Immortal (ad vitam)

I usually just stick to voting or info-retrieving when I visit IMDb. But my amazement at the low rating that this movie received is making me type these words down. I'm not much of a sci-fi fan but this movie yesterday at the art-house theatre and loved it. Powerful and convincing main characters (I'm not acquainted with the comic book series which are supposed to be better) , great characters (nice to see Charlotte Rampling doing something different), thin story lines but you know what you want to see: Egyptians Gods excerting their will in the not so distant horrid future. Simply loved Horus. Didn't experience a dull moment. And thus: 9 out of 10, partly to counterbalance the low ratings.

Go see it.

Well, first of all this film is supposed to be a loose adaptation of the comics (almost more "inspired by"...). Second, I think that those who criticize the CGI graphics quality or even compare it to the horrific (!!) "Final Fantasy", are a bit besides the point.., While the Final Fantasy CGI graphics where technically amazing, the story (what story ?) was absolutely idiotic, and there was a total lack of poetry or atmosphere. Of course the CGI in "Immortals" could have been much better!... But the fact that you can make an accurate picture of a French landscape does not make it better than a Monet painting, does it ?... The use of computer imagery does not mean that everything has to be fully realistic... artful images are often created, as in painting, with a non photo-realistic depiction of reality. I think this concept worked well with this movie, creating a very moody atmosphere and adding weight to the story. Certainly "Immortals" is not a statement about creating photo-realistic computer graphics - it is simply art made with people and computers. That said, I agree that for those who are not familiar with the comics series this movie may not leave the same impression - I am biased by being a Bilal fan. However, I would recommend anyone with an interest in Science Fiction that goes a bit beyond point-and-shoot action and photo-realistic CGI to go and see this movie - they might enjoy it!...

7/10

In the year 2095, in a futuristic NYC that looks like "Metropolis" in serious need of an urban restoration program, an Egyptian god returns to the world he created for exactly 7 days. He has a specific purpose which doesn't reveal itself until later. To accomplish his purpose he needs a host body which he finds in Nikopol, an escaped revolutionary who himself is waking up after a long hibernation. Meanwhile there's Jill, a strange blue alien who is guided by a mysterious figure in a black shroud who gives her pills to make her erase her past. Shadowing them is the all-powerful Eugenics corporation which doesn't particularly want any of them to succeed. And lastly there's a cool detective character who's trying to make sense of it all.

Confusing? Yes. But it's a lot of fun figuring it out.

Now about the film's production. In 2004, three studios were racing to complete the first major film to be shot entirely on green screen with Computer Generated Imagery added in post. The three films were "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", "Sin City" and "Immortal". According to IMDb release dates, "Immortal" was first by 6 months (premiering Mar 24, 2004), followed by "Sky Captain" (Sep 17, 2004) and last, but best in my opinion, "Sin City" (Apr 1, 2005).

All three were stylish action films based on comic books (and I deliberately use the term "comic book" to poke at the snobby artistes who insist on differentiating themselves by using the phrase "graphic novel". I mean, come on. "Dante's Inferno", illustrated by Gustave Doré, was a graphic novel. "Alice in Wonderland", illustrated by John Tenniel, was a graphic novel. But anything that has characters talking out of comic bubbles should be fairly called a "comic book", shouldn't it?). Just fyi, on the DVD extras writer/illustrator/director Enki Bilal doesn't seem to have any problem with his work being called comic strips, so he gets bonus points there.

Enki's approach to CGI is the most extreme and probably the hardest to digest of the 3 competing films (or any CGI-live action film I've seen). It begins very subtle with mostly real actors and props inside a transport craft, then we get more CGI in a scene with a live actor having a dialogue with a CG character (I actually didn't realize it for a minute or two), and then it quickly jumps to 100% CGI when we enter the pyramid of the Egyptian gods, done completely in the computer. If you can flow with that transition then you're good to go.

The rest of the film uses similar extreme jumps between live and CG. My favorite scenes were the quieter, less-action-oriented shots using live actors and mostly real props; for example I loved the scenes in the hotel bathroom, an eery, dirty green room whose antique look contrasted with the hi-tech world outside. Another beautifully poetic scene happens when the main character Jill visits the Human Museum and, with childlike wonder, stares at holograms of old silent films projected before her.

These quiet, poetic moments are what made the movie for me. And anyone who enjoyed Enki's earlier film "Tykho Moon" would be pleased as well. Of the 3 competing CGI films, "Immortal" struck me as the most intimate and poetic.

But then we jump to the opposite extreme with scenes of pure CGI action and digital characters, and the contrast can be very disrupting. I agree with what one reviewer said about how the effects range from highly impressive to a simplistic video game, and I think that is the film's weakness: *not* the overall quality of CGI but the way it jumps from great quality to not-so-great quality. But maybe it won't bother you as much. After all, I'm a big fan of the original Star Trek series where we get dramatic scenes of Kirk and Spock talking, then jumping to a plastic model on a string. Audiences took it all in stride, so if you've got your suspension-of-disbelief primed, you should have a good time.

"Immortal" reminded me of the George Lucas overhaul of "THX-1138", a film with depth and poetry somewhat disrupted by CGI action. I could also compare it to "The Lady and the Duke" which was acclaimed director Eric Rohmer's experiment in depicting the French Revolution through CGI. Lastly there's the grandfather of artistic CGI, Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams" way back in 1990 which used George Lucas's studio to create impressive (to this day) CGI landscapes blended with live actors and some of the best Chopin music ever recorded. If you're not CGI-phobic, I recommend all of these flicks. Who knows what cinema will look like 50 years from now. But we owe it to ourselves to check out the possibilities.

One of the most surprising and disappointing things I read on other peoples comments were the comparison with PIXAR and of course the quality of the computer generated images. It seems, that US public, values ART according the technical resources of the artist more than the spiritually of the work.

Cinema is art. In USA, that art has become almost absolutely dependent on business. The main reason I am anxious for digital (not film) movies and projectors in every theatre; it is because I will be able to see real artist working not just moneymaking customer oriented factories. Productions will become less expensive, and everybody would be able to create and be judged for their work. In the mean time, luckily in Europe (mostly in France), there are still people interested in art and this movie had a go; something should never happened in USA. A brief description of the argument follows.

HORUS (the god of the sky), about to be executed by his peers, is given 7 days to visit Earth for the last time. He spends his time searching for a particular woman he wants to impregnate. To do that he needs a human body to act as his vessel (or container). An accidentally escaped terrorist (or we can call it a rebel) becomes it. The woman herself is having mysterious body changes and a complete lost of past memories. A lot of small events and characters are involved in the whole situation.

IMMORTEL (ad vitam) is a strange movie; full of religious and philosophical bits. Do not expect more explanations than these. The mystery is part of the movie poetry and is really up to you to understand or feel it. The answers (if any) are pretty hidden inside the movie.

Technically, there are moments (not always but a good average) were the merge of human characters and digital images is credible. The BLADE RUNNER style background scenery is perfectly crafted. The few action scenes are OK but not spectacular; as this is not really an action movie you could accept that.

Final advise; spend a couple of hours with this movie. It would not change your life, but it would make your brain work; and sometimes that is a lot.

Director Enki Bilal is a supremely skilled comic book artist from the same stylistic school as Moebius (who influenced the visual style of Blade Runner and designed part of Alien).

Bilal's comics are invariably sombre, textured, exquisitely drawn worlds with strong internal logic.

"Immortel" is the film adaptation of the "Nikopol" trilogy of comics by Bilal. This trilogy of comics I highly recommend.

The film opens with some lovely CGI sequences: Nice environment and craft - gritty, textured, dystopia, a catchy steam punk take on the Blade Runner aesthetic.

The main characters work well in this setting, especially the fetchingly beautiful Linda Hardy (a former Miss France).

But without warning the quality drops jarringly -- as a host of secondary CGI characters are introduced.

What you thought was a movie, suddenly turns into something resembling a video game cut-scene: The amateurishly animated, dated CGI characters would be booed out of Tron. The voice acting is awful. The lip sync a joke.

To really grind it in, the CGI actors get lots of close-ups. Painful.

The plot progresses through a series of surreal events in a New York of the future. If you haven't read the comic, things won't make too much sense on first viewing.

Stick around for the ride, for there are a number of very successful scenes in this movie -- a hauntingly beautiful museum sequence, some fine sci-fi thrills, a gritty symbolist apartment in which a dreamlike love story takes place. Atmospheric music, too.

The really good stuff is invariably bookended by poor scenes, including the worst CGI explosions you'll ever see, awful dialog, and tinny sound effects that suddenly intrude on an otherwise coherent sound design.

This has got to be most uneven movie I've ever seen.

But give the comic books a go.