"The Illusionist" & "The Prestige"

[Ukulele Ike]

Which was the "good one," again?

Ukulele Lady Netflixed The Illusionist and I'm tryin' to remember if that was the Summer 2006 19th-century Feuding Magician Movie That Might Be Pretty Good or if it was the Summer 2006 19th Century 19th-century Feuding Magician Movie That Sounded Fucking Awful.

[Orbifold]

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike

Which was the "good one," again?

Of the two I preferred "The Prestige", but "The Illusionist" wasn't completely awful. "The Illusionist" isn't actually a feuding magician movie; there's only one magician.

[mswas]

The Prestige was phenomenal. I haven't seen the Illusionist.

[lissener]

I loved The Prestige; I did not like The Illusionist.

[RealityChuck]

I liked them both, though they were quite different. Once actually had a supernatural element, whereas the the other was more a tale of revenge and love.

[RickJay]

Neither was perfect, but IMHO, "The Prestige" was by far the more enjoyable film.

[WhyNot]

I also liked them both - The Prestige for the mystery, and The Illusionist for the a-freakin'-mazing performance by Ed Norton. I think. Or the other way 'round.

[CJJ*]

Here's a vote for The Illusionist. Ed Norton's performance was riveting, and although the love/revenge story might seem trivial on the surface, there's a deeper theme about how turn-of-the-century social changes exposed the failure of imperial/aristocratic governance. I contend that much of Eisenstein's magic relied on the Viennese public's desire to be fooled, as it soon became clear he was not just seeking revenge on the duke, but was subverting the social order.

I found The Prestige to be interesting (Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman know how subtle mannerisms help to clearly define a character), but ultimately the story was unsatisfying mainly because the film labored under its complicated exposition (three separate timelines are maintained, and although this allowed for a few dramatic juxtapositions, I think--to put it glibly--there wasn't enough bang for the buck). And while the back of the DVD and the first few moments of the film alert the audience to "watch carefully" (for the amazing twist), once it's over I've heard more than a few people ask if they missed something, mainly because one of the twists is telegraphed early in the third act, and the other is fairly easily guessed halfway thru (I think there was a SD thread about this). One could say the same thing about the twist in The Illusionist, but here I felt the film didn't rely solely on the revealation to be successful; I thought it was more social commentary than a magical love story.

Sorry to sound so cryptic, but I don't want to give too much away. The Prestige isn't a bad film, perhaps a little above average, but if its between this and The Illusionist, I'd pick the latter.

[vivalostwages]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Here's a vote for The Illusionist. Ed Norton's performance was riveting, and although the love/revenge story might seem trivial on the surface, there's a deeper theme about how turn-of-the-century social changes exposed the failure of imperial/aristocratic governance. I contend that much of Eisenstein's magic relied on the Viennese public's desire to be fooled, as it soon became clear he was not just seeking revenge on the duke, but was subverting the social order.

I found The Prestige to be interesting (Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman know how subtle mannerisms help to clearly define a character), but ultimately the story was unsatisfying mainly because the film labored under its complicated exposition (three separate timelines are maintained, and although this allowed for a few dramatic juxtapositions, I think--to put it glibly--there wasn't enough bang for the buck). And while the back of the DVD and the first few moments of the film alert the audience to "watch carefully" (for the amazing twist), once it's over I've heard more than a few people ask if they missed something, mainly because one of the twists is telegraphed early in the third act, and the other is fairly easily guessed halfway thru (I think there was a SD thread about this). One could say the same thing about the twist in The Illusionist, but here I felt the film didn't rely solely on the revealation to be successful; I thought it was more social commentary than a magical love story.

Sorry to sound so cryptic, but I don't want to give too much away. The Prestige isn't a bad film, perhaps a little above average, but if its between this and The Illusionist, I'd pick the latter.

I'm with you. I liked The Illusionist far more and remember it much better than The Prestige, also; the latter seemed to drag on and on and suffer from a case of third-act-itis.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Prestige rules! Illusionist drools!

[msmith537]

The first time I saw the Prestige, I was like "meh" until the ending, which blew my mind. I then thought it kicked ass when I watched it again.

[Tangent]

I was enjoying The Illusionist but I felt very let down by the ending, because part of it was pretty cliche and could be seen coming from a mile away, and the other part--which was basically "the big mystery" of the movie--wasn't explained at all. Don't build up this major plot point, upon which the climax of the story depends, and then give us no clue as to how it was done. I felt cheated. (And I'm sure people have 'fanwanked' all sorts of explanations, but that doesn't really count)

The Prestige, as others have said, isn't perfect but I found it to be more interesting and entertaining, and it has greater rewatch value for me.

[Johnny Hildo]

The Prestige at least made sense, dramatically.

The Illusionist was a piece of shit and here's why:

SPOILER:

Guy is performing world-class illusions that even today would be considered undoable. So, the whole of the movie we're just expecting that dude has supernaturnal powers. Turns out, he doesn't. It just ends in stupid crime drama gotcha twist ending bullshit. Fuck you, movie. No, seriously. FUCK YOU.

[Richard Pearse]

I have only seen "The Prestige".

I liked it. I think I was lucky because I was staying in a hotel, flicked through the channels on the TV and arrived at one of the movie channels. The Prestige was just starting and I watched it through. I had read nothing about it and wasn't expecting any incredible twist or anything. And to be honest I didn't get any incredible twist, I saw it all happening a little in advance. But because I wasn't expecting a twist, I wasn't dissapointed that it was a bit transparent.

[Trion]

Originally Posted by Johnny Hildo

The Illusionist was a piece of shit and here's why:

SPOILER:

Guy is performing world-class illusions that even today would be considered undoable. So, the whole of the movie we're just expecting that dude has supernaturnal powers. Turns out, he doesn't. It just ends in stupid crime drama gotcha twist ending bullshit. Fuck you, movie. No, seriously. FUCK YOU.

Not true.

SPOILER:

Actually, most of the tricks shown in The Illusionist were variations on illusions being done in the day. I refer you to the book "Hiding the Elephant" by Jim Steinmeyer for a history of magic and an explanation of how the tricks were done.

I preferred THe Illusionist for the reasons stated by CJJ*.

[Fiver]

I liked them both, but thought both were flawed.

But the OP is also flawed. It's a category error to equate the two simply because both are about Victorian magicians. After that the movies have few similarities.

[JpnDude]

For those of us in Japan, "Prestige" came out in theaters recently. My SO and I are going to watch it this week. Thanks for the comments without giving away spoliers.

[Taber]

Originally Posted by JpnDude

For those of us in Japan, "Prestige" came out in theaters recently. My SO and I are going to watch it this week. Thanks for the comments without giving away spoliers.

One of the magicians is a sled. And Luke's father.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally Posted by Fiver

It's a category error to equate the two simply because both are about Victorian magicians.

Banana oil. YOU tot up the number of major-studio movies made in the past 20 years about Victorian magicians. So, if TWO come out within six weeks of each other, how can you NOT equate the two? (At least in terms of "which Victorian magician movie is which?")

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike

Banana oil. YOU tot up the number of major-studio movies made in the past 20 years about Victorian magicians. So, if TWO come out within six weeks of each other, how can you NOT equate the two? (At least in terms of "which Victorian magician movie is which?")

Granted, but you didn't frame this thread as "Victorian magician movie." You used "feuding magician movie" (my italics), and there were no feuding magicians in The Illusionist.

[RikWriter]

The Illusionist was a very good movie. Haven't bothered to see The Prestige.

[delphica]

I don't know if this helps, but I've seen both of them and still have trouble remembering which pretty good bits and which pretty awful bits were in which one.

If I think hard on it, I tend to agree with CJJ*'s summary. The Illusionist is a quieter movie, it's more thoughtful throughout, but at the same time, it doesn't think too deep on anything. The Prestige takes more risks, but as a result has more noticeable moments when the risk doesn't pay off. It's the kind of movie where there is more to talk about after, although here at Chez Del, there was a high frequency of crabbing in the talk.

[KneadToKnow]

They were both pretty mediocre IMHO, but The Prestige at least had the hotter chick.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I like The Prestige better, though I agree with James Berardinelli's comment that it takes a turn that "alters the suspension of disbelief curve," which disrupts the flow of the movie.

The Illusionist is too obvious, and the protagonists are too unsympathetic (at least on reflection). It's well worth watching, but I think I prefer The Prestige.

[BluePitbull]

Originally Posted by Unauthorized Cinnamon

The Illusionist is too obvious, and the protagonists are too unsympathetic (at least on reflection). It's well worth watching, but I think I prefer The Prestige.

How are they unsympathetic?

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Originally Posted by BluePitbull

How are they unsympathetic?

SPOILER:

Admittedly, Rufus Sewell's character was an asshole, and did specific nasty stuff like slap Jessica Biel around and try to force her into marriage. However, while there was a rumor that he'd offed a chorus girl or something, all it was was gossip. The heroes of the story could easily have just faked Biel's death and thus run away happily together, but they went out of their way to frame an innocent (of her murder, and possibly any murder) man.

[Gukumatz]

Originally Posted by Unauthorized Cinnamon

SPOILER:

Admittedly, Rufus Sewell's character was an asshole, and did specific nasty stuff like slap Jessica Biel around and try to force her into marriage. However, while there was a rumor that he'd offed a chorus girl or something, all it was was gossip. The heroes of the story could easily have just faked Biel's death and thus run away happily together, but they went out of their way to frame an innocent (of her murder, and possibly any murder) man.

SPOILER:

I considered that when I watched the movie, but after a re-watch, it felt more compelling to believe that this ties in with Norton's agenda agains the prevailing social structure. A coup as an added bonus, one could say.

[lissener]

My problem with The Illusionist was

SPOILER:

the M. Night Shyamawhatever trick ending. Not only was it not true to the rest of the movie, but Giamatti's grotesque mugging while the camera spun around him as he "put it all together" was to laugh.

[Johnny Hildo]

Originally Posted by Trion

Not true.

SPOILER:

Actually, most of the tricks shown in The Illusionist were variations on illusions being done in the day. I refer you to the book "Hiding the Elephant" by Jim Steinmeyer for a history of magic and an explanation of how the tricks were done.

Gee, I had no idea that walking, talking, three-dimensional holograms were so advanced in the 1800s.

[Tenar]

I wasn't terribly fond of either one of them, but I would describe The Illusionist as a fairy tale (and we know that fairy tales can be dark, to say the least) and I would describe The Prestige as a suspense/horror movie. YMMV.

[Trion]

Originally Posted by Johnny Hildo

Gee, I had no idea that walking, talking, three-dimensional holograms were so advanced in the 1800s.

Depends what you mean by "advanced". It was certainly the "Hollywood" version. Had the movie version been identical to the trick as it was performed in real life, it would have been obvious to the Paul Giamatti character what was going on as soon as he got on stage. But a version of the trick was performed.

[Clothahump]

The Illusionist was considerably better than The Prestige, by a long shot.

[blondebear]

I enjoyed The Prestige more, but Ed Norton was great in The Illusionist.

[Rubystreak]

The Prestige was a fantastic movie. Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman were outstanding, as were Michael Caine and David Bowie. The story was compelling and well-imagined. Highly recommended.

The Illusionist was kind of corny and predictable, esp. after seeing The Prestige. JMO, but The Prestige was a far better movie.

[Dinsdale]

I was really looking forward to both of these, and was really underwhelmed by both. Once they explained the trick in The Prestige, I thought the final scene - which apparently was intended to impress - was obvious and unnecessary.

And I had major problems with Ed Norton's apparent supernatural abilities in The Illusionist.

I think I preferred the latter, mainly because I really like Norton, and think Jessica is hotter than Scarlett. Both were okay rentals IMO, but little more.

[singular1]

By the way, I just finished reading The Prestige, and the book the movie is based on was better than the movie by a long shot. Excellent writing that you can still enjoy, even though you know the twist that's coming.

The magic in the Illusionist was more interesting, simply because it was a replication of Victorian magic - well, except for that polished hologram... But I like the Prestige more myself, even though I didn't like either of the magicians.

[Fiver]

singular1, is the story essentially the same? Including Borden's big secret and Tesla's machine?

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

I thought the ending to the Illusionist, as an other poster here already said, had a very distinctive "we need an M. Shyamalan ending" tacked-on feel to it.
It totally negated everything that happened before and didn't even make the least bit of sense.
I am eagerly awaiting the release of The Prestige on DVD, as I haven't seen it yet.

[WordMan]

Haven't seen the Illusionist, but really enjoyed the Prestige. I still find myself thinking about it, months after seeing it - a good sign in my book.

Although it was set in Victorian England and dealt with feuding magicians, I really feel it is more like

SPOILER:

a Greek tragedy, where an unintended act of pride (Bale's wanting to try the new knot in the escape trick with Jackman's gal) leads to far-reaching blood-war consequences that invoke the gods (or at least, the supernatural) and where Man's hubris forces the warring player's hands and ultimately leads to tragedy for all involved, because they pursued their revenge at the expense of harmony with the gods...

I also like Christopher Nolan's movie direction. As with Memento - the other plot-twisty movie he directed, his attention to detail is wonderful and the things he reveals early on without really tipping his hat are very cool...

[Skammer]

I preferred The Prestige, mainly because I couldn't get over the magical holograms of The Illusionist. Plus, although Ed Norton did a great job, I hated his character. In Prestige I saw Bales secret early on and Jackman's long before the final scene, but it was still a much more satisfying movie.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Unauthorized Cinnamon

SPOILER:

Admittedly, Rufus Sewell's character was an asshole, and did specific nasty stuff like slap Jessica Biel around and try to force her into marriage. However, while there was a rumor that he'd offed a chorus girl or something, all it was was gossip. The heroes of the story could easily have just faked Biel's death and thus run away happily together, but they went out of their way to frame an innocent (of her murder, and possibly any murder) man.

Actually, I like the fact that The Illusionist had the bad guys "winning" by framing a man of a murder he didn't commit, with the film justifying his being framed merely because the prince was acting like, well, a typical 19th-century prince. It's not often you see such amorality embraced in an American production.

"Ohhh, he doesn't like democracy! Let's kill him!"

[garygnu]

I've seen them both.
They will forever be compared to each other because of the release dates, titles, and abstract subject matter, but their plots and themes are so different it's nearly impossible to judge one over the other.
Except for one important point: they're both about magic. Specifically, they both ask the question: "How far can one go for a magic trick?"
The Prestige is all about the magicians and the magic trick itself, while The Illusionist is about what a magician can do with magic beyond the stage.

[Johnny Hildo]

Originally Posted by Trion

Depends what you mean by "advanced". It was certainly the "Hollywood" version. Had the movie version been identical to the trick as it was performed in real life, it would have been obvious to the Paul Giamatti character what was going on as soon as he got on stage. But a version of the trick was performed.

Fuck that shit. Norton's tricks had three-dimensional voice-throwing holograms mingling with people in a tightly-packed stadium. This is why the ending sucks so much rectum.

[singular1]

Originally Posted by Fiver

singular1, is the story essentially the same? Including Borden's big secret and Tesla's machine?

Yes, but it gives much, much more information about both men and both families (of course). It jumps back and forth from descendants meeting in present day to the notebooks and diaries of both magicians. I highly recommend the book. I was a little apprehensive about reading it, since I'd know what was coming while they were slyly revealing it, but you toss that off pretty quickly and get sucked into their world. The Victorian tone is spot-on, and the magic history is well represented.

[Trunk]

Let me put it in internet terms. . .

Teh Illusionist was teh r0XX0r5!

Teh Prestige was teh suXX0r5!

Actually, I thought the Illusionist was all right, but definitely a bit corny. Not great, but if I rented it for a Friday night at home, I wouldn't be dissapointed. If you're looking for an Ed Norton fix, check out "Down in the Valley."

[Dinsdale]

Originally Posted by Johnny Hildo

Fuck that shit. Norton's tricks had three-dimensional voice-throwing holograms mingling with people in a tightly-packed stadium. This is why the ending sucks so much rectum.

Yeah - I would have liked it if they had been able to scam the prince without relying upon "impossible" magic.

One question about the Prestige which lessened the impact of the final scene for me:

SPOILER:

Why did HJ keep all of the old tanks with floating duplicates of himself, instead of simply disposing of the bodies someway or another (burial, burning, selling to anatomists) and re-using the tank?

[Flutterby]

Originally Posted by Dinsdale

Yeah - I would have liked it if they had been able to scam the prince without relying upon "impossible" magic.

One question about the Prestige which lessened the impact of the final scene for me:

SPOILER:

Why did HJ keep all of the old tanks with floating duplicates of himself, instead of simply disposing of the bodies someway or another (burial, burning, selling to anatomists) and re-using the tank?

SPOILER:

Part of it would be how many bodies could he dispose of before someone started getting suspicious. You can only sell so many bodies to the anatomists, burning would attract attention (I don't think cremation was common at the time, so he'd have to find somewhere to go to burn them without drawing questions), burial you'd need to have gravediggers and there would be only so many places to bury bodies and they might just talk about the strange man having a body buried that looks just like him (if they happen to catch a glimpse of it).

He'd have 100 bodies to dispose of in a short period of time, without drawing undue attention to himself (HE doesn't want to go to prison after all).

So it makes the best sense. An abandoned mine, stick the bodies there. When you're done the run of the trick, blast closed the mine.

That's just the practical considerations of course. There was probably something with wanting to keep those duplicates of himself because he is aware on some level that they all are himself but I don't pretend to be a psychologist.

[Rubystreak]

Originally Posted by Trunk

Actually, I thought the Illusionist was all right, but definitely a bit corny. Not great, but if I rented it for a Friday night at home, I wouldn't be dissapointed. If you're looking for an Ed Norton fix, check out "Down in the Valley."

Down in the Valley? Talk about teh suXX0r5. Horrible movie. The Illusionist wasn't really very good either. I hope The Painted Veil is decent, to redeem the usually excellent Mr. Norton in my mind.

Hugh Jackman, on the other hand, is becoming a favorite. Between The Prestige and The Fountain (not to mention Wolverine), I'm a fan.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I also thought that The Prestige was by far the better movie. The Illusionist was frankly a fairy tale of the peasant besting the prince, which is a fine story unless it insults our intelligence all the way through.

I'm not a magician but I've read a great deal of magic history. From what I can tell the sleight of hand tricks were real but the major illusions were fakes. To call them variants of actual magic tricks is to call the space station a variant on a kite.

Take the orange tree. We know what the original is like, because we have Robert-Houdin's own writing on it:

http://www.illusionata.com/mpt/view....&type=articles

The Fantastic Orange Tree
This mechanical piece was preceded by several magic effects which motivated its introduction onto the stage.

I borrowed a handkerchief from a lady. I rolled it into a ball, which I placed beside an egg, a lemon, and an orange arranged on my table.

I then magically made all the objects pass within one another, and when they were finally all nested within the orange, I used the fruit to create a magical liqueur.

To do so, I pressed the orange between my hands and reduced its size, displaying its various stages from time to time, and I eventually reduced it to a powder which I poured into a flask containing spirits of wine.

My assistant then brought onstage an orange tree without blossoms or fruit. I poured a bit of the elixir that I had just prepared into a tiny vase, set it on fire, and placed it beneath the plant, and as the fumes reached the leaves, one could see flowers blossoming on the tree.

Upon a wave of my wand, these flowers were replaced by oranges, which I handed out to the spectators.

A single orange remained on the tree; I commanded it to open itself into four parts, revealing within the borrowed handkerchief. Two butterflies, flapping their wings, grasped the top corners and unfolded it as they rose into the air.

This effect was my creation.

In other words, it did not grow from a seed to full tree and then produce fruits in full view of the audience. The butterflies were automatons which rose into the air and didn't fly into the audience. Steinmeyer's description in Hiding the Elephant is taken almost word for word from Robert-Houdin's book. The trick as presented in the movie was a CGI illusion, not remotely presentable in the 19th century.

Even more so, the later tricks with people were impossible then and are impossible today for a live audience. No amount of citing the very real and impressive effects of earlier magicians can change that. Every illusion in the movie would require real magic rather than stage magic to create. That's why the ending, even if it is supposed to be in Giametti's mind, is such a cheat. It's as if the director didn't watch his own movie but expected us not to care.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

I'm not a magician but I've read a great deal of magic history. From what I can tell the sleight of hand tricks were real but the major illusions were fakes. To call them variants of actual magic tricks is to call the space station a variant on a kite.

While I don't know much about the history of magic, I wonder if faulting The Illusionist for this yet giving The Prestige a free pass for this is really fair.

Some of the tricks in The Prestige were also clearly done using CGI effects (and I'm not just talking about the big one; the early "Transporting Man" tricks were surely done this way), and like The Illusionist the rational explanations given for these tricks could be criticized. There's also the point that none of Ed Norton's "confessions"--to Jessica Biel early on, to the crowd gathered outside the police station, even in the "Orange Tree" notebook--do not preclude his ability to perform real magic, and for me the question is still somewhat up in the air (exactly as it should be in a fairy tale).

I think viewers who have adopted an "ultra-realist" interpretation of film would be frustrated by several components of Norton's film; The hinting at a larger theme, the distilled motivations of secondary characters, the ambiguities left in the wake of dramatic goals. The problem for them then is with the form itself: Magic potions don't have to be explained in fairy tales, but post-modern storytelling demands a certain level of rationalization for every event that occurs; the former is going for emotional impact, the latter for intellectual satisfaction. The approaches are simply different--one is not "better" than the other--but it does mean that criticizing one using the qualities of the other is like criticizing a horror movie for not having enough catchy tunes.

On balance, I think The Illusionist performed better within its archetype than The Prestige did within its. The Prestige was by no means a failure, and I'm not saying a moviegoer has to like all genres of film. But criticizing The Illusionist--a fairy tale love story about a magician--because it contains a certain level of magic--by definition something which cannot be explained via natural laws--is somewhat limiting