the illusionist
To start, this film has got an interesting visual style. They spent a lot of energy making it appear as though it was an old movie. archaic wipes, sepia-esque color throughout, and an keen eye for detail. There are sequences meant to simulate watching deteriorated film on an old projector. i guess in some ways it works for the film, but whether it works or not, it adds at least a bold visual interest. it’s a mediocre period piece, but fun to watch.
In regard to the performances, norton did a pretty good job. he’s no christian bale, but he played his character well. giamatti does a great job. he always does a great job though, but since sideways he’s being recognized for it. this was a much better choice than the one that followed it << see lady in the water >>. and really whatever role he’s in, sewell creeps me out.
For one of those “reveal it all in the end” Ah Ha! moments it was a little too low on Ah Ha!, but there was enough gas in it to make it worthwhile. The visual clues throughout were less subtle than i would have liked. The story itself is strong, filled with romance and slight of hand, so to speak. It traverses the various plot twists easily without slowing pace.
The only part that tweaked my nerve was the incomplete aspect of the final reveal. Act III grows with intensity and the resolution is neither cheesy or overdone, but yet there’s an itch to know more about his final show. It may have been left ambiguous intentionally, as he is a magician and doesn’t show the “how”, but it’s much like the envelope from departed that left me wanting more.
There are similarities between this and prestige only in the broadest “he’s a magician” terms. This was a story built on love as that was a story built on revenge. The characters are not as strongly developed in this one and the story is a bit too foreseeable for me to regard it as high as prestige, but it is entertaining.
***