The Illusionist
- Thread starter GageFX
- Start date
arhartman
Well-known member
Honestly, I really disliked the film. This does contain some *SPOILERS*
Here is why:
1) With the exception of Jessica the film was filled with great actors. Edward, Paul, and my personal favorite Rufus Sewell (Dark City!). And I felt they fell short with all these great actors. Given, their performances I thought were the best part of the film, but it fell short.
2) When the film did something cool visually, either with the cinematography or vignette transition, they over used it. They made me dislike it because I had to see it every five seconds.
3) I am a big sap for love stories, even cheesey ones (sometimes), but this was so lame.
4) The dialogue was poopy, and so trite. They tried to be smart with it, but failed to do so.
5) Speaking of being smart. This movie, as a whole, was not. After Edward asked "Do you want to come with me" and it cut to a close on his face, I knew exactly how this entire movie was going to end.
and lastly...
6) While I felt this movie did not have an intentional political message, it definitely did. And what it had to say, I hated. First, this is what I felt it was saying: Until the end of the film you never knew what kind of leader Rufus Sewell was, other then he was 'progressive' and was a drunk and got a little rough with women and wanted to get rid of parliament (but that doesn't tell you much). As the film continued, when Edward began to have all those followers and they showed the 'church' scene where the man talked about the soul being infinite and how it was the beginning of the 'spiritual revolution' or something. And finally at the end, prior to Rufus' suicide, during his angered rant, he said "Thousands of people are yelling, but no one is listening, and they are being into the ground by mongrels". First off, I am a Marxist, just so you have an idea as to where I am coming from, regardless, after all of this I began to like Rufus' character more then I did Edward, and thought "hmm..maybe he should over throw his father." Given being cruel and rough with women is one of the worst things ever, but i found worse traits in Edward's character then I did Rufus'. All in all, I felt the bad guy in the film could and maybe should have been the good guy, and Edward should and could've been the bad guy.
you may agree, or disagree...
but there have been and will be far better movies to come out in 2006.
can't we all just go watch The Prestige now?
cheers.
Here is why:
1) With the exception of Jessica the film was filled with great actors. Edward, Paul, and my personal favorite Rufus Sewell (Dark City!). And I felt they fell short with all these great actors. Given, their performances I thought were the best part of the film, but it fell short.
2) When the film did something cool visually, either with the cinematography or vignette transition, they over used it. They made me dislike it because I had to see it every five seconds.
3) I am a big sap for love stories, even cheesey ones (sometimes), but this was so lame.
4) The dialogue was poopy, and so trite. They tried to be smart with it, but failed to do so.
5) Speaking of being smart. This movie, as a whole, was not. After Edward asked "Do you want to come with me" and it cut to a close on his face, I knew exactly how this entire movie was going to end.
and lastly...
6) While I felt this movie did not have an intentional political message, it definitely did. And what it had to say, I hated. First, this is what I felt it was saying: Until the end of the film you never knew what kind of leader Rufus Sewell was, other then he was 'progressive' and was a drunk and got a little rough with women and wanted to get rid of parliament (but that doesn't tell you much). As the film continued, when Edward began to have all those followers and they showed the 'church' scene where the man talked about the soul being infinite and how it was the beginning of the 'spiritual revolution' or something. And finally at the end, prior to Rufus' suicide, during his angered rant, he said "Thousands of people are yelling, but no one is listening, and they are being into the ground by mongrels". First off, I am a Marxist, just so you have an idea as to where I am coming from, regardless, after all of this I began to like Rufus' character more then I did Edward, and thought "hmm..maybe he should over throw his father." Given being cruel and rough with women is one of the worst things ever, but i found worse traits in Edward's character then I did Rufus'. All in all, I felt the bad guy in the film could and maybe should have been the good guy, and Edward should and could've been the bad guy.
you may agree, or disagree...
but there have been and will be far better movies to come out in 2006.
can't we all just go watch The Prestige now?
cheers.
Cpt. Shiner
Active member
Her butt look's asstastic. I've got to see the movie now. Vida Guerra's butt is quite nice as well. I don't mind a small, shapely bottom either, though. I'm all about the shapely firmness.
Paris Hilton's butt is just doo-doo. In fact she's just doo-doo. Do you hear that Paris Hilton? You're doo-doo.
Paris Hilton's butt is just doo-doo. In fact she's just doo-doo. Do you hear that Paris Hilton? You're doo-doo.
Hairy Lime
Well-known member
arhartman.
I think you overlooked the historical context of the "spiritual revolution" scene. That was a time when Empiricism was on the rise and church attendance was on the decline in Europe. Actual evidence of an afterlife or even the concrete existence of the human soul would have revolutionized their view of the world. It would have turned science, religion, and philosophy on their collective heads.
The other purpose of the scene was to demonstrate that people believed the illusions were real, and not simply an elaborate parlor trick. This is what made him dangerous. As long as it was just a topic for discussion at dinner parties he's a curiosity. As soon as the discussion turns to organizations advocating beliefs based on his tricks, the government has a legitimate concern.
But it had nothing to do with the sedation of the masses based on faith alone.
Brave choice being a Marxist after the failed experiment in Eastern Europe. Hope you've got a better solution than pogroms and purges. I lean toward Social Anarchy myself.
And I wouldn't kick Jessica or her ass or her acting ability out of bed or my movie.
I think you overlooked the historical context of the "spiritual revolution" scene. That was a time when Empiricism was on the rise and church attendance was on the decline in Europe. Actual evidence of an afterlife or even the concrete existence of the human soul would have revolutionized their view of the world. It would have turned science, religion, and philosophy on their collective heads.
The other purpose of the scene was to demonstrate that people believed the illusions were real, and not simply an elaborate parlor trick. This is what made him dangerous. As long as it was just a topic for discussion at dinner parties he's a curiosity. As soon as the discussion turns to organizations advocating beliefs based on his tricks, the government has a legitimate concern.
But it had nothing to do with the sedation of the masses based on faith alone.
Brave choice being a Marxist after the failed experiment in Eastern Europe. Hope you've got a better solution than pogroms and purges. I lean toward Social Anarchy myself.
And I wouldn't kick Jessica or her ass or her acting ability out of bed or my movie.
GageFX
Carbonite Member
Hegel said:
What what is?
(That's why I quoted "Karl" above.)
My best friend is a capitalist with socialist and communist ideals. Which means those other two systems are better, but as long as he;'s in a capitalist society he'll go along with it and make money. How nice to be able to work everyday, have nice things and still be able to entertain pie in the sky dreams - no matter how silly they might be.
But, to each his own. He's still my best friend. We just dont talk politics. And I'll read your posts with a new interest in where you are coming from.
As for Vida's butt, that thing is all wrong. And there's nothing firm about it. Now I'm gonna have to dig up the pre-airbrushed photos. That thing's a mess. AND wrong. Even it it were firm, what less to this chaos. If @sses were political parties, Vida's @ss would be Marxism.
-GageFX
Alex DePew
Señor Schmarty Pants
She looks like she has the white version of Serena Williams @ss. I wouldn't have any problems with that! Not sure what political system I would attribute to that @ss. But as for a political movement, expansionism would definitely be appropriate.
ExtremeSleuth
Veteran
just got back from the movie. i really enjoyed it. Paul Giamatti was great as usual. He's blown me away with everything he's done. Edward Norton was good too, but could have been better. Biel, well she's Jessica Biel, eye candy was all IMO. her acting wasn't the greatest... Rufus Sewell was great as the prince. there were a lot of nice shots in the film, and the effects were pretty great too. i liked the look of the film overall, the darkness of most of the scenes, it fit very well.