The Prestige

4 1/2 *. A return to subtle storytelling and definitely Nolan's best film since Memento. The only thing that bothered me was the literal conclusion. If Nolan had used a more elegant solution, perhaps in the form of hints, instead of a half-hearted explanation, it would have been a perfect experience. Nevertheless, with each new film of the N+N duo, it is true that "to have the ideas of the Nolan brothers is to be filmmaking legends in the future". Anyway, the trump card is the cast, with a very good Michael Caine, the almost inhumanly charismatic David "Tesla" Bowie and above all Christian Bale – an actor of many faces and you believe all of them. When he flashes his typical foxy smile, you'd go for a beer with him right away, but in front of his sinister expression you'd rather crawl under the table :). The atmosphere is scrumptious, and the sets are a separate chapter, they deserve some special film awards. (02/05/2007)

Clever. Very clever. I much admire the storytelling method used by Nolan to present us the story of two illusionists who dedicated their whole lives to magic. Hats off to him, because to stick to the storyline while various time lines layer up on each other is a work of mastership. Both Bale and Jackman, who are responsible for making the main characters so convincing, made perfect work of their roles. But if the screenplay weren’t so cleverly written, The Prestige would have commanded much less prestige :). I love it when a picture plays tricks on you, and of everything I have ever seen and probably will ever see, I admire filmmakers playing games with the viewer the highest. That’s why I forgive Nolan for the so much criticized explanatory part (and in my opinion even that is delivered gracefully). He didn’t do it for himself, but for some people in the audience. People who don’t want to see tricks, but to discover the secret behind them. (02/20/2007)

A film that seemed like a one-time magic trick the first time I watched it. I even doubted I would ever return to it. Since then, I've been doing it every year, and this sparkling narrative play, which juggles storytelling perspective and excitingly thematizes the mystery of creation and the fragile bond between the illusionist and the audience, has ultimately shown greater vitality than any other Nolan film. The architecture of the storytelling serves the characters more than anywhere else. With each change in perspective, the viewer's relationship to them changes, and the evaluation of their obsession and emotional attunement to the main motives. The point with the "aquarium-secret" may be modest, but is, at its core, ingenious. The work of a real magician. Continuous grower. (01/05/2007)

"It's not important who disappears in the box, but who appears." Obsession with anything can lead anyone to ruin, but what if the inevitable and dark outcome of your efforts is neither death nor salvation? I don't like gratuitous twists, I don't like finger-snapped endings, and I especially don't like the feeling when the creators try to cheaply outsmart me. But what if someone presents a few exhausting twists that won't tire you out and instead make you want more of them? Now I understand why it took the Nolan brothers so long to develop this screenplay, because thinking through the story (even based on a novel) to all its consequences must have taken a lot of effort. And observing the eternal feud between Borden and Angier is the pinnacle of viewer happiness. I thank the creators that the perfect line "Are you watching closely?" fortunately doesn't have an audiovisual, but rather a thoughtful foundation. If it only depended on discovering a few images, the trick couldn't work a second time, but this way everything truly depends only on the storytellers. The viewer then remains helpless, like a prisoner locked in a water reservoir. (01/11/2007)

Luckily the Nolan brothers played about sufficiently with the screenplay, so the result isn’t just a set of illustrations for the original book, but a self-standing creation. Not all the changes from the book are for the best (for instance, setting the story in the present day and its almost horror feel would have looked good in the movie too), but as a whole it holds together well and works without having to have read the book. Nolan plays an intelligent game with the viewer, asking a lot of questions, but also offering some answers. In terms of directing, he handles the movie with his own inimitable style and uses a similar storytelling method that he tried out in his debut movie, Following. The only more serious shortcoming is the pretty annoying partial happy ending; they should have left the ending the same as in the book. (01/05/2007)