The Prestige

IMDB

Sometimes good films come almost out of nowhere. When I went to see School for Scoundrels, a preview for The Prestige was shown. I had never heard of it before, but the mood of the preview and the cast put it on the must show list. To my pleasant surprise the film opened this week, so I slipped out to watch it as soon as I could.

There were three main draws to the cast. The first was Christian Bale. This guy is somebody who I have enjoyed watching since American Psycho, and most recently he showed how Batman should be done. Next up was my fellow countryman Hugh Jackman, who really made his name for himself in my book with his portrayal of Wolverine. And the presence of Michael Caine just sweetens the deal – this guy has been pumping out great celluloid for years, with classics such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Goldmember and Secondhand Lions just to name some highlights. The film also features Piper Perabo (remember Coyote Ugly?), Scarlett Johansson (very good in The Island, I thought), David Bowie (I did not recognize him when I saw him on screen, unlike his appearance in Zoolander) and Andy Serkis (most people remember him rendered rather than filmed).

Christopher Nolan wrote the screenplay (along with his brother Jonathan) and directed the film. I like his style of film-making – Memento and Batman Begins were both extremely well made, with fantastic atmosphere and electric tension at times. Seeing this has inspired me to see Insomnia, which I had previously avoided based on an ignorance of who was responsible for it.

One comparison which some people will not help making is to The Illusionist, which also had magic as a thematic element and was also a period piece set in old Europe. After seeing and thoroughly enjoying both films, I can safely say that the similarities are very superficial. I think that The Illusionist is more of a story about romantic rivalry, where The Prestige is a story about professional rivalry. This fundamental difference in the story drives the end result to be constructed very differently.

The film is about two magicians, Rupert (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred (Christian Bale) who start out together under the tutelage of Cutter (Michael Caine). Some people have painted the story as the two being friends that become rivals, but I would more accurately characterize it as aquantances who become rivals. There is an element of distrust between them even at the beginning of the film, which blossoms into a very passionate hatred by the time the film is done. Rupert and Alfred eventually create careers of their own, attempting to sabotage each other whenever they can and learn the secrets of each other’s magic. This brings Rupert all the way to Colorado (a long way, considering things are set in late 19th century London) to meet with Nikola Tesla in an attempt to construct the ultimate act.

The film does have a bit of a twist to it, and I have read some other commentary on this. I think that this film is best enjoyed by watching it without reading too much about the twist. Some people have commented that they needed a second viewing to fully see what was going on, and some people leaving the cinema at the same time as me seemed to not understand what was happening. Personally, I had suspicions about what was going on about halfway through. The story leaves a lot of hints here and there, and there are many layers to “the trick” in this film, so the details of what was happening were tough to tell until the very end. The way that the layers are folded onto one another and the way that you can cast back to earlier moments of the film to see what their significance was is very satisfying.

I think that this is one of the best films that I have seen recently. The intensity of the characters is amazing, and the two protagonists bristle with energy throughout the whole affair. Some people have said that they find the characters shallow, but I think that they show the nature of obsessive personalities very accurately. If you don’t have an obsessive personality yourself or don’t know somebody who has, then you might not agree, but otherwise you will know what I mean when you see it.

The atmosphere of the film is great. The two landscapes are London and Colorado Springs, and both are brought to life with that gritty realism that I love (although things look suspiciously cleaner than they would at that time period, but the purpose of things is to entertain, not educate). Sometimes the storyline weaves between the past and the present in a way that does not preserve clarity, but I am unsure if this was a desirable trait or a subtle flaw in the presentation.

This was a very riveting film, especially considering the two plus hours of content. Pretty much everything, from the casting, the acting, the story, the cinematography, the editing, the special effects – is top notch and blended together superbly to create a unique film that defies classification into a generic genre. All that I can add is to implore you to watch it, hopefully without some less considerate reviewer ruining it for you.

The Illusionist

IMDB

When I first saw the preview for this film, it intrigued me and I have wanted to see it ever since. The talent on display was part of what sold me. Edward Norton is great (Fight Club is my favorite of his films), Paul Giamatti is a great character on the screen (Sideways is my favorite work of his so far), and Jessica Biel is engrossing to watch (I never actually saw 7th Heaven, but she was awesome in Blade: Trinity). I did not immediately recognize Rufus Sewell when I saw the preview or the film. Some of you may remember him from Dark City (a true classic).

The other thing that sold me was the obvious effort to create a period piece. The turn-of-the-last-century reconstruction of Vienna feels great, and there was an obvious attempt to create a sullen mood with the constant overcast feeling in the movie. The preview gave me an idea of the magic that they have in the film (ooohh magic) but it did not look cheesy at all.

The actual movie did not disappoint. The basic idea of the story is that a man from humble origins who grows up to be an illusionist (Norton) is in love with a lady of the upper class above his reach (Biel), who is promised to the Crown Prince (Sewell). The obvious romantic tensions that arise from this little love triangle culminate in several kufuffles (which I will not describe, because it is a mystery film after all and I don’t want to spoil anything). A police inspector (Giamatti) attempts to investigate and unravel the complexities of what is happening, with obvious mystery created because of the suspicions of the illusionist doing his antics off the stage.

The reconstruction of Vienna is very well done. I especially loved the shots of people walking through a hallway in the Prince’s abode which had a large collection of trophy heads littering the walls, with the antlers of the heads almost making a canopy above the head of those walking through it. It was a very interesting touch to have, and something that I had never seen before. I think that it helped to add to the ambience of the film, as well as maybe telling you something about who inhabited the house.

This film is pitched as a mystery and a romance, and I think that it is much more the former than the latter (which is what I hoped for). Right from the beginning there are magic tricks on the screen that have you wondering if the movie is portraying real magic, a trickster, or even an unreliable narrator. There are some scraps of explanation for some simple tricks shown occasionally, but for the most part the mystery of Norton’s character is felt by those watching the movie in the same way as those in it. I think that this is what makes the movie so compelling to watch, and makes it feel like far less than the claimed 110 minutes.

Any discussion of how things end will spoil it for somebody, and I think that you should be able to tell somebody what you thought of a film without spoiling it. I can tell you that the ending is reached in a very entertaining way, with several turns that keep you wondering what is going on. I have heard some people complain that you can see some of it coming (and I did see some of it coming) but this is a case of the destination not being as important as the journey, and the journey is enjoyable. I think that the viewer is meant to guess at what is going to happen but wonder how the characters will do it, and that is not always a bad thing. Are Bond movies not fun because Bond always gets away and never gets killed?