Tati is alive.What a wonderful feeling to see one of the great artists of Cinema alive again.This is the magic of Cinema.It is one of these movies that you cannot speak about .Just Excellent. Nothing is going on ,there are no dialog ,yet there are a simple story. The story is visual and stunning. If you are a fan of "Playtime" you will love it ,if not -PLEASE watch "Playtime"1967 .I think that is wonderful to see that different directors throughout the world reach the visual philosophy of nothingness .To watch Tati is almost like to watch Ozu. For me personally-ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES EVER!
Critical response
Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 90% based on reviews from 114 critics, and reports a rating average of 8 out of 10. Its critical consensus is that The Illusionist is an "engrossing love letter to fans of adult animation, The Illusionist offers a fine antidote to garish mainstream fare."
In Télérama, Cécile Mury gave the film a rating of four stars out of five. Mury compared it to the director's previous feature film: "This Illusionist is as tender and contemplative as the Triplets were farcical and uneasy. But we find the oblique look, the talent that is particular of Sylvain Chomet. ... This world of yesterday fleets between realism and poetry." Christophe Carrière of L'Express was not fully convinced by Chomet's directing, finding the story clever, but "blunted when Chomet lets himself be submerged by Tati's melancholy, delivering more of a homage to a master than a personal adaption. Nevertheless, it is otherwise a beautiful work, with impeccable graphics and provides some stunning sequences (based on carnivorous rabbit stew ...). One would have liked a little bit more, that's all."
Jonathan Meville of The Scotsman wrote: "Edinburgh's skyline has never looked so good, and if the city didn't exist it would be hard to believe somewhere so beautiful was real: if locals aren't inspired to take a walk up North Bridge or down Victoria Street after this, they never will be."Whilst also in The Scotsman Alistair Harkness commented that "Once you strip away the overwhelming wow factor of the film's design, the absence of strong characterization ensures the end result is bleaker and less affecting than was probably intended".
Tati's biographer, David Bellos, reviewing The Illusionist in Senses of Cinema was highly critical of Chomet's adaptation stating "the film is a disaster". "The great disappointment for me and I think for all viewers is that what Chomet does with the material is well, nothing. The story he tells is no more than the sketchily sentimental plot line of L'Illusionniste. It's really very sad. All that artistry, all that effort, and all that money for this".
Reviewing The Illusionist in The New Yorker, Richard Brody commented "Sylvain Chomet (The Triplets of Belleville) has directed an animated adaptation of Jacques Tati's 1956 screenplay, with none of Tati's visual wit or wild invention". "Chomet reduces Tati's vast and bilious comic vision to cloying sentimentality. The result is a cliché-riddled nostalgia trip. In French, English, and Gaelic".
Roger Ebert in his review wrote, "However much it conceals the real-life events that inspired it, it lives and breathes on its own, and as an extension of the mysterious whimsy of Tati". Calling it the "magically melancholy final act of Jacques Tati's career", he gave it four stars out of four.
Critical response
Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 90% based on reviews from 114 critics, and reports a rating average of 8 out of 10. Its critical consensus is that The Illusionist is an "engrossing love letter to fans of adult animation, The Illusionist offers a fine antidote to garish mainstream fare."
In Télérama, Cécile Mury gave the film a rating of four stars out of five. Mury compared it to the director's previous feature film: "This Illusionist is as tender and contemplative as the Triplets were farcical and uneasy. But we find the oblique look, the talent that is particular of Sylvain Chomet. ... This world of yesterday fleets between realism and poetry." Christophe Carrière of L'Express was not fully convinced by Chomet's directing, finding the story clever, but "blunted when Chomet lets himself be submerged by Tati's melancholy, delivering more of a homage to a master than a personal adaption. Nevertheless, it is otherwise a beautiful work, with impeccable graphics and provides some stunning sequences (based on carnivorous rabbit stew ...). One would have liked a little bit more, that's all."
Jonathan Meville of The Scotsman wrote: "Edinburgh's skyline has never looked so good, and if the city didn't exist it would be hard to believe somewhere so beautiful was real: if locals aren't inspired to take a walk up North Bridge or down Victoria Street after this, they never will be."Whilst also in The Scotsman Alistair Harkness commented that "Once you strip away the overwhelming wow factor of the film's design, the absence of strong characterization ensures the end result is bleaker and less affecting than was probably intended".
Tati's biographer, David Bellos, reviewing The Illusionist in Senses of Cinema was highly critical of Chomet's adaptation stating "the film is a disaster". "The great disappointment for me and I think for all viewers is that what Chomet does with the material is well, nothing. The story he tells is no more than the sketchily sentimental plot line of L'Illusionniste. It's really very sad. All that artistry, all that effort, and all that money for this".
Reviewing The Illusionist in The New Yorker, Richard Brody commented "Sylvain Chomet (The Triplets of Belleville) has directed an animated adaptation of Jacques Tati's 1956 screenplay, with none of Tati's visual wit or wild invention". "Chomet reduces Tati's vast and bilious comic vision to cloying sentimentality. The result is a cliché-riddled nostalgia trip. In French, English, and Gaelic".
Roger Ebert in his review wrote, "However much it conceals the real-life events that inspired it, it lives and breathes on its own, and as an extension of the mysterious whimsy of Tati". Calling it the "magically melancholy final act of Jacques Tati's career", he gave it four stars out of four.