MovieChat Forums > The Illusionist (2006) Discussion > 7.7 - WTF!

7.7 - WTF!

posted 14 years ago by rogermccarthy
56 replies | jump to latest

This is one of the few movies I stopped and deleted from my recorder half-way through and it gets 7.7 points?

Yes it has a great cast (Norton, Giamatti and Sewell) and I am normally a sucker for anything involving frock coats and uniforms - but the story is unbelievably Mills and Boon romance-level lame.

And it is utterly unhistorical - there was no Crown Prince Leopold (and in any case Austrian imperial heirs were never called Crown Prince) and if there had been he would have married into another royal family and not some bimbo-aristocrat.

Plus the Austrian Empire was to all intents and purposes a constitutional monarchy - the police just couldn't make people disappear or plausibly threaten to do so - much less the Crown Prince overthrow his father.

But what really bored me silly was the fake-British accents - yes at least they tried to be consistent and there is nothing worse than a costume drama set in Europe where all or some of the characters speak American (Amadeus or Robin Hood Prince of Thieves frex) but the strain of enunciating every word properly made even such talented actors as Norton and Giamatti seem wooden and detached - while Biel already started out that way...

So who is giving out all these 7s and 8s and 9s and 10s? is there an Ed Norton fan club working overtime?

[–] canes50-880-143388 14 years ago

If you stopped it halfway through, then you missed the best parts of the movie. Your obsession with the factual correctness, regarding the Austrian Empire confuses me, since the movie is not about Austria at all. It is about an Illusionist.

[–] clarity4831 13 years ago

The simplicity of your reply was not only right on, but also very funny. I totally agree.

"By the sea Mr. Todd that's the life I covet. By the sea Mr. Todd, oh I know you'd love it."

[–] munkhuu_tolife 10 years ago

I could only tell this sentence to you: "You are a ignorant beep this is mystery film not your desk hollywood action movie."

[–] ECpocketknife (12) a year ago

Yes.

[–] ThatDoesntMatter 13 years ago

Me! I gave it a ten. Would have given it eleven. :-)))

And yes, I was surprised it doesn't rate higher, as it is one of the best films I've ever seen...- there, now you're shocked, tastes differ, can you believe it...;-)

How Avatar (oh and many others) are rated higher than this work of art is beyond me, but I won't complain, I'm just grateful for this gem of a film.
Maybe it wasn't the right day for you to enjoy it? That happens. I am delighted by it.

They actually have Hungarian accents, shining through their spoken British English. Having them learn German (with Hungarian accents) with English subtitles on screen might not have gone so well with the targeted audience...cut them some slack...;-)

[–] vide0 13 years ago

I'm confused - was this supposed to be a historical documentary?

[–] exoox 12 years ago

I thought that Edward Norton and Jessica Biel played like two stiff nice pieces of wood. And I don't want to insult wood - but this film has no depth and definitely no character development. "Prestige" was sooo much better!

[–] ultimatemoviefan-1 12 years ago

I just watched both, well only part of the Illusionist as I honestly couldn't stomach the whole thing, and I think the Prestige was a film done right! I figured it out within about 20 minutes but it was the delivery that made it worth watching, whereas this turd was just so bad in the film-making sense that I couldn't even begin to CARE what the story was about! If I missed anything it was the time wasted even trying to watch this ridiculously lame garbage!

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spartaki 12 years ago

ur full of *beep* u *beep* liar

[–] I_solved_Rubikscube_in_one_min 10 years ago

Both films are good in their own way. Just because both involve magicians doesn't necessarily mean the two have to be the same! Its just a subjective topic of discussion. Its certainly not garbage! I liked both equally, gave both 9 stars!

What if our whole life is a dream and when we die, we actually wake up!

[–] flickfiend 11 years ago

And I thought this would be a post claiming 7.7 to be a low rating. I agree- it was an amazing film- Giamatti was great.

[–] FearlessKel 13 years ago

the movie is fiction. it's not based off of a real story.

the only thing i agree with you about it that jessica biel is awful.

"Choose NOT to be a d!ck." - Silas Botwin

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Even if it was based on a real story it would still be mostly fiction. The only type of films that should be 100% accurate are documentaries.

[–] dp-131 11 years ago

Anyone who writes "based off of" instead of "based on" should be taken out and shot.

[–] mihajlo321 13 years ago

Some people have a hard time understanding that just because they didn't like the movie, it doesen't mean it isn't good.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Well, some people have a hard time understanding that just because they like a movie it doesn't mean it's good either.

[–] vikram-sr 13 years ago

Your knowledge got better of you :) There is lot more headache to be taken if you expect something from things which they are not meant to deliver...just enjoy the pop corn and cherish the movie as most people did.

[–] snakeye808 13 years ago

It should go without saying that if you don't finish a movie then you have no right to submit a ranking, or pass judgment about it.

[–] Robbmonster 13 years ago

Without getting into the debate about historical accuracy in films (the debate will never end), I would like to repost my thoughts on this film from another thread (with a bit of re-arranging).

In all, I found the film t to be a rather pointless, with a dull blank slate for a lead character, a story that didn't show up until 60% of the movie was over. And the Usual Suspects-style montage at the end was all rather patronizing.

That said, the acting was good (although the Prince was a little too similar to Commodus for my liking), the score was good, and the thing was very well shot.

It has all been done before, and better. 6 from me.

That's my assessment in a nutshell.

Oh, historical accuracy is NOT needed in film, especially a film that does not claim even in the slightest to be based on historical events.

I challenge anyone to name but one film that is verified as being 100% historically accurate.

Never defend crap with: "It's just a movie"
My work:
watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0
watch?v=z74-vDDDmTU

[–] CitizenCairParavel 13 years ago

Great movie.

And btw Hitchcock used to say, "It's just a movie."

[–] alba-m 13 years ago

I understand this guy's opinion. I happened to cut the movie in half, cause I only had time watch 45 minutes the first evening. And after the first hald I was not impressed, sure it was welldone in details, but like my friend sayd "what a soap opera". Without class or deep drama. Not convincing. Then the second night I put it on and is slowly blown away. If you're only watching half the movie you will think it's pretty crappy. Watch all of it and it eventually turns from 4.0 to 8.0. Very rare, hasn't happened in many movies I've watched. So I feel sorry for this guy, he has missed everything!