Hagen, making trailers is like those that make films. It's a talent that one either has or doesn't.

Notice that with the PRESTIGE trailer, it actually builds up in the viewer a sense of mystery and actual curiosity, until the climax occurs, which is....Go See it. That is the mark of a good trailer.

The problem with the ILLUSIONIST trailer is one that many recent trailers have. Imagine an action movie where you have the conventional car chases, gun fights, punching, and other shit expected in an action movie, except no matter what's thrown on the screen, the viewer simply doesn't care.

The same tricks used in ILLUSIONIST were used in PRESTIGE's trailer. For exampel, You have constant fade-outs, except perhaps with the trailer for ILLUSIONIST, the fade-outs had no editorial or narrative flow magic with the trailer itself.

Again, judging movies by trailers is really a waste of time. Trailers at best are manipulated clips of footage. Who knows, maybe ILLUSIONIST is a better film than PRESTIGE, or the PRESTIGE is a better movie(my current gut instinct as I write this), or simply both are good fucking pictures...who knows.

Of course, asking my friends why they all had more anticipation for PRESTIGE than ILLUSIONIST. I think both look promising good, but I had to ask them "why?" Their reasons?

(1) The cast. This is bizarre, considering ILLUSIONIST has Giammatti and Edward Norton, two great actors of our day. Nevermind the always underrated Rufus Sewell. Though the PRESTIGE has a nice well-rounded all-star cast itself of Bale, Jackman, Johansen, Caine, and David Fucking Bowie. Yes, "Fucking" is his middle name.

(2) Nolan. Neil Burger, the director of THE ILLUSIONIST, showed some promise with his INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN. However, how can he compete right now with Nolan, hot property in Hollywood and with movie buffs?

Again, we'll see how both movies are. Because certainly, this thread would become simply IMDB chatter until we know how both pictures fare.

P.S. - Hagen, why so negative already on that other Capote biopic? Sure after CAPOTE, why bother, right? But let me give you a story of 1992.

As you might or might not remember, that was the 500th anniversary of Chris Columbus' discovery of America(which led to massive genocide against the Natives, but us Western European-descent folks ignored this little fact) and you had the Salkinds, the producers of the SUPERMAN and MUSKATEER franchises, banking big bucks on their project, which would be CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY, a very lousy and shitty picture.

Then you had Sir Ridley Scott, a director that some think is a master visualist, while others think he's more style over substance. Either way, he still made ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER. So he helmed his own big-budget Columbus epic in 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE.

THE DISCOVERY got into theaters first, and actually grossed slightly better than 1492. However, 1492 is actually a decent, if flawed, picture with some intriging ideas with tons of money behind it. Either way, its at least a competent picture, while DISCOVERY....wasn't(what you expect from the same producers of SANTA CLAUS: THE MOVIE???)