|
Post by etherealtb on Apr 5, 2007 16:22:26 GMT
Well, I finally got to see this movie last night. Fascinating movie, but much less Rufus than I was hoping for, although he's great in the little screen time he gets. I kinda liked that look on him too.
You know, I remember hearing a lot of people comparing The Illusionist and The Prestige. But after finally seeing both, they have absolutely NOTHING in common other than having lead characters who are magicians and touching on the theme of what is real and what isn't. IMHO, these are two completely different films and I liked them both very much for very different reasons. (Comparing them to me would be the old apple vs. orange thing.) It reminds me of how Hope and Glory and Empire of the Sun were compared against each other years ago, just because they were both about young boys in WWII and they were NOTHING alike otherwise (one being a comedy, the other the polar opposite.)
***SPOILER WARNING***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Did anyone else feel kinda bad for the crown prince, that he got tricked into killing himself and all? I mean, he wasn't the nicest guy, but did he really deserve that? In his case, it didn't seem to that the punishmet fit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 5, 2007 16:39:34 GMT
LOL! I think you've forgotten where you are. I think we ALL felt sorry for Leopold. I thought the story was outrageous, personally. They used Leopold and when he killed himself they danced on his grave, so to speak. And no one seemed to see a thing wrong in it.
Kind of makes me long for the 40's when they would have been punished good and proper for their ill behavior.
|
|
|
Post by etherealtb on Apr 5, 2007 17:06:59 GMT
LOL! I think you've forgotten where you are. I think we ALL felt sorry for Leopold. I thought the story was outrageous, personally. They used Leopold and when he killed himself they danced on his grave, so to speak. And no one seemed to see a thing wrong in it. Yeah, like I said, he wasn't the nicest guy on the planet, but it did bother me that there was no comment about their actions towards him being excessive. SERIOUSLY!!!
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 5, 2007 17:16:07 GMT
Based on what? The fact that he slapped whatshername? If you are telling me someone is reprehensible enough that they deserve to die I'd like to see it. Leopold was a bit unbalanced but bad? I didn't see it. I know Eddie Marsans character indulged in a bit of gossip but we saw absolutely no evidence that Leopold was a horror.
I have this problem with films often. They tell me something they should show me because it's a key plot point. We've already chewed this to death but I think this was so poorly written for such a simple story as to be almost incomprehensible. But that's just me. I also think JK Rowling is a horrible writer.
|
|
|
Post by etherealtb on Apr 5, 2007 17:28:25 GMT
Based on what? The fact that he slapped whatshername? If you are telling me someone is reprehensible enough that they deserve to die I'd like to see it. Leopold was a bit unbalanced but bad? I didn't see it. I know Eddie Marsans character indulged in a bit of gossip but we saw absolutely no evidence that Leopold was a horror. No, no! I was saying I thought Leopold's "punishment" extremely excessive. I mean the worst that could be said about him was that he was an arrogant bully who was trying to usurp the throne, but I doubt that the punishment for that would have been death. Which was my point in the first place, that it bothered me that no one commented on it. I mean, even if they'd said something like, "We didn't think he'd kill himself" it would have been better than nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ambra on Jan 27, 2009 9:26:48 GMT
I just finished watching this movie and man, does Rufus make a great bad guy! I do agree his killing himself and no one seeming to care about that was a bit much. I'm sure the intention would've been to simply have him removed from a position of power so he couldn't follow Eisenhiem and Sophie. I'm not one for showing violence against women, but I think if there had been more than just a back-handed swipe at Sophie, it might have made me feel like he deserved what he got.
This film also made me realize what makes Rufus such a great actor. He becomes the character so fully that as a viewer, I see him as that character rather than Rufus playing the character, if that makes any sense. One of the reasons I don't care for Tom Cruise and other "actors" who have become more about image than substance is because everytime I see them in something I can't get past the "that's so and so playing such and such" because they can't transcend that celebrity persona to become the character. I wish Rufus all the success that life brings him and no matter how famous he becomes, his talent will always allow him to become the character, not just be a character.
This is OT, but does anyone else think Rufus would make an absolutely fantastic Bond villian? Not that I want him to get typecast as a baddie but I think he and Daniel Craig would have great screen chemistry!
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jan 27, 2009 12:00:03 GMT
i so agree with you. i tend to be a very gullible movie audience, as you may have noticed! i easily "swallow the pill" the movie makers want me to swallow. but this is insane. i so totally understand what you say about tom cruise forever playing tom cruise. some actors can bring this to an art - cary grant comes to mind - but cruise, not so much. and the same goes for so many celebs who can no longer make me swallow the pill. rufus has me going where he wants to. even when he is not at his best, i want to follow, because the story in his head is so fascinating. am i making any sense? rufus - daniel craig? yum. i shudder. but right now i am going through the rufus baddie roles, so thanks, but no thanks, or else i might end up being a very bad girl!! i want another petrucchio. i want another seth starkadder. i like rufus' stories that he tells, but now i would like him to tell us a great big joke.
|
|
|
Post by lizap on Jan 27, 2009 16:57:30 GMT
I've just watched this for the first time, and of course must now go back and view Rufus' performance in light of the truth (I am also completely gullible as a film viewer and bought the ruse hook, line and sinker). Although there was one moment at the end, when he's talking to the Giamatti character and saying 'it's all an illusion, they must have planted the jewels', that my heart really leapt to believe him; but it was immediately quashed by the image of the 'wounded' Duchhess on her hourse and the thought, 'but we know he killed her'.
I'm not sure how much my affront at the moral vacuity here has to do with the fact that it was Rufus' character who was the victim of the deception. I'm finding it hard to believe that the filmmakers presented it this way; how shallow do they think the film audience is? (No, don't tell me.)
Are we supposed to be amused at the notion that they cleverly framed someone, albeit someone with a nasty streak, for a murder he didn't commit? Are we supposed to accept the idea that they would go happily on their way without any pangs of conscience? If so, then they must be seen as the villains of the piece, so self-absorbed and mutually-enchanted that they can't discern right from wrong. And what if Leopold hadn't shot himself? Are we to assume they would enjoy their supper each night as they laugh about him languishing unjustly in prison?
Or perhaps the other murder alluded to (Leopold said to have thrown someone off a balcony) is supposed to make it all alright?
Or maybe I'm not giving the filmmakers enough credit, and they intended all along to portray Eisenheim and the Duchess as dangerous sociopaths concerned only with their own welfare and happiness. The Norton performance is blank enough that almost any conception could be imprinted upon it.
Perhaps listening to the commentary will shed some light.
edit
An afterthought: how is this even supposed to work if the Duchess' family has no body to bury? Are they supposedly in on the 'joke'?
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jan 27, 2009 17:07:28 GMT
before i commet i will have to see it again. another villain ***sigh*** i remember reacting to the movie for its artistic merits (the images were so gorgeous on a big screen) and for the intelligence in the screenplay. and i also remember having problem with the leopold's fate. might have been on the moral level, i cnat remember. i cannot say that i was very touched by the character played by norton, who is very hard to believe, imho, as a romantic lead anyway, but i remember being surprised by jessica whatshername, who was much better than i thought.
|
|
|
Post by ambra on Jan 27, 2009 21:40:46 GMT
And what about the innocent man that was arrested, pleaded guilty, and went to prison for the crime? That disturbs me more than Leopold's fate because you can accurately assume that the poor man didn't just up and confess to the crime. Who knows what the police did to get him to confess. For the murder of an aristocrat, he was probably subjected to some very horrific treatment by the police and by the prison guards.
|
|
|
Post by lizap on Jan 27, 2009 23:37:21 GMT
Yes, good point ambra; I'd completely forgotten about that poor soul.
So I've re-watched it and listened to the commentary. I have to say the Prince was fairly despicable, but that doesn't justify framing him for murder and driving him to suicide.
Now according to the director, we're not meant to take Uhle's final musings as the truth. In fact, we're never really supposed to know what is true throughout the entire movie. So there are two unappealing options: either the Prince really did murder the Duchess and his end was fitting but the lovers can never be together, or the Duchess was never murdered and she, Eisenheim and Uhle are amoral creeps. I would have to say that the worst thing, on second viewing, is Uhle's reaction at the end. That he would stand there laughing in delight at the cleverness of a ruse even though he believed it was responsible for driving someone to take their life is just awful, I think.
Then there are the plot inconsistencies: Eisenheim apparently stole the planted jewels before the plot to fake the murder was conceived; there is no body of a dead duchess, and the question of what the Prince was supposed to have done/thought when he awoke from his drugged/drunken stupor in the barn next to a bloody sword. Are we supposed to think that he also believed he had killed the Duchess?
(That was funny, though, about Rufus breaking the antique chair, which the director said cost 'a fortune' to replace.)
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Feb 1, 2009 16:23:08 GMT
ok, so i watched this movie again last night (another bout of insomnia) and i stay on my previous impression that there is nothing sexy at all about this rufus role, so he played it remarkably well. made my blood curdle once more. it was not as much about what he did m than what you knew he was able to do. there was always some kid of threat in his eyes, or in the way he actoed with other people,. creepy guy, all the way. suicide, a bit much, but honour ran high in these people's value system. the story was much less gripping on second viewing. so i admired the beautiful images.
|
|
|
Post by peach on Feb 1, 2009 23:25:58 GMT
This came out the same time as The Prestige, a week apart I believe. Loved the look of the film and the score was perfect for the feel of it. Norton was ok, his voice kinda bothers me though, a little high pitched for me. Ruf was scary as hell, very short fuse. It all comes back to his reactions and that steely gaze in his eyes. Notice any film that you will see of him, his hands are always doing something, always subtle, but never forced just very natural.
|
|
|
Post by Vittoria on Feb 2, 2009 5:52:57 GMT
LOL! I think you've forgotten where you are. I think we ALL felt sorry for Leopold. I thought the story was outrageous, personally. They used Leopold and when he killed himself they danced on his grave, so to speak. And no one seemed to see a thing wrong in it. Well, today I rented it via Video on Demand through the digital cable and saw it for the second time. First time, I remembered a rather dark character with amazing bone structure and eyes. Now I am aware of Rufus and gave the movie a second look, and decided to focus on Rufus' character. I totally agree with you. Who in hell watches a man shoot himself in the head and then not long after is laughing at anything let alone a grand illusion? It's appalling really. Playing devil's advocate here, I saw his character as explosive and unpredictable, yet passion can also be a great thing when directed in other manners. I love passion and appreciate a certain dark side in men and found his character to be very appealing in a way, whereas Norton might as well have been a mannequin in a store window for all the charisma he lacked throughout the film. The man had no "presence" whatsover and his character was drab, whereas Rufus could play it cool and refined or so explosive that he was on fire. The breadth of emotion in Rufus is impressive. I really see it and hear it in his reading of the poem in 9/11 Out of the Blue also. It was terrible to put an innocent man in jail and Leopold's motives were not good and kind in general. As for wanting to marry a woman for political gain, that is just the way it is in monarchy, isn't it? Unfortunate but true. If I were Biel's character, I'm not sure what I would have done, but I must say that a dark character such as Leopold would be a temptation as I am attracted to passionate men and I could learn to love him and stand by his side and act appropriately. Sophie was acting very unbecomingly if I do say so. If she were not interested in him truely, she ought not have been with him and taken it as far as she had let alone be sleeping around behind his back. Leopold was rightly embarrassed by her behaviour and rightly downright insulted. Although "true love" stories can be very sentimentallly warming, this woman was overall not good and indeed was less forthcoming about her intentions than Leopold was. He made his intentions very clear, no matter how sinister they may have been and it was clear that he took her to himself even though she was not particularly suitable to produce an heir in his opinion, due to her age. Overall, the movie was good, but I also agree with other posts here that there was no chemistry between the characters -nor the actors portraying them- between Norton and Biel. Rufus was outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by sunshineprincess78 on Mar 1, 2009 23:57:47 GMT
This was the first movie I ever owned with Roof in it but at the time, I didn't know who Rufus Sewell was until I started watching Eleventh Hour, reading up on him and realizing I had this movie.
As I stated in another thread, he plays evil well.
I've always been a fan of magic and mystery. After watching this movie a second time, I came to love, except the end scene when Roof's Leopold shoots himself in the head. I cry. I must be damaged to cry when a villian kills himself.
|
|