This film really annoyed the hell out of me. It is definitely an entry into the oeuvre of movies that are so obsessed by how clever its twists are that it forgets to worry about things such as sympathetic characterisation, naturalistic expositional dialogue, and, most crucially, the effective execution of said oh-so-clever twists.<br /><br />First, a few points about the script. The script is dreadful in parts, with exposition that may as well be spoken directly to camera. The characters, Hugh Jackman's in particular, seem unrounded and without any kind of back story - seemingly plopped into the middle of an obsessive pursuit without any explanation as to where said obsessions may have originated. As happens in so many Hollywood movies, the female roles are perfunctory up to the point of pastiche - did anyone else groan with anticipation of how banal and run-of-the-mill Scarlett Johansson would be? I'd like to see a studio movie that, in the absence of an integral love story, crowbars in some half-assed romance entirely for the sake of some demograph of dubious existence who are believed to not want to see a movie without some histrionic sexual politics.<br /><br />Now, on to those twists, of which there are two major ones. The first, whose set up is established very early on, is glaringly obvious. I spent most of the film seething with frustration as lines that, in what i guess the makers hoped would be in hindsight, are massively irritating 'clues' to the audience. All this is abrogated by the fact that it was all clear to me from the off (and i wasn't aware there was a twist to the film so i wasn't looking out for one), all due to the fact that essential production values fail to adequately disguise the twist. The second twist, which acts not only as plot but supposedly as a thematic comparison to the first, is what left me wanting my money back. The filmmakers seemed to have forgotten that suspension of disbelief must be eared through establishing what can an cannot happen in the world they have created. For example, in The Matrix, when we shown that it is Trinity's love for Neo that brings him back from the dead, the audience is able to accept this because the reality that has been established is one of sci-fi machines-rule-the-world type. We have been prepared to be asked to go along with the possible. The Prestige, a film that throughout its running time shows and tells us that the magic in the film is one rooted in realistic trickery and that the rivalry between the two main characters is based on which can come up with the cleverest ruse, believes that it does not need to ask the audience to suspend its disbelief before laying down the biggest of deus ex machina macguffins seen in recent cinema. We are expected to believe that within this realistic turn of the century world that a machine is invented that (through science, not magic) can do what remains impossible in the present. This 'twist' represents lazy, lazy storytelling - it is like the writers could not come up with an actual clever ending so just used their get out of jail free card instead.<br /><br />On the side, there are some very pretty things to look at, with impressive period detail and some imaginative compositions from Nolan. Michael Caine and Andy Serkis are both excellent, and its always nice to see David Bowie on screen, but thats where the acting plaudits stop. Bale and Jackman give in uncharismatic and unlikeable performances and Johanssen floats along on a wave of arbitrariness.<br /><br />I would say to avoid this film, unless you enjoy the energy that truly hating a film can give you, as it has to me.