| Author |
 Topic  |
|
redPen 
"Because I said so!"
|
 Posted - 03/10/2007 : 09:56:23
|
Just saw it . . . in many pieces, making the rental DVD rather late in returning! Just couldn't get into it. Frankly, the three stars ALL bore me, and the plot, while interesting in summary, dragged on. It was also a bit TOO twisty, and I was majorly confused. I had to read an online spoiler plot outline to even UNDERSTAND that Jackman was cloning and killing each time! And I read that you can see (a version of? the original?) Jackman smiling in the background at the end when you THINK(?) Bateman has just killed him. If true, I missed that completely.
I agree that the clone machine was clever, but was WAY out of the scientific timeline! My God, Colorado Springs had just GOTTEN ELECTRIC LIGHTING!!! Also, let's say you buy the fact that identical twin brothers can fool their wives and children. A) Why "switch" all the time? and B) Why did the one brother admit he'd never loved the woman, when he knew his brother did? What was that all about?
Oy! My head! 
In short, I'm thinking "Great trick badly staged"! |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 15:30:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by redPen
A) Why "switch" all the time?
Because they are sharing one life and both want to experience it. Neither would want to be away from their loved one(s) too long.
quote:
B) Why did the one brother admit he'd never loved the woman, when he knew his brother did?
Because he knows that the wife can tell. So the best he can do is say that he sometimes loves her and sometimes doesn't. Otherwise, she might think he never loves her. |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 18:41:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Finally got around to seeing this and have to admit that the sci-fi answer messed up the ending.
Don't get me wrong, I can accept one (but no more) pair of identical twins as the clever twist every once in a while, but cloning, especially when everything else in the film seemed so grounded in period realism? They might as well have gone with "aliens came back from the future and gave me teleportation technology" as the ending. Or Robert Angier #2 is actually Micheal Caine in a rubber mask. Honestly, it's like the twist ending to The Sixth Sense being that Bruce Willis has an invisibility belt that he uses on everyone but the kid. Basically, it's a bit of a swizz.
When I saw all the hats, I desperately wanted it not to be cloning because I really enjoyed the film (David Bowie's atrocious accent aside- what nationality was he supposed to be?). In fact, my solution would have been that Wolverine was still using drunk actor Wolverine for the illusion. However, when Wolverine found out Batman was coming to that show, he put the glass box below the trapdoor in order to frame Batman for the murder of drunk actor Wolverine (who everyone at the trial thought was real Wolverine). THAT was what I would have gone with. No bloody Star Trek technology.
Loved it otherwise, though- the magic performances especially had me rivetted 
I'm not trying to kiss up to benj for more review approvals.
EMILY'S TWIN: Yes, she is.
But, I think that benj's suggestion would make for a better movie. I did have a problem (like most others in this thread) with the cloning machine. That is very sci-fi in a movie that was set up to be a period piece and revealing the truth of magic acts, which is infinitely more intriguing.
That said, I do think he stored all his clones that he killed. Or, actually, the originals each time, since that was the one that fell through the floor. The clone would be the one that showed up in the audience. The only clone/self he didn't store was the one me made Bale take the fall for. Although, honestly, how guilty did Bale look when he was taking an axe and trying to get him out of the tank? That was pretty weak.
I'm not clear which Bale twin was killed. I'm guessing it was the one that was in love with Scarlett. That would be the one who didn't have anything left to live for, since she left him. The other would have his daughter to care for, even if he lost his wife. Their wife. ??? Although, the one in prison did seem very upset and wishing to see his daughter, so maybe it was the one who loved the wife and therefore the true father of the child. It's very confusing.
I did feel for Jackman, killing himself each night to achieve the ultimate trick. But, I guess the lesson is that Bale really did have the ultimate magic trick, since the other was just a machine. And Bale's trick required the sacrifice of living a life of twins pretending to be one.
It was interesting, though. I'll give it that.
EM :)
|
Edited by - Montgomery on 03/11/2007 18:46:18 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 18:49:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Although, the one in prison did seem very upset and wishing to see his daughter, so maybe it was the one who loved the wife and therefore the true father of the child.
This doesn't logically follow. Either one could be the father of the child - unless one assumes that the one who didn't love the wife didn't have sex with her, but that would just be a supposition. Even if this is the case (which is the only way they would know which is the father), the uncle would still love the niece enormously. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 18:54:29
|
On a parallel theme, has anyone here seen The Illusionist? It's been getting mediocre reviews but, as far as I can tell (I've yet to see it), contains no flying saucers or alien technology, which must surely be good.
Can anyone recommend it? How does it compare to The Prestige? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 18:59:42
|
| I found it much weaker than The Prestige, although I did not mind the sci-fi in that as much as most people. Spoiler-ish: The spoiler is just that there is a twist - although this is hardly surprising in a film about a magician, I hate people giving away that info since one can usually guess the twist if one knows one is coming. It is very, very easy to guess in this case. Rufus Sewell is quite good; the others are O.K. Some of the accents are rather weird to say the least. It was still enjoyable, but nothing special. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/11/2007 19:09:52 |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 19:23:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
On a parallel theme, has anyone here seen The Illusionist? It's been getting mediocre reviews but, as far as I can tell (I've yet to see it), contains no flying saucers or alien technology, which must surely be good.
Can anyone recommend it? How does it compare to The Prestige?
It's far too much CGI. I was hoping that all the tricks done would be done for real, and not with CGI. The tricks are so elaborate that it might as well be a tesla coil explanation. I agree with Salopian about the spoiler. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 20:12:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
On a parallel theme, has anyone here seen The Illusionist? It's been getting mediocre reviews but, as far as I can tell (I've yet to see it), contains no flying saucers or alien technology, which must surely be good.
Can anyone recommend it? How does it compare to The Prestige?
Actually, though it is flawed, I thought it's better constructed than The Prestige ... and the acting all round was stronger - except for Caine, who was lovely. I think Giametti particularly will surprise you.
As to accents -- it brings up an interesting question: these people are supposed to be speaking in their own language, not in English. So there's a directorial choice -- should the actors speak with accents which kind of connote where their characters are from, or should they just speak in their own natural accents? The BBC usually solves the problem [especially when they do Russian drama] by having people speak English, but giving the working class characters Northern or Scottish accents.
The point with The Illusionist is: it doesn't actually matter that their accents aren't consistent because even people from the same town rarely pronounce their words identically.
More important in terms of the film, though, I think is the way the story extrapolates from the personal to the political. It's about tyranny and manipulation, about the use and abuse of power. The Prestige, in that context, was too insular and got bogged down in the minutiae of how the tricks were done.
In neither of these films, though, does it really matter how the tricks were done, just as it doesn't matter in the best stage magic acts. It's the level of artifice that you appreciate or not. Knowing how an illusion is created [unless you have hopes to become a magician yourself] in no way enhances the experience for you. The reason you like magic -- if you do -- is precisely because you don't know how the tricks are done. Of course, in the hands of masters such as Penn and Teller - they even produce the illusion that they ARE going to share the magic with you. Until they trick you even with the explanation.
Back to the film -- The Illusionist as an epithet applies to several people within the story. The fact that Norton's final illusion is so baffling leaves you, I believe, with the more intriguing question -- not of how he did it -- but of the fact that in our human sphere there will always be unknowns. That's the challenge and the spur to seek tomorrow.
And whatever else it had going for it I just don't believe The Prestige engaged sucessfully on anything like that level.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 20:17:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
On a parallel theme, has anyone here seen The Illusionist? It's been getting mediocre reviews but, as far as I can tell (I've yet to see it), contains no flying saucers or alien technology, which must surely be good.
Can anyone recommend it? How does it compare to The Prestige?
I liked the Illusionist very much. It is different than Prestige. In fact, had they come out at different times, I don't think many people would have compared them the way they do with their close release dates. It's a little more of a chick flick than Prestige, though, admitedly, since there is a romance story.
One more comment about Prestige. I didn't get (when it was happening) why Bale's character said he didn't know what knot he tied on Jackman's wife. But, perhaps he really didn't know what knot, because his brother tied it. In retrospect, that banter makes a little more sense. During the movie, I guess you're just supposed to think he's being stubborn and won't tell Jackman the knot he tied.
EM :) |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 20:23:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
It's far too much CGI. I was hoping that all the tricks done would be done for real, and not with CGI. The tricks are so elaborate that it might as well be a tesla coil explanation. I agree with Salopian about the spoiler.
Too much CGI??? I really hope you're kidding...
Oh, and I've not read Salopian's spoiler so please let me know if this is going to become a talking point in here  |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 20:40:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
In neither of these films, though, does it really matter how the tricks were done, just as it doesn't matter in the best stage magic acts. It's the level of artifice that you appreciate or not. Knowing how an illusion is created [unless you have hopes to become a magician yourself] in no way enhances the experience for you. The reason you like magic -- if you do -- is precisely because you don't know how the tricks are done. Of course, in the hands of masters such as Penn and Teller - they even produce the illusion that they ARE going to share the magic with you. Until they trick you even with the explanation.
Back to the film -- The Illusionist as an epithet applies to several people within the story. The fact that Norton's final illusion is so baffling leaves you, I believe, with the more intriguing question -- not of how he did it -- but of the fact that in our human sphere there will always be unknowns. That's the challenge and the spur to seek tomorrow.
I disagree. The reason I like magic is the use of science and misdirection are used. While it's true that I don't need to know how the trick is done, the trick actually has to be done. Camera angles and CGI should not be used as a cheap way out of it. If it was a viable trick, then it should be performed. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 01:37:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
In neither of these films, though, does it really matter how the tricks were done, just as it doesn't matter in the best stage magic acts. It's the level of artifice that you appreciate or not. Knowing how an illusion is created [unless you have hopes to become a magician yourself] in no way enhances the experience for you. The reason you like magic -- if you do -- is precisely because you don't know how the tricks are done. Of course, in the hands of masters such as Penn and Teller - they even produce the illusion that they ARE going to share the magic with you. Until they trick you even with the explanation.
Back to the film -- The Illusionist as an epithet applies to several people within the story. The fact that Norton's final illusion is so baffling leaves you, I believe, with the more intriguing question -- not of how he did it -- but of the fact that in our human sphere there will always be unknowns. That's the challenge and the spur to seek tomorrow.
I disagree. The reason I like magic is the use of science and misdirection are used. While it's true that I don't need to know how the trick is done, the trick actually has to be done. Camera angles and CGI should not be used as a cheap way out of it. If it was a viable trick, then it should be performed.
Or at the very least, we should be made to believe that the characters (if not the actors playing the characters) are capable of doing the trick.
I haven't seen The Illusionist, but another interesting double feature to twin with The Prestige would be Orson Welles's F For Fake. |
Edited by - GHcool on 03/12/2007 01:39:00 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 08:39:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
In neither of these films, though, does it really matter how the tricks were done, just as it doesn't matter in the best stage magic acts. It's the level of artifice that you appreciate or not. Knowing how an illusion is created [unless you have hopes to become a magician yourself] in no way enhances the experience for you. The reason you like magic -- if you do -- is precisely because you don't know how the tricks are done. Of course, in the hands of masters such as Penn and Teller - they even produce the illusion that they ARE going to share the magic with you. Until they trick you even with the explanation.
Back to the film -- The Illusionist as an epithet applies to several people within the story. The fact that Norton's final illusion is so baffling leaves you, I believe, with the more intriguing question -- not of how he did it -- but of the fact that in our human sphere there will always be unknowns. That's the challenge and the spur to seek tomorrow.
I disagree. The reason I like magic is the use of science and misdirection are used. While it's true that I don't need to know how the trick is done, the trick actually has to be done. Camera angles and CGI should not be used as a cheap way out of it. If it was a viable trick, then it should be performed.
Or at the very least, we should be made to believe that the characters (if not the actors playing the characters) are capable of doing the trick.
I haven't seen The Illusionist, but another interesting double feature to twin with The Prestige would be Orson Welles's F For Fake.
I think THAT [above, in red] is more relevant ... and, somehow, I did believe Norton was more than capable of all the tricks he performed. Just because I couldn't figure out how he did them didn't diminish my enjoyment. There are plenty of clues about how he could have acquired knowledge not generally available.
This same kind of discussion used to occur in records of centuries past when people tried to figure out the Indian rope trick. No mechanical hoists or cgi to blame in those days 
But anyway, I still think you're missing the point if you see The Illusionist as though you were going to see a magic act. That's sort of like going to see Superman and then being disappointed because he wasn't really flying.
Characters need to behave according to their own reality. The fact that filmmakers use the tools of trade to help achieve the illusion is part of the contract you make when you watch the movie.
Well, either that or Mr Stupid is completely correct on all points and we will all do as he says from now on. Or else   
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 13:12:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Actually, though it is flawed, I thought it's better constructed than The Prestige ... and the acting all round was stronger - except for Caine, who was lovely.
I cannot judge this sort of thing other than by how much I was drawn into the characters, and this happened much less for me in The Illusionist. So if the acting in that is better, I can only assume that the characters were supposed to be bland and two-dimensional.
quote:
As to accents -- it brings up an interesting question: these people are supposed to be speaking in their own language, not in English. So there's a directorial choice -- should the actors speak with accents which kind of connote where their characters are from, or should they just speak in their own natural accents?
I agree that these are the two most obvious options, but in this film they have a weird collection of unconvincing accents, so neither policy was followed.
quote:
The BBC usually solves the problem [especially when they do Russian drama] by having people speak English, but giving the working class characters Northern or Scottish accents.
Hhmmm, this seems to me a rather cliched approach, but I can see that it is an easy solution to the issue.
quote:
The point with The Illusionist is: it doesn't actually matter that their accents aren't consistent because even people from the same town rarely pronounce their words identically.
But people from the same town usually do have much more similar accents than they do in the film, and especially would have in the nineteenth century. Most of them do not even sound Austrian, from what I remember. It's a horrible no-man's-land between keeping their own separate accents and taking on the local one(s).
quote:
More important in terms of the film, though, I think is the way the story extrapolates from the personal to the political. It's about tyranny and manipulation, about the use and abuse of power.
It only does this in the crudest sense, and thus does not provide the slightest insight in that regard.
quote:
The Prestige, in that context, was too insular and got bogged down in the minutiae of how the tricks were done.
This is one of the things I enjoyed about it, and I think it would have been a bit of a whitewash otherwise, as The Illusionist is.
quote:
In neither of these films, though, does it really matter how the tricks were done, just as it doesn't matter in the best stage magic acts. It's the level of artifice that you appreciate or not.
This is just personal preference then. I definitely think that one cannot appreciate artifice that could not actually take place in the same way as that which could. Spoiler: The plant mechanism is a huge disappointment - what we see at the beginning could definitely not be created that way.
quote:
Knowing how an illusion is created [unless you have hopes to become a magician yourself] in no way enhances the experience for you. The reason you like magic -- if you do -- is precisely because you don't know how the tricks are done.
Um, that's just not true. It may be true for you, but definitely not for everyone. I would definitely like to know how it works. I would find that a lot more interesting than just seeing a trick - it's not the incomprehensibility of it that impresses me. (For example, I much, much prefer Derren Brown to magicians, because he admits that he is just reading people extremely well - that is far more impressive to me.)
quote:
The fact that Norton's final illusion is so baffling
Spoiler: Do you mean the 'ghosts' trick? I didn't feel baffled - I just thought it was absurd.
quote:
And whatever else it had going for it I just don't believe The Prestige engaged sucessfully on anything like that level.
Again, there's obviously just a wide variation in how much these films each engage people. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/12/2007 13:33:43 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 13:17:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Too much CGI??? I really hope you're kidding...
Do you mean that one could never have too much C.G.I. or that you hope that this film has as little as possible?
quote:
Oh, and I've not read Salopian's spoiler so please let me know if this is going to become a talking point in here
My first 'spoiler' is nothing really substantive. The one in the post above is more of a spoiler proper, though only about a single small point. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
THE PRESTIGE -- MAJOR SPOILER ALERT
