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?

[–] sbowesuk 11 years ago

You're complaining about the rating of a movie you haven't even seen all the way through? You, sir, are an idiot.

[–] nicolo_san 11 years ago

Not only that but being that the movie is a 7.7 rating he, and the other haters, are in the minority. They give a description of why they think the movie wasn't good like they know about movie making but they do not and never will. If you don't like the film just say so. Don't give a list of what you didn't like, like you know what you're taking about cause, again, you don't. That's why you're commenting on IMDb instead of making a better movie.

I know how to get lost in lust, not because you should but because you must.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] livingdeadboy33 11 years ago

i clicked on your thread thinking you was astounded a 7.7 was a low score.

You ask who is giving this movie 7 , 8 , 9s and 10's?

i'd personally give this movie at least an 8 .

[–] x0064 11 years ago

It's a movie, a piece of entertainment.

For the sake of historical correctness:
"And it is utterly unhistorical - there was no Crown Prince Leopold (and in any case Austrian imperial heirs were never called Crown Prince)"

There was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf,_Crown_Prince_of_Austria
While sharing some similarity with fictive "Leopold" (time, father, scary hunting lodge¹, suicide), he was married to a princess of Belgium.
¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerling_Incident

Otto von Habsburg was the last Crown Prince of Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia (until 1918) and died only two years ago.

".. and if there had been he would have married into another royal family and not some bimbo-aristocrat."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Marr iage_and_family

other Habsburg examples:
1557, patrician - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_II,_Archduke_of_Austria
1829, postmaster's daughter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_John_of_Austria
1903, prostitute - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Leopold_Ferdinand_of_Austria
1907, prostitute - same Leopold Ferdinand, different prostitute
1909, mathematician's daughter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Ferdinand_Karl_of_Austria

... but:
* Teschen never was Hungarian, it is not even close to Hungary and is part of today's Poland.
* The Austrian constitutional monarchy (esp. after "equality of people" in 1860) was not known for making people disappear.
* Crown Prince Rudolf was a known democrat - and married.

[–] jglapin 11 years ago

It is a Snorker and I gave it a "6". What a corny story. The actors did their best. It is filled with improbabilities. "Eisenheim"? WTF, no 19th century Austrian would choose a Jewish name for his act. That is pure Hollywood hubris.

[–] jglapin 11 years ago

The best part of this movie was Jessica Biel's butt when at the end when she is kissing Eisenheim. What a girl! What a bottom!

[–] sanjay_kn 11 years ago

haha, i was cent percent sure some body like you would raise objection aka wtf for the rating. i thought it is a tad high but 7 pointer seems ok!

[–] TongueFu 11 years ago

I'm a card-carrying member of the Ed Norton fan club and have been since Ed Norton made his debut in The Honeymooners.

[–] mattiasflgrtll6 11 years ago

Are you freaking kidding me? "Honeymooners" is from the 50's!
If you mean the movie "Honeymooners", it's still impossible since I've seen him in Fight Club, which is from 1999. Plus, he ISN'T even in that movie!
His actual debut, though, was in the educational video "Only In America"(1994). But "Primal Fear" which came two years after counts more, since it's more of a real movie.

[–] SuperWittySmitty 11 years ago

You're thinking of Little Ricky from the Honeymooners, and no, that wasn't Edward Norton as a child actor.

[–] zgurierion 9 years ago

You right, lame romance, cheap tricks and a Usual Suspects ending, nothing intresting. If this movie has an 7.6 rating, The Prestige should have 10.

[–] aBatmanfan 8 years ago

This movie was really good. I felt that it got better and better as it went on and the ending was incredible. 7.7 seems about right. I gave it an 8/10.