WOW! I am amazed at how much controversy this film seems to be evoking on this here site.
I for one really like this film.
Let me make it clear, I love Jacques Tati, one of my all time favourite film-makers - and I'll love him 'til the day I die! But, I also like Sylvain Chomet's work, notably Belleville Rendezvous.
The Illusionist is obviously not a Jacques Tati film, it is based on a script by him which he never used, and is a homage to him. OK, Chomet has taken a few liberties with the original script - such as setting it in Edinburgh (as opposed to Prague, as in the original screenplay), and a few more besides. But then this project was always going to be an amalgamation of one film-maker with another (or, more likely Tati's style, and personification, filtered through Chomet's vision). The finished result of this is not going to fulfill everyone...
[Side note: A.I. was filmed by Steven Speilberg based on an unfinished Stanley Kubrik project, and it seemed to also heavily divide opinion, amongst some fans and critics. I feel The Illusionist may well be a similar creature, in that some will love it, some will loathe it (Marmite, anyone?)]
For me, I am happy to see Tati's gangly frame evoked once more on celluloid; and, although I also acknowledge that the film is a flawed one based on this premise alone, I believe that the strength of the animation, combined with some wonderful characterization (I love the cantankerous rabbit!) balances it out enough to be an enjoyable, if mildly twee, piece of work. Tati would undoubtedly have filmed it differently in so many ways, but he never did, did he.
Tati only ever made 6 full feature films in his life. This is not number 7. But faced with the choice of it existing (having been interpreted by Chomet, and brought to life in the medium of animation), or not existing - and being left on a shelf - then I am glad it exists. It makes me happy. You're opinion is your own, but I feel sure it can only be made by making your own judgement.