So good I watched it over again.

Rating: 10/10 (13 January 2007)

Sometimes, when a movie (on DVD) is particularly interesting and thought provoking, I watch parts of it over with director's comments turned on. In the case of "The Illusionist" my wife and I watched the entire movie over to hear the director's comments.
Clearly, as some critics complain, some of the illusions could not be done as shown in the movie (and certainly not in 1900) and the director admits he took some illusions that actually were done during the movie's time period and added to them to provide an enhanced movie effect. But, that is really picking nits in this case because the basic illusions themselves would have been adequate, in the real world, to provoke a similar response. In fact, many illusionists throughout history have done exactly that.
Some reviewers compare this movie to "The Prestige" because they are both about illusions. That is like comparing "Saving Private Ryan" with "Apocalypse Now" because they are both about war. In "The Illusionist" illusions are the means to an end. In "The Prestige" the illusions are the end.
The theme of this movie is that in the minds of most people, there is a fine line between illusion and reality  one need only hear discussions (such as they are) of renewable energy, nuclear power, or global warming to verify the truth in that  and writer/director Neil Burger uses a story of star-crossed lovers (a relationship which, interestingly enough, is not in the original story on which this movie is based) and Eisenheim's (Edward Norton) determination to be with his love, if only in death, as the framework for that theme. At one point in the movie (no spoiler here) the question of whether the visions Eisenheim has produced are illusion or reality is being discussed when Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) states that it doesn't matter  the result is the same.
Such, according to Burger, is the nature of the mind. It is often stated - and, incredibly, many people seem to be believe - that perception is reality.
Edward Norton is the perfect actor for this role. Norton may have no peer when it comes to using nothing but facial expressions (or lack of same) to convey thoughts and feelings, and that is all-important in this film. It is politically, and legally, necessary that Eisenheim not make claims that could be used against him, so he conveys his thoughts with body (mostly facial) language that is so strong that one feels that words have been said that, in fact, were never spoken. Similarly, he can disclaim, with strong words, any special powers knowing that the people who hear those words will continue to believe the powers exist. I did not think Paul Giamatti was right for the role of the police chief, but he handles it adequately, which is all that is necessary. Similarly, the much-maligned Jessica Biel handles her undemanding role quite well. I was surprised to hear the director say in the commentary that there was some concern about using her in the film since neither Norton nor Giamatti "suffer fools" very well. He said it in praise, however, because he thought Norton and Giamatti accorded her the respect they would only give to a competent performer.
But, this is Norton's movie. He is great in it and makes it a great movie.