|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Oct 23, 2006 7:32:27 GMT -5
So I went and saw this movie with some friends last night... and I must say, it was positively absolutely fantabulous. I haven't seen "The Illusionist" yet, but I've been hearing that this one is infinitely better. And I don't see why not. (I mean, hello, this movie has Michael Caine in it. You don't go wrong with Michael Caine.)
Anyone else's thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahbot on Oct 23, 2006 8:57:05 GMT -5
I really, really want to see this. Sadly, I need to get paid first (that darn capitalism at work again!). But I'm going to see it ASAP. I think I've said here before that when I first saw the trailer I got so excited I read the book straight away, and I really recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Oct 23, 2006 11:30:55 GMT -5
Lady Luck and I saw it last night and both really enjoyed it... I was actually about to start a thread if there wasn't one already. Won't give away the ending (or "the prestige" as I called it, causing my wife to roll her eyes right out of her head), but it's like the Sixth Sense in that you see where they're going with it a few minutes before they reveal it, but it's still horrifying when the big reveal happens.
Thought it was really well acted, and both the writers and the actors did a great job of making you feel that Hugh Jackman's obsession had to a certain extent destroyed both his and Christian Bale's lives. My wife and I disagreed in that I was mostly rooting for Jackman the majority of the movie, while she thought his actions early on had branded him as pretty much irredeemable. (Probably helped that I find Christian Bale's face inherently sinister looking, even as Batman, though I'm told by my wife that "sinister" is actually "sexy.") But despite there being some cliched elements, I think the strength of the story and the acting overcame them. Very impressed.
For those who've seen the movie, Lady Luck and I couldn't agree... when do you think Michael Cain knew the truth about Christian Bale? From the beginning, or did he learn later?
Oh yeah, and Jackman managed to get himself shirtless yet AGAIN, in case any ladies out there were on the fence about seeing it.
-D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Oct 23, 2006 13:52:49 GMT -5
It's hard to say about Michael Caine's character... but I think that he knew by the time Hugh Jackman came to him about figuring out Christian Bale's trick. (Argh... it's hard to discuss without giving anything away!) SPOILERS (highlight): I mean, think about it. Cutter told Angier that it was nothing more than a double in Borden's trick. He at least knew that it was deceptively simple, and I personally think that he knew that Borden had a twin/double/whatever (I didn't quite pick up on that specific).I definitely want to see this movie again... and it's likely, as I'm another crazy college kid with nothing to do but go see movies multiple times. Well, a crazy college kid with crazy college friends who can drive to the theater.  And it's well worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Oct 23, 2006 19:49:30 GMT -5
SPOILERS (highlight): I mean, think about it. Cutter told Angier that it was nothing more than a double in Borden's trick. He at least knew that it was deceptively simple, and I personally think that he knew that Borden had a twin/double/whatever (I didn't quite pick up on that specific).I definitely want to see this movie again... and it's likely, as I'm another crazy college kid with nothing to do but go see movies multiple times. Well, a crazy college kid with crazy college friends who can drive to the theater. And it's well worth it. Yeah, the wife and I both agreed we want to see it again when it's released on DVD. -D |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Oct 25, 2006 17:19:52 GMT -5
Saw it today and, wow. Great movie. Great Excellent cast. Just to get the non-needs-to-be-highlighted part out of the way... Hugh Jackman with no shirt = Good Christian Bale with shirt = Boo Michael Caine with shirt = ...Probably a good call. I'm going to say 1) Cutter knew from the start. Didn't he say that he had recruited Borden himself? And he knew that it was a double. 2) Cutter didn't turn in the twin because it (the supposed murder) would've been impossible as a two man job since the stage would've been set up just before the trick and the only way twin A got backstage was by disguise. Or maybe he didn't think twin B would've done it, but twin A would. Remember the one who gets hanged has a temper and was the one who tied the dangerous knot on Mrs. Angier (not on purpose, but it shows a recklessness towards human life).
What I don't get is why no one said anything about how Borden obviously tried to get Angier out.
I guess I was rooting for the twin who loved Sarah (I figured it out early on) and Angier (mostly at the beginning).I say as far as rewatchability goes, it's kind of like The Game. You watch it the first time trying to figure out the twists. You watch it over and over to pick up the details and figure where the switches are. I came out of there really wanting to watch it again. Best movie I've seen in a theater this year... Though I admit haven't been able to go much.  |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Oct 26, 2006 12:29:29 GMT -5
I just remembered this this morning and have been thinking about it all day:
When Sarah tells Borden she's pregnant, that's the other twin. He's says "Oh we should've told Fallon!" and later she says he doesn't love her that day.
That's so sad. I mean, a lot of the movie is sad, but that just hits me as being really sad. That that twin heard the news first and the other twin didn't hear until whenever they switched again. Sacrifice indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Nov 11, 2006 20:41:17 GMT -5
My wife and I saw it tonight (finally). Wow. Excellent. It was slow, particularly in the beginning when you don't have much to go on and you KNOW you're being fooled, but I give big applause to a film that keeps all of its secrets hidden in plain sight until it chooses to reveal them.
Spoilers, yadda yadda:
I really didn't care much for either of Bale's characters, but he does come across as far more sympathetic in the end. This is a movie that NEEDS to be seen more than once to catch all the nuances.
I found myself far more interested with the actual "magic" trick and how Jackman works that out. I could see how some people would consider such a sci-fi twist as a cheat in this film, but I loved it. How it mirrors the dove trick was clever. The movie played merry havoc with our preconceptions early on, then twisted them brutally.
I only saw a couple things coming, and while I knew I should be watching Bale's assistant more closely, I couldn't figure out why until the end. I thought the fact that you never quite hear his voice as some essential clue.
|
|
eatmyshorts
Ghostbuster
"Do you like-a-da Fat Boys?"
Posts: 536
|
Post by eatmyshorts on Nov 28, 2006 15:58:02 GMT -5
Awesome movie! Much MUCH better than The Illusionist.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Mar 1, 2007 12:34:49 GMT -5
Arise, O long dead thread!
I modified Drew's post at the top just so the SPOILER warning was on the thread title. Who has time to darken their text?
I saw this last night for the first time. I was very impressed and pleased with the movie, but I do have to disagree with something Justin said. The sci-fi twist at the end, that Tesla's machine clones whatever's in it, is pretty silly.
Look at it this way. There's a point in the movie where Tesla's machine demonstration appears to conjure extra top hats and cats in the woods behind his house. Okay. So the audience is left with a choice: is Tesla conning Angier, or does the machine ACTUALLY work this way?
Given that the entire first half of the movie is based in practical magic (ie. it's based on mechanical tricks, trapdoors, body doubles, etc) it seems a very, very strange turn to suddenly introduce a piece of equipment that has no foundation in reality.
The Illusionist (Spoilers), in contrast, dealt with magic that seemed to be utterly fantastic but was either revealed or hinted as cleverly disguised science. The story of The Illusionist is therefore a stretch but plausible, whereas the story of The Prestige suddenly becomes literally impossible after taking great pains to establish itself as representative of practicality in magic. One movie starts with the fantastic and finally shows it to be illusory, while the other starts with practicality and then starts adding incredibly unlikely fantasy and coincidences (I mean, BOTH Angier and Borden have twins? That's nuts!)I don't know why this bothers me so... maybe because I have a magician in the family? (No really, I do!)
At any rate, when I realized when I had the decision to make (do I accept the machine's properties or not?), I figured out the "drowning the double" thing right away. That's a dark, dark thing. It makes Cutter's late admission to Angier (that drowning was described to him as "agony", not at all like coming home) doubly poignant. He reminds him not only of the evil act he's committing (creating copies of himself only to murder them) but of the suffering his wife endured to begin with. I thought the dramatic effects of this justified the fantasy of the machine, so I can still be happy with the movie.
So the movie, aside from its fantastic reach, is really quite something. I enjoyed Angier's double (Root?) as a foppish drunk, and I figured out Fallon's secret a while before it was revealed. Michael Caine was solid as always, and David Bowie's (almost cameo) role as Tesla, plus Andy Serkis in all his un-CGI'ed glory were fun.
I'm actually leaning towards The Illusionist as the better movie on the strengths of Paul Giamatti's performance in that one, but these are both really, really good flicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Mar 1, 2007 13:46:34 GMT -5
See, I have no problem with introducing real magic/scifi into the mix. I mean, why not? I figure the movie is, of course, all about defeating expectations and slight of hand. The audience expectation was that the "scifi" trick was only an illusion, but that was reversed. I liked it because it dared to go there, even though they must've known some people -- like you -- would have thought it outside of the rules of the game.
It also reinforced the theme of the movie, which was that stage magic isn't magic at all, but a cheap trick. Both magicians end up using "cheap tricks" to con their audience and us -- a twin and a scifi machine.
But I suppose it's a highly subjective thing whether it works or not for you, and if it doesn't, there goes the film.
On a slightly different note, doesn't the guy drown himself every time? I mean, the machine makes a clone, but it sends the clone to the new location. The original stays put. So when he's on stage, he creates a clone of himself, kills himself, and the clone lives on -- to kill itself the next night, making a new clone. So by the end, he's long since been dead... right? Or did I miss something there?
|
|
|
|
Post by kylerexpop on Mar 1, 2007 14:08:17 GMT -5
i finally rented it and i'm with poolman: i enjoyed it, but i was underwhelmed. the whole movie would work remarkably better without the enormously convoluted science fiction twist, but i was more interested in the acting and the obsessive and self-destructive one-up-manship between jackman and bale's characters than the actual prestige(s).
it did try and shoot for the moon, so i appreciated its attempt. i'd like to try to watch again to reach a final verdict on it, but i know it'll be a while before i'm willing to sit through it again.
sadly, reading the peter straub novel 'shadowland' back in high school really spanked me emotionally regarding (stage) magicians, and i wonder if i've ever recovered? hmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Mar 1, 2007 14:10:28 GMT -5
On a slightly different note, doesn't the guy drown himself every time? I mean, the machine makes a clone, but it sends the clone to the new location. The original stays put. So when he's on stage, he creates a clone of himself, kills himself, and the clone lives on -- to kill itself the next night, making a new clone. So by the end, he's long since been dead... right? Or did I miss something there? If I understand your question right, they never really answer that. At the end of the movie Hugh Jackman's character says something like he was afraid every time because he's not sure if he's the one that survives or the one in the tank. Also when they flashback to the first time he uses the machine, both versions of himself have the same memories and thoughts. They both know 1 is going to shoot 2 before he reaches for the gun. So if he has the same mind has he really been dead the whole time? While I loved Paul Giamatti in The Illusionist, and definitely found it worth the watch, The Prestige just worked for me better as a whole. The Illusionist was more good guys vs bad guy driven, while The Prestige was more characters' personalities driven. Plus I have bias on which one had more of the actors I like. |
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Mar 1, 2007 15:55:27 GMT -5
I agree with StarOpal's explanation. Inititally I assumed the gun was there in case the machine disfigured him (he makes a comment about how he didn't "want to end up that way"), but when the clone immediately objects and starts to say he's the REAL Angier, we get the idea of what the gun's really for.
In a sense, too, he may be paying penance for his wife's death by recreating himself only to drown 100 times. (which reminds me: why WAS the 100 show limit important? Borden asks the question of Fallon directly, but we never get a real reply... maybe that's the limit of the storage capacity of dead Angiers below the stage?) Which I think is a testament to the character, and makes some bold dramatic statements.
But then you have all this weirdness that the twin thing AND the sci fi elements introduce. For instance, if Borden/Fallon each love different women, why would they want to switch places anywhere but the stage? Wouldn't it make sense for Fallon to tell Olivia that he's left Sarah and just live with her full time, instead of trying to constantly fool Sarah into thinking he's "her" Borden? Doesn't make sense to me. You could still split their time up exactly the same, just don't send Fallon to fill Borden's shoes with his wife, or vice versa.
And if you've gotten your hands on a machine that perfectly duplicates living people, right down to their life experiences, why oh WHY would you keep every version of yourself that you've killed in a public space? Granted the theater is private property and Angier went and got blind stagehands (that must be useful...), but anybody could have found the doubles.
Still, for all this, I really did like the movie, for the same reasons Kyle did. The self destructive tendencies of both men is appalling to watch, but incredible. I just didn't like the way the rules were broken at the end.
Oh, and I wanted to know how the Chinese guy did the goldfish trick!
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahbot on Mar 1, 2007 16:33:06 GMT -5
PoolMan, I think the reason the twins don't do exactly that is clearer in the novel. They've been living as one man for so long that it's almost inconceivable that they do something different. They're essentially just one person, so much so that they almost don't know who's done what.
And I thought Root was terrific. He actually looked a little different . . . I get a laugh out of this sort of thing all the time.
|
|
And it's well worth it.
