The Illusionist

A fairytale dressed up as an ingenious show for adults. The Illusionist shows its colors in the title. For most of the movie it pretends to be something different than what it is. It seems to be a clever and well thought out picture until the last five minutes when it pulls out its true colors and it turns out to be woefully dumb. I mean the explanation for idiots at the end is so pointless when everything was obvious an hour before the end. I’m more fascinated about the fact that the creators all of a sudden ignore the only part that would have demolished this like a house of cards: the “spirits". This certainly is no disappointment in terms of the acting, but I must admit that I was expecting something more from such a cast. Up until his performance at the Hofburg in front of the nobility, The Illusionist is outstanding, then it is just good and at the end almost ridiculous. Apart from that, it’s a bit longer than is needed to be. But what makes it interesting for the Czechs among us are the filming locations and, for everybody, Glass’s music which occasionally does too much the work itself. (16/02/2008)

As a historical blockbuster for the consumerist audience, The Illusionist features oversimplified characters and emotions created by tacky lighting that blurs the image beyond their faces, like in the worst soap operas. On the other hand, the story is nicely fast-paced and Bratislava and Prague on the background of Philip Glass’s music seem irresistible, almost fairytale-like. It’s a bit surprising that the most remarkable character (and performance) is not delivered by Edward Norton, but by Paul Giamatti. Had it not been for the lame attempt to impress us with the point, which any thinking viewer can guess at least ten minutes beforehand, and especially all the plot holes and half-baked execution, I might have given it a “guilty” four stars. (15/02/2009)

A very interesting topic overall. I have always liked magicians, and setting it in the era of Franz Josef is quite appropriate. There are interesting actors involved, and on top of that, magic is connected to a death case. At first glance, it's not bad, but the whole thing is done somewhat inconsistently. It's neither a proper thriller nor a proper romance, and the magic itself is a bit too trick-oriented. Edward Norton is excellent, as well as Giamatti, as always. However, overall, it gives more conflicting feelings than enthusiasm. (01/04/2014)

The illusionist is not as good as The Prestige. While Nolan throws the viewer into an indescribable atmosphere, visual precision, and script sophistication, The Illusionist relies on the captivating backdrop of Prague and the Czech countryside. The result is naturally not the same, and it is clear who comes out on top. Edward Norton doesn't play a great role, and Jessica Biel is more of an ornament. Some parts movie bored me outright (surprisingly, including the ending) and the deficiencies in terms of unfinished sets and not always fully optimal production design are all too evident. What sets The Illusionist completely apart from The Prestige is the concept of the story. The former has its greatest weapons in originality and being “different”, while the latter film, in a relatively solid yet still quite unexplored realm of magic, only shows classic and well-worn values without anything extra, which is by far not enough. So, if I were to rate the first film only based on its relative drowsiness and tediousness, I cannot do otherwise than give it a below-average rating. (26/12/2008)

If it weren't for (and this is my eternal problem) the unsympathetic Norton, it would have been better. This magical thing boasts a nice period atmosphere, music and ubiquitous illusions that make it almost a fairy-tale spectacle. But the film is slow, rather long and often boring. The filmmakers must have realized this, so in the last third they got things going again. Due to this the end is... Better. But it won't save The Illusionist. (10/07/2010)