THE ILLUSIONIST [2006] review

I appreciate all kinds and genres of movies, but in the end, when I go to the movies, or when I watch one at home, I find myself often wanting to watch what I call in my mind a movie-movie. … Let me define what a movie-movie is: one that shows a world that you or I do not live in; one that immediately takes you out of your seat and does not return you until the final credit rolls; one whose score stays in your mind after the final credit, and a score that just hearing one note of it later immediately identifies the film for you. Therefore, present day family dramas, most comedies, and ordinary action movies are to me, not movie-movies. THE ILLUSIONIST is a pure movie-movie on all three accounts, and it was further helped by the fact the turn of the 20th century is one of my favorite time periods, just as science is beginning to explain major mysteries of the world, but yet not so much so that people are not willing to still believe in the supernatural, the perfect era to tell this movie’s story.

From the opening note of THE ILLUSIONIST’s score, I was put into the world. As soon as the first frame appeared, with it’s muted sepia colors and vignetted framing, the movie established its tone, feel and look. The film begins with a small scene from the end, then proceeds in flashback, which I normally don’t like, but it is done very effectively here. The entire film has been finely and elegantly crafted, all reactions and movements by the characters are deliberate, watch for them on the edges of the screen by even background characters.

You may have a hard time taking your eyes off the two leads though, Edward Norton as the enigmatic and supernatural illusionist himself, Eisenheim, and Paul Giamatti as Chief Inspector Uhl. … The focus in Norton’s eyes the entire film, captivating. You can see Giamatti’s mind frantically working trying to keep up with the two dueling minds of Norton’s illusionist, and his rival, the Crown Prince.

The illusions themselves amazed and fascinated me, least of which was a sword trick aping the tale of Excalibur and King Arthur in a most clever and bold way. I do not know if they were real illusions or done with cgi effects, and I do not want to know. I choose to believe neither, rather they were actual magic. For it is far better to be astounded by this movie, and let it flow, than as the Crown Prince repeatedly tries to do, bring to the ordinary the moments of extraordinary the Illusionist shows us. If you view it in this way, then your face at the end will be in perfect reflection of the character on the screen at that time. … This was the best movie of 2006 I’ve seen.

RELATED POSTS:

• DIRTY HARRY [1971] review
• BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD [2007] review
• GREMLINS [1984] review
• ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK [1981] review
• THE KITE RUNNER [2007] review