Guess I'm in minority, but The Illusionist fails on many levels

Rating: 2/10 (15 October 2006)

There are many positive reviews of The Illusionist out there, which can be a bit disconcerting to one who's just seen the movie and found it to be lacking on so many levels. I have to add my review here, just to give potential movie-goers a more balanced view, and share my own experience. I appreciate that so many who liked the movie include the fact that it is different from so much Hollywood fare (different in look, content, locale), but--while these elements 'could' have made for an engaging movie--they aren't enough. Despite its old-world look, The Illusionist actually reminded me of those abundant mediocre sci-fi films that forget that despite unusual locations and visuals, a movie requires a character-driven story and effective pacing to be interesting and engaging.
Paul Giamatti (so outstanding in Sideways) tries to inhabit his 'inspector' role, and to create an interesting character. Edward Norton also can't be faulted for his acting. The problem is, this movie is terribly boring, and to offer a more cogent analysis, the screenplay (and/or direction) simply fail in so many areas to create any dynamic energy, give us an intimate view of characters up front that we want to follow, or create a story of real interest that pulls us in. It is wonderful that the movie is set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, but there are no panoramic shots of the city and architecture, or close-up shots of human activity and 'bustle,' that might help that location become a vibrant character in this film. There is no setup of political/historical context; later in movie we are supposed to become absorbed in political intrigue (the 'baddie' toward movie's end gives an impassioned outburst about his political mission), but we aren't familiar enough with his motives and mission, or the political climate and undercurrents of the city, to be interested. We are supposed to feel a connection to Edward Norton's character (Eisenheim,, a magician)we met him in childhoodbut there are no intimate, solitary, moments in the film to give us a sense of Norton's own connection to his childhood, or really any sense of his character or what drives him. There are magic scenes, but the movie seems to lack (again) an intimacy that would help us really feel Eisenheim's personal connection (or even obsession) to his craft, one that has surely occupied much of his time and energy, and there is a lack of real tension in most of the magic scenes. Long-shots of the audience, and their rapid-fire questions, also do little to really pull us into what could be strange and even mystical events unfolding in the room. There's a love story, and Jessica Biel is pretty. But she isn't interesting. We don't know her, on any level, or what (if anything) drives her character. Her scenes with Eisenheim lack (once again) the intimacy, or thoughtful dialog, or perhaps a slower pace, that might help us grow to feel an attachment to her. Her reaction to the 'baddie' character, who she has a relationship with, lacks substance or realism. She does not appear to be apprehensive about him, or respond to him with any amount of caution. If we could experience this tension with her, and she occasionally bravely stood up to him, we'd cheer her--but because she's always entirely unaffected, this potential device is wasted. This only contributes to another fault: the 'baddie' character is not well developed (we hear he does bad things, but we haven't seen those bad things, and we don't witness closely what drives him, so we don't feel he's particularly menacing or have much interest in him). He is merely a caricature, with occasional violent outbursts.
This movie is heavy on dialog between Eisenheim and the inspector, but the scenes aren't intriguing. There is nothing pulling this movie forward. The end (I'll admit) was a surprise, mainly because the movie started moving at a faster clip and seemed to be communicating something. I was not expecting much of interest to happen. But it only illustrated how much better the lead-up could have been handled. In some ways, the movie tries too hard--it has the components that make for an interesting movie, but it never gels. A very weak screenplay and weak concept seem to be the problem. (I was so bored I left for an unnecessary trip to bathroom, and also explored the Art Deco/Egyptian hieroglyphics on the wall near my theater seat.) It was simply a very weak film.