Not necessarily a one trick pony but not far off.

Rating: 6/10 (1 December 2007)

The Illusionist got me thinking; reminiscing, if you like about a filmmaker called Georges Méliés who was a trickster come entertainer at the turn of the twentieth century. He made hundreds of films between about 1890 to apparently 1913 that fell into a long since dead genre: 'trick'. There can be no doubt that Méliés had a massive impact and inspiration on the science fiction genre as well as other filmmakers as a whole all those decades ago with his bamboozling images and expansive imagination. There was one such short from Méliés that had me remembering during The Illusionist and that was the one in which a person stands in front of the camera; there is a 'cut' and they are then gone from the frame thus vanishing. I'm sure audiences in the day were completely perplexed and murmuring amongst one another in the same vein they do at Eisenheim's (Norton) tricks in this film but that's the hook: we now know that Méliés merely used a 'jumpcut' to vanish the person just as we know now that there is no such thing as magic or supernatural powers so any 'wow factor' The Illusionist as film has is actually pretty vacant.
I think a lot of people 'love' this film because of its cinematography; its effects and because Edward Norton and Jessica Biel are in it and they share some sort of romance but I feel they're kidding themselves as its like watching Méliés' films nowadays and being aghast at what he achieves even if the knowledge now is common. The 'trick film' genre may be long since dead but demand for period drama romance films that have twist endings seemingly are not. The Illusionist is impressive in its basics and its fundamental areas but it felt like a big ball of gas ever expanding before going out with a 'pop' rather than an almighty 'bang'. Firstly, I was under no illusion (no pun intended) that what I was seeing was mere CGI to myself and a mere illusion to the audience within the film. It is humanely impossible to achieve the things that Eisenheim did in this film and no, I couldn't even let my mind relax and enjoy it for what it was: an escapists dream in a world where magic exists. What the film does is challenge you into thinking: 'what can filmmakers achieve these days vs. what can actually be achieved in real life.' No; orange trees can't grow into adults in ten seconds; people can't bring back images of the dead and when you look into a mirror, you'll see yourself looking back. With this in mind, any clever twist or devious trick the film has up its sleeve is consequently a letdown if you opt for the first option in the quandary: 'what can filmmakers achieve these days vs. what can actually be achieved in real life.'
If anything, it's the editing that makes the film look more spectacular than it does but then again; editing can make anything look believable or spectacular: did people back in 1905 or whenever REALLY think Méliés made a person vanish on screen? Likewise, when audiences watched a train speed towards the camera in the late 1890s and some of them ducked out the way, some of them might have been a little 'aware' of the situation but watching The Illusionist in 2006, haven't we learnt anything about 'what we see vs. what we believe is really happening/is really possible.'? To the people who loved this film: obviously not. The Illusionist may have its actual premise as a flawed piece of historical context involving cinema, magic and genre but for what it is as a film, it works. The lead character of Eisenheim is a rounded and likable guy who falls for a girl he is clearly in no position to get; something a few people watching will be able to relate to. What follows is a tricky and devious narrative; something that resembles a snake crawling calmly along and then suffering a seizure towards the very end and wriggling all over the place. The antagonistic behaviour of Crown Prince Leopold (Sewell) who has bigger plans than that of his bride to be and secret love of Eisenheim Sophie (Biel); is an effective villain who demeans and threatens Eisenheim not solely because of his tricks that appeal to everyone but because he is at risk of becoming second-best public figure to a fraud: "For anyone wanting to discuss a more serious topic, join me for a drink." he announces on Eisenheim's stage right after a show.
What I didn't like about The Illusionist isn't necessarily what I didn't enjoy. The story of a love triangle is dumped for that of a detective route about half way through with certain events although surprising, you can't help but feel will pop back up later on. I don't know if it was the brilliant acting of Norton portraying Eisenheim or the film overall but something felt arrogant; something felt as if it was just going to force you into thinking it was a good film rather than you making your own mind up and this is emphasised in the closing scene at the train station where a certain character works everything out just when he needs to. This scene plays out in a messy way and I am still unsure about how all those memories and flashbacks would come to him there and then at the station all at once and never before  it tries to be The Usual Suspects when Dave Kujan stands on the police station steps; cursing to himself but the build up and the payoff is just not of that quality. The Illusionist works as a piece of entertainment but lacks any real depth if you look deep enough; like a typical magicians trick: you see it and smirk to yourself but it doesn't stay with you in the long run.