Review: The Prestige
Filed under: Action, Drama, Thrillers, New Releases, Mystery & Suspense, Disney, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters
.jpg)
"The secret impresses no one," Michael Caine's character reminds his proteges in The Prestige. In other words, you better have something else up your sleeve besides actual "magic" because magic is lousy entertainment. It's cold and impersonal and usually has no dramatic heft. Most magic tricks are performed at a quick pace because the whole thing depends on a moment's misdirection and because if it didn't go by quickly, no one would ever sit for it. Even when it's successful, a magic trick earns nothing but a polite clap. Christopher Nolan should have thought harder about this, because his film has the same deficiencies. All of its energy goes into structure and the concealment of hollow secrets. The film's backbone is an elaborate timeline that moves backwards, splits into two threads and then wobbles forward again, leaving the actors without a leg to stand on. Nolan's much-enjoyed puzzleboard picture Memento had a reason for its structural acrobatics, but The Prestige just wants to challenge the memory and attention of the audience. This isn't a movie, it's a game of Concentration.
Turn of the century London is the setting for a friendly rivalry between two up-and-coming magicians, played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. Jackman sports a west-of-the-Rockies American patter while Bale puts on an Eastend Cockney brogue that probably earned him high-fives from Michael Caine. Jackman's wife, played by where-are-they-now actress Piper Perabo, is killed early on in a scary water-tank trick that goes wrong. When Jackman blames Bale, the rivalry gets un-friendly. Jackman turns up at Bale's bullet-catching show and replaces a stage charge in his pistol with a real bullet. He becomes even more irate when Bale makes a great leap forward in the magic world by coming up with that rarest of things -- an interesting trick. It's a little something called The Transporting Man. He steps into a box on one side of a stage and then instantly re-emerges from an identical box on the other side of the stage. Hmmm...how does he do that? It's not a spoiler to tell you that there's no satisfying answer.
The big question you're probably asking yourself is whether or not The Prestige recognizes a difference between magic and wizardry, and whether it limits itself to the real-world possibilities of the time period and the laws of physics. I won't spill the beans, but I will say that one of the film's key plot points relies on not one, but two out-of-this-world contrivances in order to keep the whole story afloat. If the director was thinking a little more clearly, he could have solved these twin difficulties with more creative casting decisions, but I'll say no more on that score since it won't make sense unless you've seen the film. On the other hand, there is one great piece of casting in the film -- David Bowie as Serbian-American inventor, Nicola Tesla. A real figure from history, Tesla was an enormously influential pioneer of electricity as well as a known occultist. The film sets him up as a mountain-dwelling shaman of spiritual energy and a dark doppelganger of Thomas Edison, who only wants to use electricity for light bulbs. Bo-ring.
Scarlett Johansson, who doesn't seem to fear overexposure despite appearing in every single film released this year, co-stars as a "lovely assistant" type who continually switches loyalties between Jackman and Bale's characters. Andy Serkis, better known as the voice of the CGI-created ring-junkie Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films, also has a minor role as an intimidating Tesla stooge. He's actually quite creepy in the part, and will hopefully get more acting gigs after this. Did Christopher Nolan recognize the wealth of acting talent at his fingertips in this film and decide that it wasn't a priority? I think the answer has to be yes. He continually undercuts the performances of the actors by mismatching their dialogue exchanges with crucial information the audience needs to interpret them, as well as pulling the rug out from under the characters with big revelations, and so on. And yes, I understand that this is Nolan's idea of a genre picture, and he's just tinkering with form, but I think this story would have benefited greatly by being told in a less deliberately fractured way.
At one point in the film, Caine -- is there any actor who is better at dispensing soothing, sage advice? -- reminds the youngsters that continually upping the ante of their magic shows will only attract people "hoping for an accident," but they don't listen. The ante is raised again and again, putting Bale and Jackman on a collision course to see who can be the master of illusion, which sounds like a bigger deal than it is. You have to keep reminding yourself that this story takes place at a time when entertainment choices were slim. The last thing I'll say about the film is that if you want to enjoy it on its own level, disregard the advertising tagline that urges you to "watch closely." I was watching pretty closely right from the beginning, and thirty minutes into it, I wrote down two words in my notebook. "----- Hugh?" I'm leaving the first word out for your benefit, but if I could guess the film's biggest secret so easily (and I could), then it might be a good idea to go out and get popcorn once or twice during the movie.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-20-2006 @ 10:21AM
Seighton said...
This sounds disappointing. I loved the book for it's jumps in time and changing character perspectives, but I don't think a person should have to read a book to enjoy a movie. They should stand on their own seprately. I thought the book's finale was extremely creepy and I hope the movie hits at least some of the high points from the book.
Reply
10-20-2006 @ 1:08PM
headphoneman said...
I went to an advance screening last night and I found the acting performances great. I dont understand the jabs this review takes at the cast, either. Also, deliberately fractured is Nolan's style. I expected and was anticipating such. And loved it.
Reply
10-20-2006 @ 1:10PM
Andrea said...
I really enjoyed this movie. All of the performances were great in my opinion. I defiantly recommend this movie to anyone.
Reply
10-23-2006 @ 7:35PM
Shane said...
I think your comments about magic are sadly mistaken. Have you ever seen a magic show? Not some hung over magician at a children's birthday party, but a professional like Ricky Jay, or Penn and Teller?
I'd be the first to admit that there is a lot of bad magic out there. But stating that all of it is bad entertainment is like saying all movies are bad because you didn't like "Big Mama II". It's ignorant.
Reply
10-20-2006 @ 5:19PM
Anghara said...
"Most magic tricks are performed at a quick pace because the whole thing depends on a moment's misdirection and because if it didn't go by quickly, no one would ever sit for it. Even when it's successful, a magic trick earns nothing but a polite clap."
I beg your pardon? Has this reviewer ever seen something done by a, say, David Copperfield?...(or even a clip of the audience from a show by David Copperfield? Polite clap? If that is a polite clap I would hate to think what the reviewer in question thinks conveys enthusiasm...)
I'm just on my way out of my house to see the movie in question. I have my own expectations of it, and it will stand or fall by those - but they certainly don't hinge on this pseudo-superior sniffy dismissal of the world of stage magic. I know how many of the tricks are done, but there are still things done by apparently ordinary human beings that boggle me - and those will always get more than a polite clap from me.
Reply
10-21-2006 @ 10:10AM
Nick James said...
I haven't read a review I disagreed with this much in a long time, but that's okay. I think the whole movie is about misdirection... basically, the "----- Hugh?" twist is MEANT to be obvious. Nolan wanted you to focus on that, so you missed the real misdirection. The twist at the very final end of the film. Nolan dropped so many clues about Jackman's "twist" that it wasn't supposed to be a twist.
Whether this method of filmmaking is any good or not is up to the individual, but I felt that it suited the film rather well.
Oh, and while it's stupid to call your review "wrong" for your opinion, there is one part where you were, in fact, factually wrong: the afore-mentioned blurb about magic tricks only getting a polite clap.
Siggy & Royboy made all those millions off polite claps? Whurtevar you say.
I loved this movie, and so did the rather large group of friends I went with, which was surprising since some of them have little patience for these kinds of movies. And they still liked it.
It's also one of the few times (at my theater at least), that I hear people outside the film really talking about it.
Usually we do a silent shuffle out the door. But last night I heard a lot of people in the audience talking about it, and saying how they really enjoyed it.
Maybe word of mouth will do wonders for this film.
I want to see it again.
Reply
10-22-2006 @ 1:54PM
Squibner Welch said...
Couldn't agree more! The acting was passable on almost all counts, but the directing *ruined* this movie (along with the to-hell-with-any-form-of-reality plot twists).
Reply
10-23-2006 @ 11:41AM
Inspired said...
This was a fantastic movie and I am looking forward to seeing it again. Yes, you could guess Hugh's character's twist, but did you know Bale's? No one did. Excellent movie, fantastic acting, Nolan is a genius. Looking forward to 'The Dark Knight.'
Reply
10-23-2006 @ 4:24PM
Ryan Sanders said...
From one Ryan to another, i couldn't agree more. Something didn't sit right about this film, whether it was the acting or the over-complicated, easily identifiable 'twists', i just prefered the Illusionist far more.
Reply
10-24-2006 @ 3:51AM
Noel Vera said...
Maybe a polite clap is a bit much but I don't consider David Copperfield magic; more like Vegas (same with Sig and Roy). Ricky Jay, now that's real magic, and yes, he does it with consummate speed and skill.
Reply
11-01-2006 @ 10:16PM
Jon B said...
I recently saw this movie and found it quite enjoyable. I realized the secrets to the two tricks, both Bale's and Jackman's, before the movie was over but the movie still held me captivated. I really enjoyed the presentation of the movie, but I suppose many may disagree with me there. If you don't like magic and for some reason decide to go see this movie anyways you should probably not focus on the magic, but with the total obsession the two main characters had with it. That's what really drew me into the movie.
Reply
12-14-2006 @ 11:47AM
La-di-dah said...
I loved this movie - goes on one of my "favorite" lists. I found it was less magic and more tragedy of human nature; I found it unique; I found the Nolan brothers do the time twisting and jumping well; I love them. And I love the leads - especially Bale. Strong movie, story, directing, acting, etc. I do not understand when some people don't understand great movies like this when there are so many bad ones out there, but oh well...I throw my hands in the air.
Reply
1-09-2007 @ 7:27AM
John Browner said...
"The Prestige just wants to challenge the memory and attention of the audience." If the simple and easily-followed timeline of this movie was so challenging to this reviewer, he ought to turn his attention to burger-flipping or some other suitable line of work. One reason American film criticism is so laughed at by the rest of the world is its persistence in seeing intellectual challenge in films as something negative. The joke here is that this film is merely gripping and entertaining; Bergman it ain't. The long tradition of anti-intellectualism in American life lives on in most of our film critics. This guy is a particularly embarrassing example of the genus.
Reply