I can’t really discuss the film without spoilers, so hit the jump for the details.

I hate a movie review that complains about the film based on preconceived notions. Borat fell victim to this as a few reviews criticized it as not providing enough of the biting social satire they were expecting. I might have committed this myself when viewing the Illusionist. I expected the magic to be simply that, the illusion of the fantastic. When the film went another way and hinted that its magic was real, I shifted uncomfortably in my seat. I wrestled with it briefly, decided to suspend my disbelief a bit more and got right back into the film.

The film lost me when it tried to have it both ways. Clearly the impossible is being done throughout the movie and it relies heavily on a mysticism it never explains nor leads you to believe it should. If it were left at that, the ending would be puzzling yet satisfying. Although bittersweet, Eisenheim got his revenge. The final reveal, however, is that it was never mysticism at all, but a grand, elaborate trick perpetrated on all involved, the audience included. We’re left to just believe that Eisenheim was good enough to pull off these illusions that could not be achieved in our own age, let alone his. This is not helped at all by the fact that the tricks were achieved through the use of CG and not in reality. “The Orange Tree” is clearly CG but the end of the film would lead us to believe it was not. Inspector Uhl receives the blueprints for the trick which is supposed to convince us that all of it was achievable by elaborate but practical means. Why not, then, astound us with an actual magic trick, one that could be accomplished without the use of CG? Wouldn’t that lend weight to the impossible feats performed later when they’re revealed to be just another trick?

Ultimately, this ruined an otherwise entertaining film for me. I’m more than willing to go along for the ride, and I’m certainly not one to dismiss an ambiguous ending (I can’t say as much for my wife), but this film asked me to fall a bit too far for what it was trying to pull.

A couple of other notes:

• Paul Giamatti delivers another stellar performance in a movie that asks a lot from him. It’s ridiculous how talented the man is.
• Adam on Filmspotting noted in his review of this film (4/5) that it is filmed as if it is a silent movie. When the film began I saw his point exactly. Then, suddenly, it disappears, only to strangely appear again at the end. Perhaps I’m associating it too strongly with the shadowy edges and flickering picture that is employed in the flashback and again at the reveal. Was it there the whole time? If so, it didn’t stand out during the main part of the story.

Update: Having listened to the review again,  Adam claims that the entire movie is filmed as a silent movie and could easily have its dialogue removed and still have the same impact. I don’t disagree that it had a silent film aesthetic but I don’t think I can agree that it succeeded in capturing the lack of dependency on dialogue of a silent film.