REVIEW

Movie Review: The Illusionist

Written by Don Baiocchi
Published September 07, 2006

Edward Norton, star of the underwhelming The Illusionist, is one of the best actors of his generation and usually his presence alone guarantees a solid, and often spectacular, film. Movies such as Primal Fear and Rounders, fine but potentially forgettable, were elevated by his tight, sometimes scary, sometimes charming performances. His off-screen conflicts with collaborators over scripts might allude to a challenging, type-A personality, but on screen Norton is almost always a guaranteed winner. Cast him as Eisenheim, a magician of unbelievable power, opposite Paul Giamatti as the Chief Inspector trying to take him down in turn-of-the-century Vienna, and how can you lose?

Fifteen years after their childhood romance, working-class Eisenheim and Princess Sophie (Jessica Biel) are reunited when he brings his magic show to Vienna, incurring the wrath of Sophie's intended, the jealous Court Prince (Rufus Sewell, having slimy fun despite a laughable moustache that's about to fall off any second). The Prince employs his right-hand man, Uhl (Giamatti), to expose and take down Eisenheim despite his increasing popularity, and an old-fashioned "brain vs. brawn" pissing contest emerges between the intelligent illusionist and the powerful prince.

Based on the short story by Steven Millhauser and with shades of everything from West Side Story to Gladiator, the film had a lot of potential. Unfortunately, not only were the sporadic accents frustrating (including Norton's), but apparently the filmmakers thought the character of Eisenheim didn't need anything else other than Edward Norton performing really cool magic tricks/illusions/whatever to be interesting. Not to mention that he, the title character around which this is all is supposed to be revolving, disappears for quite some time in the third act. Biel doesn't have much to do, so her performance ends up a stunning triumph of dinner-plate cheekbones and studied posture. Giamatti fares a little better, balancing his childlike awe of Eisenheim with his duty to bring him down. But even he can't overcome an awful ending with loopholes even the most amateur filmgoer could drive a horse and carriage through.

The blurry-edged, sepia-tinted cinematography is gorgeous. The score by Philip Glass, while derivative of his work in The Hours and others, is tensely beautiful when it isn't distracting and purposeless (which is more than half the time). But slow pacing and lack of character development give The Illusionist its most impressive magic trick: somehow, an Edward Norton movie is boring.

Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Movie Review: The Illusionist
Published: September 07, 2006
Type: Review
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Drama, Video: Romantic, Video: Suspense and Mystery
Writer: Don Baiocchi
Don Baiocchi's BC Writer page
Don Baiocchi's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Don Baiocchi
Video: Drama
Video: Romantic
Video: Suspense and Mystery
All Video Articles
All Review articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — September 7, 2006 @ 11:31AM — Mamacita [URL]

I completely disagree with your opinion of Norton's perfromance; it was perfect and enthralling. His character is more a scientist than a showman, though, and this calls for a more nuanced characterization. This film most reminded me of something by Peter Greenaway in its tone. To say Philip Glass' score is derivative is to describe him in general, I think. You're right about Jennifer Biel, though, she wasn't given much to do. This recalls last Sunday's NY Times magazine article on actresses now and the generally thin parts written for them due to a shift in the independent film industry towards "mass media" films.

#2 — September 7, 2006 @ 11:37AM — Don Baiocchi [URL]

What's interesting is that I didn't completely criticize Norton's performance (besides his accent, which was inconsistent). It's not that he was "bad." He was fine. He's Edward Norton - I don't think he could give a bad performance if you paid him to. I just didn't think his character was all that interesting (aside from his performances/illusions/what have you) and I didn't see any character development.

#3 — September 10, 2006 @ 16:19PM — John

this reviewer is a shallow idiot who is too dull to appreciate this movie

#4 — September 11, 2006 @ 09:35AM — John

John, just becasue someone does not like a movie that left little to be desired, does not make him a shallow idiot. Remember, NO personal Attacks!

#5 — September 24, 2006 @ 17:20PM — arlene

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I thought the acting by Ed Norton was superb and Jessica Biel was enchanting as the woman desired by two men...there was a moment when I started to believe the illusions were real instead of illusions, but the movie kept me interested from the very beginning to the end....Bravo Giammati's acting was also flawless....I believed every word he said...Arlene

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/52534)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments