MovieChat Forums > L'illusionniste (2011) Discussion > ...bit of a let down, but still a beauti...

...bit of a let down, but still a beautiful let down.

posted 14 years ago by sleeplate_dreammore
37 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong, the animation was BEAUTIFUL. So well crafted, so much work went into it obviously, the attention to detail, the movement of light especially was breath taking.... but the story!
was soo depressing. there was no break, no pay off, nothing.
There were many light hearted little moments that made you chuckle, but they didn't really add up to much.

at the end you are left with a spoiled little girl turn young lady whose main concern in life it appears, is to be pretty and have pretty things. IF maybe she had learned some real life skills or something, maybe you would have cheered for her or sympathized/identified with her. Instead she vapidly glides from one (father figure) man to another (boyfriend), waiting to be presented the things she wants. It's just depressing.
and then on top of that you've got suicidal clowns, abandoned rabbits, wheelchair dogs, drunk sad people with broken dreams....and no pay off. It's a very heavy story that almost seems comical in the way they layer on the depressing things.
Even the music felt suicidal.

But still, the animation WAS PHENOMENAL, it just seemed wasted on a story that didn't deliver much in the end.

----------
"Rodents Of Unusual Size?...I don't think they exist"

[–] calisson 14 years ago

I was surprised that the film didn't grab me more emotionally. I neither found it profoundly moving, nor sad, though I tend to agree with your analysis. But the animation was exquisite, and well worth watching on the big screen, so just for that I'm glad I saw it.

[–] julikell 14 years ago

I also have to agree with sleeplate_dreammore.

Though the animation was beautiful, it wasn't enough to carry a weak story. Perhaps the story was *too* personal for the screenwriter and the director, which left the rest of us out.

We're certainly not going to rave about a movie simply because some critics raved about it.

[–] Endy7 14 years ago

"there was no break, no pay off, nothing."

yes, yet another intellectual suicide, offering easy answers so we can pat on our backs and think that everything will be nice and dandy really helps the progress of a human mind

[–] calisson 14 years ago

Why the sarcasm, Endy7? Does that help the progress of the human mind?

[–] Endy7 14 years ago

More than disempowering the audience, offering reassurances based on superficiality and just considering everyone to be an idiot who is willing to pay money for all that.

[–] julikell 14 years ago

What the heck are you talking about???

[–] Endy7 14 years ago

About things which would have made this film a mediocre turd.

[–] julikell 14 years ago

Er, ok.

[–] wordsallowmotion 14 years ago

She slowly learnt that she can't get all that she wants. She learnt this from eating a the Fish and Chips food place, and when she went into the jewelry store, even the younger gent couldn't afford to pay for what she wanted. She didn't understand the value of money as of yet, because everything was basically give to her from the illusionist. She expected magical things can happen but eventually she grasped the reality of life.

My thriller needs funding http://www.indiegogo.com/Scary?a=4768&i=addr

[–] rozroz 13 years ago

that makes her extra stupid and i may add- selfish.
she DID learn that she had to work her butt out to provide herself with a bed to sleep in (in the BEGINNING of the film).
so at the end of the film she suddenly 'realize'- oh, i cannot buy this expensive s**t with this worthless coin. i now need a wealthy sugar daddy.

[–] girl_on_wire 14 years ago

I think s/he is saying that not all movies should be bright and cheerful, because if that were the case we as an audience would be a lot dumber, and our movies too.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tombo677 14 years ago

I thought the relationship between the magician and the girl was handled really well, especially considering the fact that there was almost no coherent dialogue in the film.

Also, the girl didn't "fall in love" with the magician, at least not in a romantic sense. Nor did he fall in love with her. She was captivated by his talents and believed all of his tricks to be true magic, having grown up in such a remote place, and he saw something of his long lost (or perhaps deceased) daughter in her.

There was something (literally) unspoken throughout the entire film that really worked for me. It was so emotionally understated but still very powerful. I knew, long before the ending and having not read anything about the true story behind the film, that there was something connecting the magician to the girl, and I believed everything that was happening on screen. I didn't need to see the photo the magician kept looking at. I didn't need him to flat out say "you remind me of my daughter."

Anyway, just my two cents. It's nice to hear other people's opinions on the film though. I just got back from seeing it at a small independent theater near me and I was the only one there so I didn't get to discuss it with anyone.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tombo677 14 years ago

For me, the film was about impermanence. Nothing lasts forever - life ends, relationships change, old forms of entertainment are replaced by new ones and slowly but surely, reality replaces the fantasy world of our youth - but even so, just for a moment, what the girl and the magician experienced together was genuine. Even if it wasn't meant to be, neither of them will forget their time together.

But yes, the film is open to interpretation. Loneliness, being misunderstood, regrets, impermanence, vanity, naivete, life - it's about all these things, and more.

The rabbit scene was definitely very touching and I loved the way the camera zoomed all around the city afterward. I can't pick my favorite scene just yet. I'll need to see it again before I make that call. There were so many little moments that I loved.

[–] Endy7 14 years ago

This film suffers from a fundamental style over subtance problem.

style is substance

The problem is the relationship between the magician and the girl is threadbare. There's no tenderness between them. He buys her gifts and she is appreciative but you never sense she loves him or has deep affection towards him. She may see him as a meal ticket, she may pity him, but the writer/director Sylvain Chomet never creates a strong bond between them.

No tenderness? Great. Less sentimental crap the better.
No strong bond between? Perhaps that was the point. Picturesque fake bonds are often illusions.

Why would a young girl fall in love with an old magician? Is that what the magician wanted? I guess so, but Chomet never pushes that angle to a convincing degree. Had the magician been in the train and shed a tear at losing the girl it would have made the film a little more substantive but as it is it's much ado about nothing. He met a girl, she liked him for a while, she met someone younger, he moved on with his life. Is that meant to represent something meaningful? Hardly, and it's not much material to stretch out for 110 mins.

Never pushes that angle to convincing degree? Awesome! Great directors are subtle. Nothing worse than obvious manipulation of the audience.
Who said there has to be a meaning? And where's the hurry? The aim is capture the audience into the moment to feel the mood, the coldness or whatever.

film trying to convey some emotive meaning that just isn't there.

Maybe it tries to show that, a lacking emotive meaning, ever think about that? Why be heavy handed all the time? In music the spaces, the pauses, the missing sounds are just as important as the sounds that are there.

With a stronger screenplay this could could have been a classic animated film about love and loss but it never exploited that.

Who said it had to exploit something like that? Considering it's inspired by the thematics of late 50's to mid 70's European cinema things such as alienation and ineptness to adjust to modern society are perhaps a little more important things to consider?
Stronger screenplay? No thanks. I'm glad that there's some who stray away from the "illustrated-book" type of filmmaking and focuses on visual language where the picture itself says everything that needs to be said just like in photography or painting.

[–] bigpappasmurff 14 years ago

good points
this was the perfect rainy sunday movie. i was so pleased with it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Synetech 13 years ago

Right, because defeatism is so useful. Go ahead and keep your pessimism. We’ll see how helpful it is when the stress and anxiety gives you cancer. There’s nothing wrong with preferring to feel good to feeling bad (in fact the opposite is called masochism).

--
Synetech

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

I can see why this may not have been everybody's cup of tea but I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed it. Beautiful animation, brilliantly painted atmosphere / mood and a great story. We need more films like this.

[–] cloudslide 13 years ago

I know this is SUPER LATE. But THANK YOU. For Serious. I don't know what's with this new trend of people looking forward to feeling terrible after they watch a film. I've got every day of my regular life for that. People are questioning other's ability to empathize, but the fact that they recognize the depressing atmosphere of a film without any dialogue means that WERE empathizing the whole time, they just didn't like what they see. And since when did not liking something make that thing worthy of acclaim?

Hands like Houdini.

[–] Synetech 13 years ago

Expressing your own sad feelings through art is one thing, I get that and there is nothing wrong with it. The problem is when other people choose/want to feel bad voluntarily. I don’t mind seeing a sad movie or listening to a sad song once in a while if it is really good[/i], but it feels like others seem to get off pain and feeling bad all the time. Look at the Oscars; they pick depressing dramas at a disproportionately high rate.

Music is so annoying these days because of all the moody, gloomy, nasal-y singers and songs that are only good for listening to by teenage girls while they cut themselves.

[–] AdmiralRaddus 13 years ago

I think this is one of the most honest and true to life movies I've ever seen, even though it's an animation. It reminds me of simpler times, times I never experienced, but when there was still an honest truth in life.

Young girls -are- materialistic and love attention and pretty things, of course. And older men do get put aside for newer and catchier things.

But there is a tragic beauty there. It's the passing of cycles in life and death in the continually changing world. Life doesn't end like in the movies. Life often ends tragically and sad but there are still moments of beauty. The movie doesn't condemn life. It simply says what it is like. It's our minds that put labels on it like "tragic" or "sad" or "depressing".

[–] Synetech 13 years ago

I’ve never understood why people would choose to watch “realistic” movies, particularly sad ones. Real-life sucks enough for most people, so movies are supposed to be an escape from it, they’re not supposed to pile on. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is if the movie is so depressing that at the end you think your own life is not so bad in comparison, but even that only helps very briefly and still makes you feel bad during the movie.

[–] AdmiralRaddus 13 years ago

Some people like movies that make them feel something. Don't you ever listen to a song that makes you feel sad, but you still love it? Just dwelling a bit in the melancholy. It's healthy sometimes because it makes us "feel".

I personally don't want sugarcoated manufactured Hollywood crap. Besides, the movie has enough funny/touching/magical moments beyond the drama.

[–] Synetech 13 years ago

Some people like movies that make them feel something. Don't you ever listen to a song that makes you feel sad, but you still love it? Just dwelling a bit in the melancholy. It's healthy sometimes because it makes us "feel".

Maybe when I was a child, but not anymore. I have long since learned that life sucks enough as it is and have seen too many painful things (all of which were the evils that humans are capable of). I have no interest in feeling bad when I can avoid it. Emotions can have a direct and dramatic physical impact on health (stress which is just an emotion can indeed make you sick and even kill you), so I try to avoid feeling bad whenever possible (especially since there are already plenty of unavoidable things to make me feel bad).

If your life is smooth enough that you can choose to engage in activities to bring you down, then count yourself lucky and hope it stays that way.

[–] AdmiralRaddus 12 years ago

Eh, my life isn't that smooth and I've had a fair share of bad things happened to me and my family.

I just think this movie isn't depressing in a bad way. It's beautifully sad. But I can see why it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Woodrow Wilson? Willy Wonka? Walter White?

[–] rozroz 13 years ago

totally agree with that.

[–] louis_lux 14 years ago

Still not sure about this movie. All I can say is that it didn't affect me that much, some great moments and beautiful animation but not much else.

[–] NoodleLizard 14 years ago

I can't believe so many people in this thread are saying things like "It was too depressing" or "The girl was selfish" or "Why didn't the illusionist shag the girl?" I mean, this wasn't a hard film to grasp, and it's not without its flaws, but nobody's really brought up a valid one, they're just wondering why it's not quite like Hollywood films.

These bastards!

[–] noveltylibrary 14 years ago

disagree nobody's brought up valid questions...i think the most common question here is "why didn't this film make me feel anything?"

[–] dnaplayboy 14 years ago

Agreed I didn't get anything out of this film.

[–] Endy7 14 years ago

"disagree nobody's brought up valid questions...i think the most common question here is "why didn't this film make me feel anything?""

can't blame the film for your own shortcomings

[–] noveltylibrary 14 years ago

well i gotta blame something!

[–] rlippman-2 14 years ago

So many ask "why didn't this film make me feel anything?"...I think the real question behind that question is why do so many people in the modern Western world feel no empathy for others?

I found the film sad and poignant. The characters were hard to understand at times...just like real people are. They were no less worthy of exploration because of this. They had redeeming qualities as well as darkness. That the movie left one feeling things unresolved...hey, that's the way life is more often than not, no? The mark of a good film is where you are left still thinking about it days later.

[–] ranran-001 13 years ago

When I rented the film from Netflix I made the mistake in thinking I would only watch it once. I ended up purchasing the blu-ray edition and watched it at least a dozen more times.

Triplets only had most of its acclaim focused on the design of the characters. I think it's superficial to only like an animated movie for just the way it's animated. There are other aspects in animated movies beyond the technical side to appreciate. The Illusionist had clean comprehensible designs with a story that is so good I was moved by it. Triplets of Belleville may have gotten Sylvian Chomet a spot in the movie world, but The Illusionist is his masterpiece.

[–] Elouai 10 years ago

It grabbed me emotionally, but not the way I expected. I can't bring myself to call this a bad or mediocre film, since it did evoke a response. But I really think this film was marketed in a misleading way, I guess they did not think people would watch if they knew it what it was really about.

http://greenticky.deviantart.com/