THE ILLUSIONIST: Seeing is believing - or is it?

THE ILLUSIONIST will have you doubting the evidence of your own eyes. Only too late will you realise that nothing is what it seems to be; that no one is to be trusted, and everything must be questioned.

This is a film that requires a second viewing to really get to grips with the story. The first time around you’ll find yourself to be little more than a passenger on a brightly coloured ride that is entrancing and engaging but moving so quickly that it gives no time to properly absorb all that you are seeing.

Set in Vienna in the late 1800s, the film stars Edward Norton as Eisenheim the Illusionist. He is the David Copperfield of his day, and his stage show is the hottest ticket in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He can make a human soul appear, he can separate a person from their reflection in the mirror, and he can grow an orange tree from a pip in seconds flat. To call them mere magic tricks is to grossly belittle his talent.

These breathtaking illusions attract the attention of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), heir to the throne and engaged to be married to Sophie, the Duchess von Teschen, played by a cast against type Jessica Biel. She just happens to be Eisenheim’s long lost childhood sweetheart, and they resume their romance, unaware that they are being spied on by Chief Inspector Walter Uhl (Paul Giamatti).

He reports everything he sees to the Crown Prince. Leopold is a man used to getting what he wants and orders the Chief Inspector to destroy Eisenheim. But Uhl wavers in the task, torn between his duty to his political patron and his fascination for Eisenheim’s illusions. A battle of wills develops between the three men which leads to murder and a shocking revenge.

THE ILLUSIONIST is a beautiful looking film. Every frame is infused with a golden glow, giving it the feel of one of those big budget hand-tinted silent movie spectaculars that Hollywood used to turn out in the 1920s. This glow washes over the wonderfully preserved buildings and streets of Prague (standing in for 1890s Vienna) to give the story an impressively authentic feel.

The beauty of the visuals is complemented by an understated yet classy music soundtrack, written by renowned composer Philip Glass.

This film’s other two big plus points are its stars. Edward Norton is the Robert de Niro of his

generation. He is a similarly chameleon-like actor, immersing himself completely in the part of Eisenheim, while Giamatti is undoubtedly one of Hollywood’s most talented character stars. This is certainly not the best film either of them has ever appeared in, but it is a much better movie because of their presence in it.

THE ILLUSIONIST has a lot going for it but, unfortunately, the sum of the parts does not add up to a satisfying whole. While the ambiguity in the story is acceptable – are we really seeing what we think we are seeing? – the implausibility of the plot is harder to swallow. Much of this is masked on first viewing by the speed at which the story unfolds, but even then chances are that you will be left with a faint feeling of dissatisfaction that you can’t quite put your finger on.

Ultimately, THE ILLUSIONIST’s most effective illusion is the movie itself. By lavishing so much attention on the look of the film, Director Neil Burger has created a story that appears to be more entertaining and carefully constructed than it actually is. THE ILLUSIONIST is certainly not a bad film, but if more care had been paid to the content of the story it could have been a so much more satisfying a viewing experience.

STONE: like a rock - only much less interesting

If only STONE could have figured out what it wanted to be it might have been a halfway decent movie, but as it is it's a mish-mash of genres which never coalesce into anything approaching a satisfying whole.

As parole officer Jack Mabry, Robert De Niro gives what could have been an interesting performance if only he'd succeeded in breaking out of the metaphorical straitjacket he's wrapped his character in. Just weeks from retirement Mabry allows himself to be seduced and set up by the scheming wife (Milla Jovovich) of a convict (Edward Norton) whose case he is handling.
Norton and Jovovich prove considerably more successful in setting up Mabry than director John Curran does in setting up the plot. He can't decide if he wants it to be a thriller or a drama or a psychological drama/thriller or even simply coherent. If his intention was to confound our expectations he succeeds, but not for the reasons he intended. STONE confused me because it doesn't go anywhere logical, rational or even interesting but instead wanders around aimlessly, trying on different genre hats but never managing to settle on any one of them.
By the time we reach the grand anti-climax and the whole sorry mess finally skulks away I couldn't have cared less about anyone or anything. It's disappointing to see De Niro again settling for considerably less than his best, but after 'Little Fockers', 'Everybody's Fine', 'Righteous Kill'. 'Hide and Seek' and 'Meet the Fockers' I'm surprised I'm still surprised.