I'd agree with most everything in the review here. But I take exception to the comment that "the illusions performed here" are "largely authentic to the period". There are no stage illusions performed in the film at all. They are all CGI shots. Even the locket is a cheat. Notice that the film always cuts away when the locket is manipulated. It can't possibly work as presented and would, at a minimum, rip the picture inside in half.

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer. When we saw this film in January, we were stunned by its lushness and eyepopping gorgeousness. You really do owe it to yourself to see it on the large screen. The story may be a bit trite, the characters a bit stock, and the twists a bit too predictable, but by the end, you simply don't care.

This is a near-perfect date movie. If it were food, it would be molten chocolate cake. So, go find a date already, and go see it.

Finally, I understand how another letter writer may have thought the illusions were mere CGI. But no. As impossible as it may seem to believe (unless the filmmakers were flat-out lying when I saw this film at Sundance), there is not one scrap of CGI at play in the film's magic. The illusions are all authentic. No digital trickery. All performed by Norton. Which is amazing in and of itself. He apparently worked his butt off to learn them all and does a breathtaking job.

Don't ask me how some of the illusions worked (the director basically said anybody who really wants to know can, of course, find that information through research into vintage magician's manuals). I don't know, and I don't want to know.

All I know is, very few films actually make me smile like a kid who just recieved a surprise lollipop. The Illusionist is one of those few.

Based upon all that I have read about him, there is no way in hell that Ricky Jay would allow himself to become involved in a movie that used CGI cheats as shorthand for genuine illusion. It's just not possible.

The miniature orange tree that grows from a seed to produce full sized fruit? The trained butterflies carrying a handkerchief? The ghostly, transparent people walking from the stage and into the audience? Painfully and clearly CGI effects. Lovely, but not true stage illusions.

Edward Norton may have trained to do some sleight of hand, but I can't even recall seeing him perform any in the film. And one doesn't need much training to stand next to a large stage illusion as it takes place.

This might not detract from most people's enjoyment of the film, but I'm a big fan of good sleight of hand and complex stage illusions. I would much rather have seen the filmmakers actually reproduce some turn of the century stage illusions for the camera rather than resort to the impossible CGI creations.

(I misremembered and overstated; there is some CGI, but not as much as one would initially think. This is what the director has said in an interview about the film.)

"All the illusions that we did are based on real illusions and we tried to do them as much as they would have been done at the time… the audience is so sophisticated...about CGI and digital effects and things like that. How do we trick them into thinking that this is really how Eisenheim is doing them?...Edward did all his own sleight of hand and we did the illusions as much as we could as they would have done them then. And when we couldn’t do it as they did, we still did them in camera or practically or however."

Of course, there are no trained butterflies.

Ah, Mr. Burger left himself a big gaping hole with that "...or however". They used a lot of however.

I have not yet seen the movie, but after reading the article I have every intention to do so. What a beautifully written review! As an English teacher, I could not help but notice the writer's style as much as the substance, and as much as the author makes this movie come alive with her words, it is her eloquent writing that makes me want to believe she is as good a connoisseur of movies as she is of the English language. Well done!

We saw the movie in 5 p.m. "twilight" matinee on Friday, the day it opened. At the end, the audience clapped, and many people stood up. This in Dallas, TX, a most unmagical place where "period dramas" usually play to empty houses. As we left, the sold-out 7 p.m. performance had a long line of waiting patrons, and the theater manager was on his phone talking to the regional manager about moving "Material Girls" to a smaller theatre and adding a second theater for "The Illustionist." Hope he did it, as we'll be seeing this one again, and buying the DVD the first day it's out. A masterful film, and I don't say that often.

We saw a preview screening of "The Illusionist" with the director and loved every minute of this beautiful film. This isn't for people who are concerned about CGI or anything other than just sitting back and getting lost in a wonderful story with gorgeous images. I really didn't care about how or why the various illusions came about -- I was too engrossed in the story to care. And, most importantly, was sold on every minute of the film itself, which is what truly great movie making is all about.

As an aside, the director confirmed that many of the illusions were authentic and taken from real magic tricks performed at the time, including the butterflies and the orange tree. (The butterflies were real, by the way, and the director explained a bit how that illusion was done, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone.)

I loved this film on every level. No, it wasn't perfect, but in a way, that made it more enjoyable. I felt engaged in the movie, discussing with myself what was really happening, or not happening, having this marvelous internal dialog even as the events continued to cascade like falling velvet in front of me.

Gorgeous, lush, romantic, mysterious, painful, daunting, creative - these are the words that come to mind. And I was incredibly impressed with Edward Norton. This was the most compelling I've ever seen him, and you could tell he had learned his magic well, as his hands moved with fluid precision. I noticed that in an early scene - I've been to the Magic Castle and watched magicians up close for years - he was very practiced, indeed. Absolutely believable.

Paul Giamatti takes on a new character, more successfully in some scenes than others, but I so appreciated the change, as I feel he is not often allowed to exercise his range. And Jessica Biel was everything you would want in the leading lady role.

I saw it a month ago at a prescreening and can't wait to see it again. Maybe even tonight, now that it's open here in Los Angeles.