I really enjoy the Milhauser stories about illusion and magic, so I figured this would be good. Nothing earth shattering, no high art here. It was just very lovely to look at, had a nice restraint to it, and was romantic. Entertaining. Some who liked this may want to try Trzaskalski’s The Master, aka Mistrz.

I highly recommend reading the short story “Eisenheim the Illusionist” by Steven Millhauser, that was printed in the Spring 2006 Zoetrope; wonderfully written and terribly engaging.

Having read this short story I was excited to see the movie. The short story reads like an outline for a screenplay and has all the juicy visual elements spelled out so I suppose my expectations were high. I was very disappointed with the screenwriter’s boring injection of the trite love interest and the evil prince (though that part was acted very well).

The original story was exciting and enticing without the need for the typically Hollywood thwarted love aspect and quite honestly it ruined the story. The dialogue in those scenes was predictable, and for me every diversion from the original concept was obvious as all the new elements fell flat. As an audience our collective attention was only held by the well placed and timed illusions and expansion on the mysterious character of Eisenheim (in other words all of Millhauser’s handiwork, none of the screenwriter’s).

Clearly I suggest that you read the short story, but only after you see the movie (if you choose to see the movie at all). You might possibly enjoy the movie if you aren’t painfully aware of how badly they screwed up the story.

I’ve watched more movies this weekend than I’d really like to admit, but I actually am beginning to feel like I’m finally caught up on what’s in the theaters at the moment (it’s slim pickings, let me tell you). Last night Solar and I went to see the Illusionist, which is terrible. I think it’s the dialog and the directing that is really at fault – the actors really don’t have a great deal to work with, and actual idea behind the whole thing isn’t bad. It’s just really poorly executed.

I enjoyed the movie but my favourite part was the ending, where they give you just enough information to piece together what happened if you think about it really hard for the next several hours.

I just saw this movie at a free screening in DC, the theatre was packed. This is one clever film, with great cinematography, a wondrous soundtrack by Phillip Glass and solid acting. A couple of things that threw me, the music sounded “warped” as if it were from an old LP, but that added to the film whether it was intentional or not and midway through the movie, you could see the boom mic at the top of the screen. Not good.

Go see this movie. I loved it.

The Illusionist centers around late 18th century/early 19th century Vienna, where magician Eisenhem (Edward Norton) and Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) come face to face when Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) orders Uhl to expose Eisenhem as a fraud. The stakes get higher when Eisenhem and the Prince’s love interest Sophie von Teschen (Jessica Biel) remember their past childhood friendship and a love affair ensues. As Eisenhem’s illusions become increasingly grand, verging on the supernatural, Uhl is pressured to increase his level of investigation. The movie builds at a steady pace to the crecendo of Eisenhem’s greatest illusion yet.

A quiet film, yet constantly filled with music, dialogue, mystery and intrigue. Serious and yet with a touch of sarcasm. The cast is solid, anchored by strong performances from both Norton and Giamatti. The story is told in flashback from Uhl, who you should hate but really can’t, especially with Giamatti’s portrayal of Uhl as a character sympathetic to victims of the Prince’s pride but sadly resigned to the only means by which he can improve his lot. And Eisenhem performs feats so amazing that despite being onscreen, you too are in awe. Particularly enjoyable however are the speeches and talk surrounding Eisenhem’s illusions, as he relates them to time, life and death. Even as Eisenhem’s illusions become less about what he says and more about raw emotion and concentration, Norton’s intensity draws us in and holds us in rapt attention. There are a number of inconsistencies in the plot, but overall this film is well-constructed, well-acted and well-shot, a solid start for first time writer/director Neil Burger that leaves one walking out of the theater satisfied.