The Illusionist review

 Number 657 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 romantic mystery film 'The Illusionist.'

Set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, Eisenhelm (Edward Norton) is a well-renowned magician and illusionist who was separated from his love Sophie (Jessica Biel) when they were only teenagers. Now adults, he discovers she is betrothed to Crown-prince Leopold, (Rufus Sewell) heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. He starts plotting to win her back all while he is being pursued by Leopold's chief of police Walter Uhl (Paul Giamatti.)

For a romance film, I thought the romance element was surprisingly weak. Even as teenagers, I don't think Eisenhelm and Sophie had much chemistry. And this was only exemplified when the two grew up. There was a severe lack of chemistry between Norton and Biel. I didn't really believe either of them being together. And considering the film is a romance, that was a major problem. Their performances weren't convincing at all. It was boring to watch. Thankfully, the film didn't linger on the tepid romance.

Instead, it focussed on the cat-and-mouse game between Leopold and Eisenhelm. This was far more interesting. When Leopold hears of Eisenhelm's prowess, he invites him to perform at the royal palace. But when Eisenhelm discovers that the animalistic Leopold is betrothed to Sophie, the illusionist humiliates the crown prince in front of all his peers. This kicks us off a bitter rivalry between the two, as Eisenhelm and Sophie plot to leave the country.

Sewell was convincing as the spoiled, petulant prince who was always determined to have his way. He was a dangerous villain and the perfect foil to Eisenhelm's outspoken arrogance. But I think the best actor was Paul Giamatti in the supporting role of Chief Inspector Walter Uhl. Initially, starting out as an unwitting pawn of Leopold's plans, he finds himself questioning everything as Leopold becomes increasingly more unstable. Giamatti played this fine balancing act with finesse.

Also despite being about magic, I wasn't convinced about any of the magic tricks shown within the film. Compared to other films like the Prestige, the magic wasn't very impressive at all. It certainly wasn't what I would expect from a well-renowned illusionist like Eisenhelm.

Overall, while it had some good performances, the Illusionist was a largely uneven watch with an extremely weak romance. And considering the film IS a romance, that isn't the best.

Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good.