MovieChat Forums > The Illusionist (2006) Discussion > 7.7 - WTF!

7.7 - WTF!

posted 14 years ago by rogermccarthy
56 replies | jump to latest

This is one of the few movies I stopped and deleted from my recorder half-way through and it gets 7.7 points?

Yes it has a great cast (Norton, Giamatti and Sewell) and I am normally a sucker for anything involving frock coats and uniforms - but the story is unbelievably Mills and Boon romance-level lame.

And it is utterly unhistorical - there was no Crown Prince Leopold (and in any case Austrian imperial heirs were never called Crown Prince) and if there had been he would have married into another royal family and not some bimbo-aristocrat.

Plus the Austrian Empire was to all intents and purposes a constitutional monarchy - the police just couldn't make people disappear or plausibly threaten to do so - much less the Crown Prince overthrow his father.

But what really bored me silly was the fake-British accents - yes at least they tried to be consistent and there is nothing worse than a costume drama set in Europe where all or some of the characters speak American (Amadeus or Robin Hood Prince of Thieves frex) but the strain of enunciating every word properly made even such talented actors as Norton and Giamatti seem wooden and detached - while Biel already started out that way...

So who is giving out all these 7s and 8s and 9s and 10s? is there an Ed Norton fan club working overtime?

[–] MuffinJin 14 years ago

"And it is utterly unhistorical - there was no Crown Prince Leopold (and in any case Austrian imperial heirs were never called Crown Prince) and if there had been he would have married into another royal family and not some bimbo-aristocrat. "

So? Hitler didn't get massacred in a blazing theater but that doesn't make Inglourious Basterds a bad movie.

[–] ramon-mol 14 years ago

Some proper trolling going on here!?

In my opinion 7.7 is spot on.

[–] kiddo90 13 years ago

I agree with you! I was also looking forward to actual illusions to and it turned out to be all CGI crap, plus the ending was completely see through. 1.5 rating at best!

[–] Nonobstant26 13 years ago

This movie was so bad I stopped watching it after 45 minutes, just after the after-sex incredibly cheesy dialogue.
Once again, it's just a hollywood-formated love story with uniforms.
I feel like I've seen 100 variations of the same movie, the core remains the same. >.<

[–] goutamdas30 13 years ago

plz don't do the mistake as i once did.stopping it in halfway.but curiosity threw me again to watch this..as i saw the ratings..and there it goes..I have watched just the ending part countless times.probably the best story ever..

and specially to rogermccarthy are you from Ed norton hate club?

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 13 years ago

Two of your biggest complaints are historical accuracy, a symptom of the "realism fetish", and accents.

You're definitely not someone I'd spend even two minutes hanging out with offline, and I care less about your opinion than a $h|^ I flush down the toilet.

So . . . <flush>

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] gayspiritwarrior 13 years ago

Others may already have noticed this, but apparently the concept of fiction is lost on you. The movie is "unhistorical" because it's MADE UP.

And they're not "fake-British" accents. Why would they be? They're in Vienna. That they're speaking English at all is merely a concession to the audience.

I'm one of the people who've given it a 9, because it's extremely well made and it's entertaining. You didn't like it. I'm so sorry.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

[–] jesatsu 13 years ago

The film was good but definitely doesn't deserve such a high rating. 6.5 would be most fitting.