| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 03/12/2007 : 13:19:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
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.
Quite. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 13:32:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
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 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.
Spoiler: Yep, I can accept the picture trick as possible, while very, very unlikely. I am not so sure about the sword in the floor and the 'ghosts' - and certainly without explanation they are not in the slightest bit interesting. I really do not think that the mechanical orange tree is at all possible.
quote:
This same kind of discussion used to occur in records of centuries past when people tried to figure out the Indian rope trick.
Quite. And it turned out to be a non-trick, so it was just as disappointing as the ones in question here.
quote:
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.
This is not the same at all. There are real stage magicians; there are not real superheroes. The Illusionist is not set in a parallel reality.
quote:
Characters need to behave according to their own reality.
Quite!
quote:
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.
It's fine if the C.G.I. represents something possible - having it do things that no magician could do is just cheating. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/12/2007 13:35:26 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 13:54:57
|
| What I really like about The Prestige is the sci-fi/illusionary contrast. Jackman actually performs what the audience sees happening, but ironically it is the method behind Bale's fake version that is much more impressive. The balance in that contrast is perfect. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 14:21:14
|
Well, Sal ... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 15:49:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
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.
He wasn't really flying? I want my money back. 
I agree with you, Bafta. I'm willing to suspend disbelief. It's the movies, people, not an instructional film. I enjoyed The Illusionist and did not spend the whole time feeling the movie would be better if they explained every trick in explicit detail. I accepted it as I always do when I see magic tricks. It's magic. In fact, I get people with that all the time. I ask, when a trick is performed. "Do you know how he did that?" And my co-onlooker will reply, "No. How?" And I will reply, "It's magic."
You guys are really a tough crowd sometimes. I think you will enjoy The Illusionist, benj. Although, as I warned before, romance story much more than The Prestige.
EM :) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:01:01
|
| I should reiterate that I did enjoy it, but it was a low 4/5 in contrast to The Prestige's high 5/5 for me. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:34:30
|
| filling for the sake of spoilers! |
Edited by - demonic on 03/13/2007 00:35:50 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:36:00
|
Interesting debate - I saw "The Illusionist" tonight, and I'm very much on the side of Sal and Mr Stupid - even though I thought "The Prestige" was very flawed, and the science fiction elements frustrating, I was entirely captured by the characters and their dilemmas, and was constantly stratching my head at the twists and turns. No such luck with "The Illusionist" - and another disappointment, which has been explained very well above, **Spoilers** --->how the tricks, as portrayed in the film with CGI elements could not have actually have been done in reality. Not only the orange tree (explained mechanically - which is just a lie - no machine could grow real oranges from a stalk base), the sword trick, but specifically the "ghost" trick (think about it - you couldn't even do that convincingly in a theatre now without an enormous array of high definition laser projectors everywhere, let alone in the Edwardian period), not to mention his own evaporation (and DAMN those advertising execs who put that *very* moment into the trailer so I was waiting for him to do it).
Apart from that I wasn't particularly interested. Giametti was good. Sewell a bit samey as his standard upper-class villain. Biel just dull. I thought Norton was terrific though - a beautifully understated performance, full of quiet currents and hidden pains. Probably one of my favourite roles from him given as he is to show-off acting roles. It just didn't grip me like "The Prestige" did.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:49:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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?
I was just surprised a film about a magician in times gone by would require extensive CGI (background scenery aside). It's not like it should require anything futuristic or impossible to build, assuming the film (a). doesn't do a Prestige ending and (b). is trying to be a realistic recreation of the period.
quote:
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.
Yes, this thread has turned into quite the minefield now- seems like there's a (masked) spoiler in most the posts  |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 02:02:11
|
Go watch Benj, then come back prepared to debate!  |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 17:39:16
|
Okay, I watched The Prestige again last night. And the twin who lives is the one who loved the wife. And, they did give you the feeling that he was the true father of the child. Although, that wasn't said outright. And the one in prison definitely seemed distraught over the fate of the child as well. As an uncle would be, I guess.
On second viewing you do get more clues as to which twin is which. Of course, first viewing, you just think that Christian Bale's character is cold and fickle. But, once you know, you can tell when he is the wrong twin in romantic situations with both women.
EM :)
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 17:59:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
And the one in prison definitely seemed distraught over the fate of the child as well. As an uncle would be, I guess.
Yep, especially an uncle with no children of his own, and where the niece has his genes just as much as his own child would. |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 21:21:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I was just surprised a film about a magician in times gone by would require extensive CGI (background scenery aside). It's not like it should require anything futuristic or impossible to build, assuming the film (a). doesn't do a Prestige ending and (b). is trying to be a realistic recreation of the period.
If I remember, all the previews made it seem like realistic magic of the age. For what it's worth, Edward Norton did learn some slight-of-hand tricks, which are not CGI.
I would rate The Illusionist as 3 out of 5. It's enjoyable, but not as well done as the prestige, which is a 5/5. While the prestige also has impossible tricks, it is necessary to advance the themes. For instance, it's so sad at the end where Jackman's charector, despite having invented a real magic trick, can not enjoy the prestige of the crowd, which is what he enjoyed the most. Instead, he watches his clone enjoy it. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 02:33:31
|
The Illusionist is worthless and boring, only partially because its magic is definitely of the Industrial Light and Magic variety. It's also worthless because of an incredibly undernourished romance, a predictable ending, and a horrible performance by Norton (not his fault -- by necessity his character has to be inscrutable as possible, but which leaves a gaping hole at the center of this film).
I'll endorse The Prestige, but with severe reservations. My biggest problem is this: Did The Professor kill The Great Danton's wife? I want to know the answer to this, because without it, the ending is kind of meaningless. What is this film trying to say about the cost of secrets, the cost of revenge, etc.? Were Jackman's actions justified? Are we supposed to be rooting for someone here? What's your point, Nolan? |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 05:30:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The Illusionist is worthless and boring, only partially because its magic is definitely of the Industrial Light and Magic variety. It's also worthless because of an incredibly undernourished romance, a predictable ending, and a horrible performance by Norton (not his fault -- by necessity his character has to be inscrutable as possible, but which leaves a gaping hole at the center of this film).
I'll endorse The Prestige, but with severe reservations. My biggest problem is this: Did The Professor kill The Great Danton's wife? I want to know the answer to this, because without it, the ending is kind of meaningless. What is this film trying to say about the cost of secrets, the cost of revenge, etc.? Were Jackman's actions justified? Are we supposed to be rooting for someone here? What's your point, Nolan?
Well, I feel I must weigh in here, however light my girth, especially in light of all that has been said.
The Prestige: I generally agree with the sentiment of the above-quoted as to both films, though I have somewhat different reasons and reactions. In The Prestige, both magicians are ultimately using the same trick: they use doubles, albeit genetic duplicates. This is a movie, so I'm not alarmed by the concept of "real magic": you either believe it exists or you don't, but that has nothing to do with whether this film entertains. I don't care about the physics and physiognomy (is that a word?) that challenges the Jackman character's "illusion." For purposes of story-telling, it's an interesting event. Essentially, this magician must kill himself nightly to achieve accolades for the illusion -- he dies for the trick, regardless of whether the original magician lives or not. In this regard, the Jackman character is the baser man. He effectively has no soul, or it is so amorphous that it ultimately does not matter.
Bale's character does somewhat the same in that the twins never reveal their duplicativeness, nor their duplicity. Their slavish devotion to the illusion prevents that. One imagines that the free twin would present himself for the sake of the jailed twin, but he doesn't. Perhaps if for no other reason than to pull off the greatest illusion of all: to "return" from the dead" at some later time.
Therefore, the film leaves us with a pseudo moral choice: which magician is "better"? Morally, they are both (or all three) depraved in that they will allow the loss of human life -- indeed, life related to them by blood and psyche -- for the value of an illusion. As technicians, however, they are ultimately the same.
Whether Bale's character "killed" the wife is immaterial: that is merely an impetus for further competition (and, frankly, I think the wife was clear that she could get out of any knot -- though perhaps mistaken; she clearly gives the Bale character the go-ahead in tying the knot. I think her death is an accident. Had this been more obscure, it might have added the additional depth the above commenter suggests (i.e., would The Professor kill the Jackman character's wife for the sake of discrediting him).
Both magicians have lost themselves to their illusions, thus neither is redeemed.
The most poignant line in the film is what Michael Caine's character sdays: that to reveal the illusion is to minimize its effect. This is somewhat reminiscent of "Stranger Than Fiction," where the end is an act of love, though it minimizes the impact of the story that, knowingly, could have been. To let the audience in on the trick -- while necessary for the story -- is a disappointment.
The Illusionist: I have to agree with the above assessment of the plot turns and twists, though I slightly disagree about the strength of Norton's performance. The fact is that this was an adaptation of a powerful short story (that's very hard to find, by the way). The short story does many great and incredible things, but to make a movie, the writers had to add hooks. I loved Giamatti in this film, but i agree that the hooks in the film were somewhat hamfisted. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 03/14/2007 07:25:18 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
THE PRESTIGE -- MAJOR SPOILER ALERT
