A kind of comparison...

Rating: 7/10 (2 June 2007)

I knew I wanted to watch this film, but before doing so I had been asking myself a question: "Will I able to write about 'The Illusionist' without comparing it to 'The Prestige'? Now I know the answer; which is yes. However, a friend of mine asked me to do a kind of comparison; that's why I'll highlight some information as I write about "The Illusionist" on its own.
First of all, in my opinion "The Prestige" is better than "The Illusionist", but apart from the fact that both contain a person doing magic on a stage, they are very different films. Mainly, the first one is the story of a rivalry; this movie is the story of a romance. As I said, slight kind of comparisons so that they don't take over the review.
Without revealing too much, "The Illusionist" the story of Edward, a peasant who later becomes a wizard (or however you may call it) and, as a young man, falls in love with a Dutchess (Jessica Biel). This we all learn from words spoken by Inspector Ull (a fantastic Paul Giamatti), who is telling the wizard's (now known as Eisenheim) life to the Crown Prince (Rufus Sewell) after an apparent arrest.
Now, when the story is told, the camera darkens the corners of the main image, so we can be transported to the past. The picture looks beautiful with its predominant light brownish tone (accompanied by Philip Glass's haunting score), still kept when things seem to go back to the present; and with the black screen closing up as a little circle as in old films. But if I have to be objective, something basically doesn't fit: and it is that the story told by the Inspector (which constitutes the film) has facts of no interest or of previous knowledge to the listener, the Prince; which would make it sort of useless for him to listen to the 'whole' story.
Maybe this comes from the fact that the screenplay, by the director Neil Burger, is based on a short story by Steven Millhauser that, as a film, runs long at 100 minutes. While undoubtedly a good film, it's betrayed by two bland performances of the young actors who fail to transmit the main romance the film deals with.
This is mended by the performances of the older actors, though. Edward Norton is, once more, totally immersed in his character, obtaining (once more) a very peculiar accent and a good use of body language. There's a scene after the lovers meet again, where Eisenheim is invited to the Prince's house to perform and, in order to make the Dutchess recognize him, he says something. It's not only what he says, but also the way Norton looks at her as he says it and then again when she looks back; is a little detail of Norton's mastery.
And the way Jessica Biel looks back, only in that exact moment, proves that she was a good choice for the role; even when a big number of actresses could have done it better.
At last, the twistI'm not giving anything away here, but we live in a time where when a movie has a twist, it is not ruined or given away; but it is mentioned. It is not likely that someone who hasn't seen "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others" rents the film without knowing there's a twist.
Well, you may remember "The Prestige" has a twist; "The Illusionist" also has one. The way I see it, in "The Prestige" the twist generates a big impact: you're blown away and you can't believe it; while in "The Illusionist" the twist is too much to take in at the moment it is presented. Think about that when you watch the film; and also think if "The Illusionist" would have done better without the twist (because I do) and if you want to watch it again when it finishes (because I didn't), like with "The Prestige".