The original Illusionists

Rating: 7/10 (27 March 2007)

I agree with those who have said that "The Illusionist" and "The Prestige" are not really comparable just because they are stories of magicians in the Victorian Era, (although I think "The Prestige" must be Edwardian because Nikola Tesla didn't move to Colorado Springs until 1899). But you can learn about films by comparing them to similar films and the temptation to make the comparison is great. When I rent films, I usually rent two at time because I figure one of them is bound to be better than the other. I find it interesting to rent films that have some relation to each other: the original and the remake or the sequel; two films with the same actor or director or author; two top films from the same year, or two films in the same genre. These two were an ideal mix.
They are both well made and have interesting stories. The big difference is that "The Illusionist" is a romantic caper film and "The Prestige" is a dark examination of rivalry and revenge. The characters in the first are more likable and the story more palatable. I enjoyed the film more. The acting is a mixed bag: Edward Norton gives a performance that is restrained to the point of being flat. Jessica Biel is adequate. Rufus Sewell is fine and Paul Giamatti again dominates a good picture, although someone should tell him that the old theatrical scene-stealing technique of whispering your lines went out with Oliver Reed. Christian Bale dominates every scene with Hugh Jackman. He just has more gravitas. Michael Caine is Michael Caine, which is fine. Scarlett Johansson is Scarlett Johanssen, which is OK.
What's interesting is the reaction of some fans that magic tricks that are the result of trick photography or CGI somehow are disappointing. The cinema did not evolve from the theater or from novels. It evolved from magic. Its predecessor was the "magic lantern show", which used some of the same concepts of projected images and the simulation of motion, was used first by magicians and not story-tellers. The works of Georges Méliès were those of a magician, not a novelist. If Eisenheim, Borden or Angier where here today, I think they'd all approve of the magic show these films represent. Then they'd probably become filmmakers themselves.