TonyWilson wrote:WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK??????????
This is on general release but isn't playing in Derby!!!!!!! Fucking shit wank crap bollocks twat fuck shit shit fuck crap. I HATE THIS FUCKING BACKWATER TOWN AAAAAAARGH.
TonyWilson wrote:WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK??????????
This is on general release but isn't playing in Derby!!!!!!! Fucking shit wank crap bollocks twat fuck shit shit fuck crap. I HATE THIS FUCKING BACKWATER TOWN AAAAAAARGH.
cheapest4 wrote:Can someone tell me why the machine makes things appear in different places - hats, cats, first jackman and then he appears in the same place eveytime when actually doing the trick? - It doesn't make sense.
cheapest4 wrote:
Can someone tell me why the machine makes things appear in different places - hats, cats, first jackman and then he appears in the same place everytime when actually doing the trick? - It doesn't make sense.
Fried Gold wrote:SPOILERAGE - - - - -- - Were Fallon/Borden twins? I came away thinking that Borden had used a Tesla device once and made a duplicate but not reacted in the same way as Angiers. But now I appear to have been wrong.cheapest4 wrote:
Can someone tell me why the machine makes things appear in different places - hats, cats, first jackman and then he appears in the same place everytime when actually doing the trick? - It doesn't make sense.
He was a bit ahead of his time was ol'Tesla. Some of his more theoretical ideas seemed like science fiction at the time, but were later re-conceived and developed by others into theories such as particle-wave duality and quantum mechanics.
Whether or not Tesla actually thought up an idea like the machine in the film, it appears could be an attempt to convert the matter of the hat/car/jackman into electrical energy and back again.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:HOw farking brilliant was The Prestige?!!?!?!?!?!??!
Man what an excellent movie!!!! Thouroughly satisfying. I dunno if I expected it to be that good. I love the way that the movie was twisting all the time, always bringing up mysteries and had you asking questions on the edge of your seat all the way to the very end. Mostly I love the way that the twists always ended up with both lead characters outdoing and beating the other, even when you thought the fight was finally over. An intelligent movie, one that I loved trying to work the puzzle out of, whilst still keeping up with the developments as they continued to unfold, it was so enjoyable giving my brain a good work out trying to unlock the secrets in my own head. The final twist I sort of half suggested vaguely to myself earlier in the film, I doubt I would have concluded with this though, so it was still a suprise to have it revealed in the climax.
Great performances all round, Christian Bale's accent I accepted fairly quickly and became more relevant as the film went on, he's still there with a complete focus with his character, Hugh Jackman I still have a problem accepting. Sometimes I wonder if he's acting that much at all or can deliver intensity as much as I require, and funnily enough I found him to finally hit the nail on the head when he was playing his personas, and it's here that I can totally buy into the guy. But intruigingly enough, I think the most gripping performance was from Michael Caine who with this film has finally shown some kind of career relaunch, as this weren't some quick 4 scene cameo or anything but real character work all the way throughout, and I don't know when he's ever shown such intensity and in straightly playing some actual character and not just being himself. This is pretty much the exact same thing I'd say about David Bowie too, and isn't it weird how Christopher Nolan, the same with Batman, manages to get so many well known actors in a film and not only make them actually become their roles and dissapear from feeling like a gimmicky star appearence, but how he gives them so much screen time and allows them to fill out their roles so it's just as much their film as anyone elses. None of these guys were wasted in this film, the way it normally seems to be in many others.
Right, ening now, this isn't supposed to be a review, this started out intending to be only a few lines anyway, so don't slag my writing off or if it get's it's ass kicked by TITG's Brokeass review.
I just wanna give a shout out to others who've seen the film and wanna conversate about it, or debate over some questions on it. EG, (SPOILERS)
how did Hugh Jackman convincingly pull of a Lord at the end?
Also, is it me, or does Christian Bale's wife in this, not arf remind me of Madam Geneva - in a good complimentary way for both of them?
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Also, is it me, or does Christian Bale's wife in this, not arf remind me of Madam Geneva - in a good complimentary way for both of them?
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
how did Hugh Jackman convincingly pull of a Lord at the end?
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:how did Hugh Jackman convincingly pull of a Lord at the end?
Al_Shut wrote:Finally saw this and have a question.
in Spoiler tiny:
Is there a way of telling which of the twins is alive in the end and which got hanged?
AtomicHyperbole wrote:The Prestige versus The Illusionist, then Pacino?
I've not seen The Prestige, but The Illusionist was great.
Now imagine watching the slightly annoying recap scene with two old ladies in the row behind muttering, "Why did he do that?"; "Who's he, I thought he was dead", etc.colonel_lugz wrote:One thing that was a bit irritating (my girlfriend was pretty mad about it) was that after watching such an smartyl made film with and itelligent story and structure that they found it neccessary, after the big reveal, to recap everything that had happened which made it obvious that Bale had a twin brother all along. If you were paying attention you would have A) figured it out anyway or B) know enough not to be treated like an idiot and realise this stuff yourself........just a small thin maybe, but still irritating.
papalazeru wrote:I thought it had some great performances but I thought the Illusionist was better. Two different films about obsession but I found Ed Nortons performance much more compelling and...to be honest, knowing they are both about magic already set you up to think there will be some twists. I think the Illusionist did it better and Paul Giamatti's performance was great plus the reveal is so much more rewarding i think.
MasterWhedon wrote: I thought Norton's character seemed to distant and removed throughout the whole film, that some of his tricks were so ridiculously impossible (and only accomplishable through CGI) that I wanted to know how he did it. His "big trick" at the end felt like a cheap movie gimmick more than an actual, plausible illusion because there was no basis that he'd be able to pull something like that off. Sure, he was an illusionist, but not even a hint as to how and why he's so good?
papalazeru wrote:MasterWhedon wrote: I thought Norton's character seemed to distant and removed throughout the whole film, that some of his tricks were so ridiculously impossible (and only accomplishable through CGI) that I wanted to know how he did it. His "big trick" at the end felt like a cheap movie gimmick more than an actual, plausible illusion because there was no basis that he'd be able to pull something like that off. Sure, he was an illusionist, but not even a hint as to how and why he's so good?
Erm....Tesla's marvellous cloning machine. Lemme see how THAT works?
papalazeru wrote:but isn't that the beauty of magic?
papalazeru wrote:Yeah. Me too MW.
Both were good in very different ways. I have a preference for one, you the other but at least we agree that both were good.
TheBaxter wrote:i've just begun reading the book. i really liked the movie. so far, the book version looks like some things i really liked about the movie may not happen, or may happen differently, in the book. i'm not sure if it's cos i already saw the movie, but the twins thing seems even more obvious in the book (like when borden writes something like "i am going to describe blah-blah-blah, even though i disagree with me"). i don't want to give away any differences between book and film yet, but i'll post more on that in tiny-text once i'm done reading it.
papalazeru wrote:MasterWhedon wrote: I thought Norton's character seemed to distant and removed throughout the whole film, that some of his tricks were so ridiculously impossible (and only accomplishable through CGI) that I wanted to know how he did it. His "big trick" at the end felt like a cheap movie gimmick more than an actual, plausible illusion because there was no basis that he'd be able to pull something like that off. Sure, he was an illusionist, but not even a hint as to how and why he's so good?
Erm....Tesla's marvellous cloning machine. Lemme see how THAT works?
John-Locke wrote:I just wish there was an "OH SHIT" moment where everything suddenly clicked and I realised how the wool had been pulled over my eyes, in this case I could see everything coming from a mile off
MUST TRY HARDER NOLAN!
tapehead wrote:For me it was much more a film of the marvellous illusion and then the gradual reveal of the pathetic state of 'the man behind the curtain'
Fried Gold wrote:they are telling you how it's done the whole way, but you don't pick up on it. ...The structure and style of the film seemed designed to correlate with a magic trick, lying successfully to an audience who know they are being lied to.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests