I finally watched this movie because of the comparison to The Prestige. I watched it last night and as to my knowledge they didn't even make an attempt to explain how edward was spawning people out of air. I mean seriously the movie had great acting and was let down by a weak plot.
"Charlieeee,you *beep* bitch lets work it out"
it was a trick. he even says that in the film. and really i don't think it's important. the movie wasn't about the magic tricks, or how they were done. it's a love story. and the movie is about how these 2 people who are madly in love come to actually be with each other.
AT LAST MY ARM IS COMPLETE AGAIN!
OFFICIAL BLEEDER
The point of "The Illusionist" was not to reveal the methods of performing the tricks. It was, however, important in the film "The Prestige". The two films are only comparable in that they both involve magicians in a similar age. Just because one film did reveal the methods, doesn't mean the other one should. The films were made independently of one another, with no need for comparison nor competition.
To say that the plot of "The Illusionist" was weak because they didn't reveal how the tricks were performed only means that you missed the point of the plot, entirely. "The Illustionist" dealt with the effects the illusions had on the characters more than the illusions themselves.
the movie was only a romace towards the end the entire middle of the movie was to prove that he was a "fake" so he could be arrested so on a scale this movie 40% romance 60% magic. then all of a sudden I am supposed to let lie the fact he was spawning people and not expect to know why plzzzzz it was the only trick that wasn't revealed
"Charlieeee,you *beep* bitch lets work it out"
There is a scene where the police guys show a demonstration of a possible way of doing it by using a film projector.
share[deleted]
The point that this movie is trying to make is not about how the illusions were made or if they are possible, you aren't watching houdini on television or david copperfield, this is a story.. a fiction story about a magician much like those 2 i mentioned that lived a long time ago.
What I get from this is that because back then people were much easily fooled by magic tricks so any magic trick that people today would find silly would look like real magic to them in that time and this is what this movie is trying to mimic in its artistic way, in other words what those people are seeing is what you are seeing on the stage.
This is not 40% romance and 60% magic. This is a complete romance story which has magic as a major part of it. It's hardly weak, hardly a plot-hole, hardly anything. How he does the tricks, though interesting, is of no importance whatsoever.
"What I get from this is that because back then people were much easily fooled by magic tricks so any magic trick that people today would find silly would look like real magic to them in that time" - Don't agree with this at all. In the modern day we seem to think we were so very much more intelligent than our predecessors. We are more advanced but to think these people 100 years ago are all naive is in itself naive. The Prince, for example, lists numerous possibilities for how the tricks are performed. I suspected a number of people nowadays couldn't list as many (credible) explanations. This last paragraph is slightly off topic, though, and for that I must apologise.
I find your first 2 sentences confusing. 60% magic means that magic IS a major part of it.
share[deleted]