turn your collective backs on this genre and turn back to making something at least mildly risky. Hey! It doesn't have to be Bonnie & Clyde nor even Easy Rider but come on guys: Someone there must have an original thought?!? Someone?!?!
Who would have thought the most risky guys on the block would be Disney with the avant garde casting on display with the Pirates Franchise?!
Oh and by the way: Christopher Nolan - the whole gimmick thing...? Gettin' old my man. Hey! Don't trust me -- ask a friend!

Posted by: Wynn at October 23, 2006 7:54 PM

One last thing, thanks to thee! Lady K thou speaketh too much me lady. Please don't deprive these fine peasant people the pleasure of spending their hard earned ducats to see thy film by spilling thy beans...Bless thee.
Dang, tell me I shouldn't have had my own tralier on that set!

Posted by: wynn at October 23, 2006 8:01 PM

I loved this movie - I figured out the "trick" early on, and I still adored having it all unfold, I thought it was brilliant. And listening to Bowie speak as Tesla, and hearing the echo of Bowie and his life - that was lovely.

Posted by: Patti at October 23, 2006 11:24 PM

I figured out the "trick" well before the ending, as did many, but I think that was a clever and intentional illustration of one of the main themes of the story - that we desperately want to know the trick, but as soon as we find out we are dissappointed and dismissive, no matter how clever it is. The "is that all?" reaction is the thanks any good magician (or director) can expect for revealing his secret. Kudos to Mr. Nolan for having illuminated this phenomenon so that the ending of his movie, rather than being a let-down, is a like a little thematic swat to the behind of all those grousers (my boyfriend included) sitting in the audience, asking "Is that all?"
Although I must say, the "prestige" at very very the end was a bit much. Anyone who didn't know by that point how Angiers did it clearly missed out on the entire last half hour, so why hit them over the head with it in that last shot?

Posted by: AM at October 24, 2006 8:07 AM

I really truly liked this movie...though I feel it could have benefitted from a little fine editing at the end. The movie, which is long, got to feel so, the last 10 minutes. The ending just wasn't as spectacular as the movie was giving it time to be; and that's kind of a drag to have: what was a really enjoyable movie, end with a yawn.

Posted by: maxpurr9 at October 24, 2006 10:25 AM

It's just like Michael Caine's character says (and I'm paraphrasing), when you see a magic trick, you're looking for the secret, but not too hard. You want to be fooled. I didn't *want* to sit in the theatre and try to guess the ending because it plays out so well in the movie.
If the "twist" was disappointing, it was that way on purpose. The story is about how these magicians' obsession over this magic trick affects their lives so deeply, and really, for what?
I thought this movie was amazing, and definitely one that had us discussing it well after it was over.

Posted by: Allison at October 24, 2006 1:48 PM

I really wanted to see this movie, and saw it last weekend... but I don't know if I haven't been desensitived enough yet or what, but I found the story of two men doing horrible things to each other for meaningless glory an unwatchable piece of... I wish I had the vocabulary for. I'm not arguing that it wasnt beautifully made, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

Posted by: Gebbs at October 25, 2006 12:56 AM

Warning: vaguely-worded but still potentially spoiler-y comments ahead:

So, did anyone notice that Lady K's "spoiler" above is actually completely wrong? I think at least a few of the people who didn't like this movie weren't totally clear on the big plot twists. And speaking of plot twists, even if you figured out the "main" one, there were a few secondary ones involving various characters' relations to each other that you might not have seen coming.

Posted by: Jesse M. at October 25, 2006 1:52 AM

Most offensive and self-indulgent was the ending voiceover's sententious insistence that we haven't truly unraveled the convolute only because we'd rather not descry the magic track so as to remain ogglingly mystified, when, in fact, the final revelations are just contrived and predictable (when not simply given away). The remaining unresolvedness outright excuses itself by assuring us that that's what we want and what's best for our presumedly complacent sensibilities. Verisimilar ambiguity? Ethical grey area? Fuck that; the movie plays switcharoo with magic and science, good and bad, pro- and antagonist for its own masturbatory and dazzling sake. There's no moral aporia to matters of genius deceit and savage revanchism. Hooray for the acting and the cinematography, but a blue-balled "blow-me,-oh-wait-you-already-tried-and-failed" to the merely crafty plot weaving for nonlinearity's sake.

Posted by: Max at October 25, 2006 3:15 AM

Jesus Max, give your poor thesaurus a break, will you. You must have worn the bitch out with that post.

Posted by: TK at October 26, 2006 9:55 AM

Thank you, TK. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm all hooray for big words myself, but seriously, who talks like that. Pompous asses, that's who.

Posted by: AM at October 26, 2006 11:46 AM

I can understand why people would find this movie extremely enjoyable, but i found it a bit of a let-down... i figured out the "twists" very early on and it seemed to ruin it for me. i craved a really good "oh my god!" moment so was extremely disappointed.

that being said, i'd probably enjoy it a lot more on my second viewing.. brilliant acting, great story, and christian bale in his british accent could turn this lesbian straight for a day.

Posted by: lolo at October 26, 2006 5:29 PM

Uh, are you people on drugs?

What a colossal piece of shit this movie was. I couldn't take it and my wife and I had to leave halfway through. You guys are a bunch of lemmings. "I loved it." "Oh, really? I loved it more..." "Great great stuff. Nolan is a genius."

You all make me sick.

Movies need to be cinematic. Dramatic. Forward moving. This piece of dreck was slow, unbelievable, unrealistic, unmoving, uninvolving. It made no sense. It was boring.

Would you, I mean, would you people know a good movie if it hit you over your ignoramus heads?

I'm sickened by this entire thread and have to leave now.

As you were.

Posted by: nirradus at October 26, 2006 10:55 PM

nirradus -

Please provide a list of better films that more accurately reflect this "cinematic" virtue you think Prestige is lacking. Thanks.

Posted by: Ray at October 26, 2006 11:01 PM

It doesn't make much sense to call people "lemmings" for liking the same movie. I liked the movie before I read the review, so how am I following anyone? I didn't wait for my boyfriend or the rest of the audience to say, "yes, we all enjoyed this movie. Now let's go on the innernets and tell everyone else to like this movie."

Posted by: mda at October 27, 2006 11:10 AM

[WARNING: MORE SPOILERS AHEAD. ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. --Ed.]

Look, I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone. Well, actually I did. I usually come to Pajiba for reinforcement of my likes/dislikes, and usually, they mesh quite well.

My wife and I don't get to go to the movies much anymore (new baby and all...) and that we wasted our night out on this, followed by the glowing Pajiba review, followed by everyone commenting about great it was. Well, just too much for my already fragile psyche to handle.

I'm sure you're all smart, decent people. But I do think that our movie expectations have grown lower in recent years, in no small part because of all the shit Hollywood throws out at us.

Ray--

I've only seen a few movies this year (see: newborn baby above) and nothing really very good, so I can't provide a list of recent movies. I honestly think the only thing consistent about Hollywood these days is the shit they produce and there is no reason to provide a list of "classics".

But let me say this about Prestige, and this, to me, sums up the dearth of engaging storytelling in the movie.

There was a point, maybe halfway through the film, just before we walked out, where the Hugh Jackman character is VO'ing the diary of the Christian Bale character and he's TELLING US that the Bale character has this dicotomy of character. That on the one hand, he loves his family, but on the other hand, he feels completely limited by them. Well, the problem is, we never actually SAW THIS in the movie (up to that point). The only sliver we got that something might be amiss is when wife character says "today you don't love" or some such non-sense. A good movie will show you these kinds of character flaws, issues, whatever and not TELL YOU through Voiceover. It's the weakest mechanism in the screenwriters arsenal and these days, most consistently used to ill effect.

Another major problem I had with this movie. Up to the halfway point, when we walked out, we had never seen either one of these characters really actually perform magic. Oh, the Bale character made a coin appear from future wifes nephews ear. And we saw him tie knots. And we saw some lame show he did (to an audience that booed him). And we never really saw the Jackman character do anything. But yet, at one point, the M Caine character was booking a theatre and show for him. They had been apprentices, nothing more. And the writers are going to try and get me to believe that these are dueling magicians because what? They say they are dueling magicians.

Also, didn't we the audience SEE the Bale character change the knot? If we know he changed it, how come he doesn't?

And on and on. And a friend told me how the whole thing ended. That this machine created a duplicate of the character. Wow. That's fascinating. So basically, the screenwriters couldn't figure out how to tie the whole thing up so they create what is a completely implausable ending. Black magic. Not just magic. But fantasy.

The whole thing is a jumble. And what fascinates/frustrates me, is how intelligent people can sit through this crap and call it good.

But that's my cross to bear.

Nirradus

Posted by: nirradus at October 27, 2006 1:43 PM

By the way, Rex Reed reviewed this film and was much more articulate than I. He summed up very nicely exactly why this movie was a piece of shit. It was like he was reading my thoughts.

If you want to understand why some of us loathed this film, please read his review (you can find it on rotten tomotoes.

Nirradus

Posted by: nirradus at October 27, 2006 1:48 PM

nirradus, you didn't mean to insult anyone? Did you re-read your post by any chance? Calling people lemmings, telling them they make you sick, calling them ignoramus... wow. I'd hate to see what you're like when you're TRYING to be insulting.

It's fine that you hated the movie. Really, I'm cool with that. And your second post articulated it quite well. But that bizarre outburst of venom towards the readers, and not the film, was uncalled for.

And now I'm done being a condescending prick.

Posted by: TK at October 27, 2006 2:12 PM

TK--

Yeah, I'm an absolute beast. I'm the most hated player ever in my Fantasy Football league.

I'm a firm believer that venting on chat threads, however uncalled for, is much better therapy than say, beating your wife.

Yes, my first post was rude'ish, but I was TRYING to get a rise out of you Prestige-lovers. I really meant nothing by it.

And really, you are waaay too hard on yourself. Your last post was calm and you were even nice as you were insulting me. You are not a condescending prick. That moniker belongs to me.

Nirradus

Posted by: nirradus at October 27, 2006 2:29 PM

Nirradus,

Well-articulated discussion of the film. But I do have to say, it's a bit unfair to say you hated the ending when you didn't even stick around to see it.

Reminds me of people who bitch about the government when they don't even vote.

Posted by: AM at October 27, 2006 2:56 PM

AM--

That's an interesting analogy. Comparing me to someone who doesn't vote but complains about the gub'mint because I left a bad movie, heard about the ending and didn't like it. Yes, indeed. Very good analogy. And, of course, by good, I mean sucky.

Let me give this analogy thing a try.

Saying I hated the ending of a movie I didn't bother to stick around to see is kind of like knowing you don't like a guy on a message thread based on his writing, even though you've never met him.

How's that?

Well, if nothing else, I like the backhanded way you slammed me. First you compliment me, then you insult me. I might not like you personally, but I do like your style. AM (account manager?) you've got style, baby.

Nirradus

Posted by: nirradus at October 27, 2006 3:16 PM

=*

You're cute too.

Posted by: AM at October 27, 2006 3:23 PM

That's pretty funny.

Thanks, AM (account manager?), you just made my day.

Posted by: nirradus at October 27, 2006 3:27 PM

AM = Anne Marie

Apologies to anyone else reading this thread.

Posted by: AM at October 27, 2006 3:51 PM

Nirradus...

Lol, insulting a movie you only saw 1/2 of... Wow, what a way to make yourself look ridiculous!

No review I have seen of this movie reveals all of the twists and small plot points, and the first half is the messiest part of the story. The second half is when they justify EVERYTHING the first half presents. Things didn't make sense? Of course they didn't! You didn't *see* the movie, you saw a fragment of it.

Eeesh, people. Do you think before you go on these huge rants?

Carry on!

Posted by: AD at October 27, 2006 10:16 PM

Just in case this horse can still be ID'd by the coroner...

Rex Reed's review in the New York Observer is COMPLETELY INNACURATE about the events in the film. Either he didn't watch it (no wonder you felt he was reading your mind, dear) or he's suffering from some serious cognitive impairment. Go read it for a laugh.

http://www.observer.com/20061023/20061023_Rex_Reed_culture_rexreed-3.asp

Posted by: AM at October 28, 2006 4:10 PM

Man, this site really reinforces an idea I've been coming to a lot lately. Namely that the internet is a great place as long as there are no people muddying it up. I love Pajiba but the petty, insufferable narcissism of some of you is reprehensible. You make an Aint It Cool talkback look like a Miss Manners seminar. Lighten up and learn how to conduct yourselves in a public forum.

And Nirradus, the movie started very slowly but it picked up around the half way point. If you had stayed you may have enjoyed it. As many have pointed out, the trick wasn't the point at all.

Posted by: Rob at October 28, 2006 5:06 PM

I read the original book (that really spoiled the movie for me) and still loved the film, even ScarJo (the "new" black?). But the part I liked best was Bowie as Tesla.

Posted by: Adam C at October 29, 2006 1:25 PM

Nirradus: MY NEW PERSONAL GOD. Amen to your commentary about the lemming-like behavior of many posters to the Pajiba board... I just love the "Oh thank God! I was praying you'd love this movie!!" is so sickeningly sweet I want to check myself for diabetes. Hey and kudos to you for finding time in your busy schedule of being a new dad to share some flirty-face time with AM... I feel like Van Johnson in Yours, Mine, and Ours watching Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball make out...

Posted by: Wynn at October 29, 2006 7:36 PM

My goodness, you people are so polite when you're being mean.

Rob--

Perhaps you'd like to post a list of rules on "how to conduct oneself in a public forum." Cause clearly, you know how to act. With people like you wandering about, it's not wonder this country is in the sad shape it is. What we need is action, man. Action. Not more talk.

I mean shoot... I'm articulate, don't curse, and call it like I see it. I never once asked any of you (lemmings) to agree with me. My feelings were never hurt, even though AM never offered to buy me dinner first and I was pretty up front about the fact that I posted to get a rise out of you guys (and gals). Perhaps, and I suggest this only in light of your post, you are the person who muddies up the internet. I can only imagine the hell you must put your wife through ("Honey, it's eight p.m. and the dishes from dinner aren't cleaned yet. Don't you think you're being a bit reprehensible...") Or your poor kids for that matter ("Son, picking your nose at the dinner table is no way for a self-respecting boy to act. You'll be going to bed without dessert tonight young man.")

Manners indeed. Reprehensible indeed.

It's clear to me that Wynn is the only clear-headed thinker (besides myself) on this thread. And AM, of course. How could I forget that cutie.

Nirradus

Posted by: nirradus at October 30, 2006 4:20 PM

Funny thing happened while I was reading some other reviews on this site. I came across Rob again. Now granted, there are probably more than 1 Rob on the internet, but I'm guessing it's the same Rob. If it's not, then I apologize to this threads Rob in advance.

Here is Rob's response to another poster about the name of a group that sang a song:

"Keelan, it's also Thursday shithead."

Shithead? Are you kidding me? This from the guy who's looking for a "conduct in a public forum?" This from the guy who thinks that the problem with the internet is the people clogging it up?

Shithead? I mean, I reserve that kind of "trash talk" for my fantasy football league, not a "decent" site like Pajiba.

Is this the same Rob? If so, then Rob, you have some 'splaining to do.

Please enlighten us as to how calling someone a shithead is the way to "conduct oneself in a public forum."

Seriously, 'cause I'm waiting by my computer console right now and I'm not leaving til I hear from you.

Of course, if this ain't the same Rob, I'll eat my foot, but I'm not betting it's going to come to that.

Nirradus

Posted by: nirradus at October 30, 2006 4:39 PM

Best film I've seen this year.

Posted by: JOSH at October 31, 2006 9:37 PM

Holy crap that Rex Reed review was ridiculous. Whenever people say "the critic didn't see the movie," I'm usually tempted to roll my eyes. But in this case, he had to be either asleep or quite simply an idiot. Like AM said, he's probably "suffering from some serious cognitive impairment."


If you don't like the film, fine (I thought it was solid, not amazing but certainly not awful). But please, I can't take you seriously if you didn't see the whole film, as most of the things that are confusing at first get explained in the second half. If you saw the whole film and still don't like it, I completely respect that. Otherwise you're just blah blah blah.

Posted by: stacy at November 3, 2006 2:04 PM

Thank you, Stacy. I was waiting for somebody else to notice the review. Don't they have fact checkers at major newspapers? If not, I'm thinking of volunteering as one.

Posted by: AM at November 3, 2006 5:33 PM

Dear AM - Did you actually just say "major newspaper"?? Hehehe. Oh you're quite the funny one: I can see why Nirradus is smitten with you...
Lay off Rex - He created the phenomenon of the critic as celebrity. He is one of the guys on the film critics Mt. Rushmore. No Rex Reed, no Siskel & Ebert. No Pajiba. Know your history. Respect your history.

Posted by: Wynn at November 3, 2006 8:46 PM

That's no excuse for a review that is misleading. And what is especially infuriating about his review is that he appears to dislike the movie based solely on his misunderstanding of it. He actually uses the phrase "incomprehensible gibberish," implying that it cannot be understood, when in reality he's just angry because HE apparently didn't understand it.

Posted by: AM at November 6, 2006 11:25 AM

Yeah, I read the Rex Reed review. If you're gonna critique a film, at least get the facts straight. You know what was incomprehensible gibberish? His review. Ridiculous....not because he didn't like the movie, but as AM stated, he apparently watched an entirely different movie. If Rex is the predecessor of movie critics, thank goodness for evolution. I would quit Pajiba in a heartbeat if the writers provided incoherent reviews like that.

Posted by: Daphne at November 6, 2006 2:56 PM

i just saw the movie last night, and i was surprised i liked it. i didn't want to read any reviews before seeing it because i didn't want to spoil any surprises. i was surprised by most of it, but i'm notoriously bad at figuring out movie plots and endings; my boyfriend had already figured most of it out before the ending, and kept saying, "OHhh! I GET IT!" (how annoying, right?) anyway, i'd recommend it because there isn't a whole lot else going on in the movie theaters these days, and although it isn't the best movie on the face of the earth (really, i don't know what some of you people are expecting to see in the theaters - fucking citizen kane?), it's a pretty decent little film. i really only saw it because david bowie was in it, but i was pleasantly surprised by the rest of the cast's performance. also, nirradus, THE REASON WHY HE DOESN'T KNOW THE KNOT IS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T FINISH WATCHING THE MOVIE. IT'S EXPLAINED. seriously, who complains about a movie being confusing when they didn't stick around for any resolution? i thought the voting analogy was good. you can't bitch about something when you don't make any effort to change the outcome. you can't leave a movie halfway through and bitch about the ending being bad. it's a good analogy.

yes, you're right that hollywood is churning out crap, and i think our standards are being slowly lowered because of it, but there are plenty of sensible people who are saying this was a decent flick. you're allowed to disagree, but don't go around calling us names, and PLEASE stop complaining about confusing parts in the first half that are EXPLAINED LATER. also, do you know anything about nikola tesla? knowing about the shit that guy was capable of makes the film a little more believable. that guy was seriously either an alien or from the future.

okay, sorry. most of this has already been said, but i just had to put my two cents in.

Posted by: hf at November 11, 2006 10:29 AM

Nirradus, the diary was fake, Borden intentionally lied.. You'd have figured that out if you had actually watched the whole movie.

Tsk tsk.

Posted by: Sun at November 13, 2006 10:15 PM

lipitor diabetes lipitor diabetes

Posted by: lipitor diabetes at November 18, 2006 10:07 AM

Just got around to seeing this movie on DVD. Looked at the DVD time when I had the plot figured out. 49 minutes. It runs 130. So I sat there for 80 minutes to see an ending that I knew. Yay.

Posted by: Mike at March 2, 2007 2:14 PM

I rented the DVD last night. I don't have cable, and I don't regularly access what is upcoming or even ongoing, so this is the first I'd even heard of the film or read any criticism of it.

I loved it. The twist wasn't pointed towards the audience, it was pointed towards the characters increasingly deep understanding of one another as reflections. I believe this film to be an excellent examination of duality and the fundamental mystery/wonder of reality.

I think discerning viewers are stuck on the "twist" as being the essential payoff of too many films. It has become a psuedo-intellectual money shot, or the equivalent of the high C note in Broadway. As if merely containing these factors makes a film good.

I caught on to to the twist/mystery early on, but that is because the theme makes the twist not a twist at all but an organic piece of the film. The surprise is how two competitive, jealous men could attain essentially mythic power, use them to destructive ends, based on secrets and lies.

I also like how the film ultimately has a substory about Edison and Tesla that lends weight to what The Prestige is ultimately about.

I will continue to read other reviews, but I find that a film that tackles such weighty ideas with symmetry, precision, and beauty to be rare enough that negative reviews will likely be so much shadow-boxing (such as Nirradus' nit-picking, which manages to ignore everything about the film in favor of clinging to his pre-conceived notions of "good cinema," by comparing a laundty lists of shoulds to a film that deliberately defies and undermines conventions).

Posted by: Eric at March 6, 2007 12:48 PM

Just saw this on DVD and I suppose I'm now a lemming, because I thought it was freakin' brilliant.

But then, we "lemmings" seem to have actually understood what the movie was ABOUT. The common thread running through all the negative reviews is that people find the plot weak - but this was not a "plot" story. It was a character story, and the true "surprise ending" is *not* when we find out what has happened (I figured it out way early too) but when the characters finally understand that their rival's motives are NOT what they thought all along. It is the "Why," not the "what," that is important here.

I believe that those who say there is no true good or evil here are mistaken...it is very much a movie about morality and the state of the characters' souls. That no character embodies fully either goodness or evil is quite true (and part of its brilliance); but good and evil themselves are contrasted like the white and black of the magician's costume.

And, expected or not, that final image in the setting of the climax was as disturbing and delicious as something from Lovecraft or Poe.

Posted by: wandering filmviewer at April 2, 2007 7:36 PM

Just. . .amazing. What can I add to what has already been posted? Cinema can be something more. It can move at the pace of life and yet have the layers and textures of a great novel.
The Prestige is such a film.
The fact that a movie like this can be made in our modern times is a testament that there are still producers out there who believe in the magic (pun free of charge) that is "The Prestige"
And slowly, as the movie builds after the Turn and we wait for the prestige.
BAM!
Still night, black pond and then the ripping light of a lightening bolts shatters the silence and your eyes blink rapidly with the fading image.
This is what this movie will do for you. You will sit, stunned and just. . .be a child and swear you just saw a fairy.
If you read these words, you may be one, may be many, but please--get up and order, rent, whatever--just stop right now and see this movie.

Posted by: Ulysses at April 18, 2007 10:22 PM

K SOME SPOILERS HERE

good movie - but the one thing I don't understand is why Bordon lead Angier to Tesla in the first place (in his journal)? Obviously doing so would expose his secret to Angier (sort of, by default I guess), so why would he send him to the man who could make duplicates of people? I just don't understand Bordon's motives in doing so . . . I can't make sense of it.

Also, once Angier realized what the Machine did, why was didn't he immediately suspect Bordon had a clone (or, a twin)???

These are the only two HUGE problems I had with an otherwise decent film.

Posted by: beck at May 1, 2007 1:55 AM