the hand is quicker than the eye...

...but the illusionist is much, much slower.

now don't get me wrong, the actors in this film are tremendous (edward norton, paul giamatti, and that guy with the really prominent eyelids from a knight's tale) but they were tremendous in other movies. i mean they did all they could with a slow-moving script, artistic camera angles (or more acurately: the same artistic camera angle used over and over and over again...imagine the frodo-looking-at-the-ring-in-the-palm-of-his-hand shot in the lord of the rings trilogy accept that scene last 2 and a half hours. yeah, i know...that's a lot of palm.) and edward norton (God love him) just didn't pull off the austrian accent; he wound up sounding part british, part edward norton, and part generic eastern european. giamatti had a quality accent and he tried really hard to carry this film and he did to some extent. now, i am a giamatti fan, not quite a 'giamaniac,' i find him an accessible and genuine actor, but the script had him doing awkward voiceover narration that did not fit the feel of the film and neil burger (the writer/director) did not allow giamatti's character to develop. jessica beil was good-looking, as always, but she never really seemed to be into the picture.

it makes me really sad that this movie was mot good, because i like every actor in it, even eyelid guy. it had so much potential but developed into a predictable storyline that left me feeling slighted...and a little gassy (that might have been the sonic burger i had before, but i'm blaming it on the movie).

at any rate, i'll go ahead and give the illusionist 2 and a quarter (out of 5) racks of lamb based upon paul giamatti just being in the film and that other guy's eyelids.

'til next time, friends...