Volcanos, asteroids, drug trafficing, talking fish, Truman Capote, magicians...

See a pattern? No?

Does this help?
...
Dante's Peak(1997) vs. Volcano(1997)
Deep Impact(1998) vs. Armageddon(1998)
Traffic(2000) vs. Blow(2001)
Finding Nemo(2003) vs. Shark Tale(2004)
Capote(2005) vs. Infamous(2006)
The Illusionist(2006) vs. The Prestige(2006)
...
(Can you think of any more? Add to the list by commenting!)

With The Prestige, Hollywood doubles up again! Two movies, one theme. It's become standard practice in the film industry, right up there with sequels, prequels, trilogies, and adapted screenplays... Anything, I guess, to avoid original creativity in the fight for the top box office draws. And while I do really believe that this trend is less about filmmaker one-ups-man-ships, "I can make a better magician film than you!", and more about going with what's HOT, or what promises surefire success, Hollywood's dualities do allow for (beg for!? - you have to see both to know!) interesting comparisons when we consider things like era and casting choices, to the overall moods and messages of the films made.

Enough about that for now, because this entry was intended to be mostly about The Prestige/Illusionist combo of 2006, as I was just able to see The Prestige over the weekend.

First off, and to get it out of the way, I prefered The Illusionist between the two, although really thinking about it, a better or worse verdict isn't what I'm going for. Both of these movies are worth seeing. Hmm...
-Maybe it's just my man crush on Edward Norton that made The Illusionist stand out for me, but probably not, because both casts were chock-full of actors and actresses that I enjoy, and some of the supporting roles in The Prestige were actually played a bit better.
-Another possible bias: I tend to appreciate slower, more methodical movies more when compared to intense, time-shifting, jump-cutting films like Nolan's. Don't get me wrong! I loved Memento, and I liked Batman Begins and The Prestige as well, and OK, The Illusionist wasn't exactly slow, but I think when you look at all of these films, the most successful ones have a pace that is a direct and intentional part of the plot, and The Illusionist's pace just did more for the telling of it's story.

An admittance. I did think that The Illusionist could have ended about 10 minutes earlier than it did. A weakness in this film is that it doesn't trust it's audience. The film fades to black and I assume most would be content with that being THE END (albiet a mysterious and unresolved ending. But wait, that's perfect for this movie, right?), only to come back in (at least twice) to further explain away the mystery.
But if I can be so bold as to mostly ignore those last ten minutes, I'll say that the build up, and build back down from the film's climax was perfectly in tune with the era, and the not-angry, but worldy-mysterious, and somber Eisenheim (Norton). The absolutely angry tone of Jackman and Bale's characters definitely called for something more severe, which they found in director Nolan, whose pacing served the decidedly darker of these two films.

A reason to like The Prestige: the dark and complex but still well played out metaphors. The sacrifices made by the magicians in The Prestige only get more and more pronounced as their tricks get more amazing (birds, fingers, family and then?!). Before long Jackman's character is sacrificing more than he can comprehend -- he becomes the bird in the cage -- or at least he is just 1/100th of the person he used to be, whereas Bale's character retains half of who he was in his partner/twin. (You'll have to see the movie for that one to make sense.)

A likeness between these two films is how they ask us to consider the difference between illusion and magic. I loved the inclusion of Tesla in The Prestige. Better yet, they got David Bowie to play him! Incredible. That alone is worth going to see.
Bowie as Tesla

Maybe the reason I ended up enjoying The Illusionist a little more was in this last point (Illusion vs. Magic)... and how Norton's character transcended from being an Illusionist to a Wizard(?) or a 'Real' Magician... It was nice how director Neil Burger just lets us believe this (or not) after Norton sells it so well with his performance. It's a fantastic proposition, and we're apt to be critical of how exactly Norton and Biel's characters get away with it all, but just like the Ghost Trick is never truly explained, we are asked to decide whether or not we believe in the extra-ordinary possibilities.

Both movies get a 4 out of 5.
(On the Netflix rating scale: 1 = Hated it, 2 = Didn't Like It, 3 = Liked It, 4 = Really Liked It, 5 = Loved It)