Immortel (ad vitam)

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.

This movie combines dreamlike landscapes, fascinating characters, a haunting soundtrack, and commanding performances by its three main human actors into a delight for the senses. I will go along with those who say the plot is a bit weak and spotty in places, but the film is still a masterpiece. I had never even heard of Nikopol, or didn't remember it anyway. I knew Enki Bilal was familiar, but had to go look it up to see where I knew the name. Turns out I had seen his stuff in Heavy Metal magazine back when it came out in the late 70s. Since I loved the art and stories of that mag, it didn't surprise me that I was drawn to this movie after stumbling upon it accidentally on sat TV. It has a bleak yet sublime futuristic look and feel to it that makes "Blade Runner" seem hum-drum. Linda Hardy is disturbed and disturbing, enigmatic and beautiful, and very, very sexy. Kretschmann is irreverent, witty, and funny. The graphics characters also have their own personalities and fit in wonderfully, I think. I agree with others who have remarked that the point here is art, not slavish duplication of reality. Both the "real" and the Eugenics-created Dayaks are masterfully done and equally creepy. Really a pleasure to watch.

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.

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

The story revolves around New York City in the late 21st Century (2090 or so). There is a contrast between the live action, the really stunning CG and the CG that looks like some PC game I played 5 years ago. I think the movie would have been better if it was all done in CG (ie. Final Fantasy). Nonetheless, it looks similar to other European sci-fi movies (think of the Fifth Element). The first 1/2 of the movie, I was wondering what was going on. There seemed to be events that were happening, with little explanation as to why or what. There was very little background provided for the world we are dropped in (I think reading the trilogy of the comic might help in watching this movie). We are given hints that people are now more cyborg than human, corruption has increased, there seems to be non-human class discrimination, and there is a pyramid hanging over the city. While this movie has an interesting storyline and is obviously deeper than movies like the Fifth Element, the lack of character/background development ultimately hurt this movie. I was left to interpret the majority of the movie based on my own background rather than what was happening before me. I am a little disappointed. I was so interested in seeing this movie after I saw the trailer. I am going to read the Nikopol trilogy to see if my understanding and appreciation of this movie improves.

-Celluloid Rehab