Immortal Ad Vitam

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.

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.

I've read the comments on this movie, and my opinion is that most commenters did not really get this movie.

This is an Enki Bilal movie, which means it is a Graphic Novel (i deliberately do not use the word "comic book") in cinematic form. If you get the chance to check out some of Bilal's work, you will understand this movie all the better.

The movie is a mix of live action and lots of CGI, which may make it confusing for some at times. If you must, think of it as an animated movie using live actors.

The movie is an audiovisual treat, but, like much of Bilal's work, is heavy on symbolism and portrays a very bleak vision of the future.

If you want to see a mainstream scifi spectacle, don't see this film. If you want to see something that is out of the box, go see it, rent it,or even better, buy it!

As a whole, the movie best compares to Japanese anime, more specific movies such as Ghost in the Shell.

I absolutely adored it. The Baudelaire poetry was an unexpected surprise (in retrospect, however, it should not have been)

As a result of seeing this film, I went out to buy some of Bilal's graphic novels.

If you:

loved the ambiance of The Fifth Element adore the darker side of Japanese anime wanted to walk through the streets in Blade Runner want more out of a movie than simply action love the work of Charles Baudelaire want to see that even Egyptian gods are flawed

See this film!!

Some points of notice:

At times, the amount of visual information is staggering. i had to rewind a couple of times to get everything. It compares to reading the page of a graphic novel a couple of times to get everything.

The mixture of CGI and live actors is strange at first, but you get used to it.

My one negative point about this movie: the Egyptian gods were too static. they should have been a bit more lifelike. As it is, they look like barely animated statues. It adds to the graphic environment, but comes off strange in a movie. I would have liked to see more of them as well.

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.

Enki Bilal's film version of his excellent comic from more than 20 years ago, is a more coherrent and better structured story than what we read in the graphic novels.

The same images are here, in the film, as in the comic. That's very good, and works well. Some scenes are almost taken directly from the comic, as when Horus help Nikopol for the first time in the subway.

The world is more detailed in the film and the story is now more tightly spun around Jill, Horus and Jill's friend John - plus of course Nikopol who serve as the spider in this web.

Many here complain over the computer animations. Especially when it comes to some of the cast. I can only say that it is was a sad decision to create the senator and his two friends as computer animations, since live actors would probably been a wiser decision. It had helped the movie flow a little bit more, and we hadn't been so hung up on that they actually were computer animated. However, after a while, it works and we don't care too much about it. They have so little screen time anyway.

Horus is also animated, but since he's a God, it doesn't matter. And he's better done too. All the other animations are just splendid and work wonders for this graphical and visually stunning film.

Immortel is a very nice film with a better story than I thought. I was expecting a difficult and completely un-logical version of the comic - since I've read the reviews - but what we have here is actually a nice and very good movie, told beautifully.

If you haven't read the graphic novels, I suggest you find a copy or two and read them. They are a good introduction to this weird sci-fi world, and it is probably easier to understand the overall theme if you have read them. However, don't get disappointed when some story elements don't show up in the film. (I especially missed the hockey-game!)

I sincerely hope that Enki Bilal makes more movies like this one, or even a sequel. I would really like to know what happens next... Enki Bilal's mind is beautiful - and this film will be a classic within a few decades. For now, it's just a little bit too before its time to be taken the way it should. But soon, people will discover it and see the nice little details that lay inside the world of future New York.

I give it a 7 of 10. I would have given it higher if it wasn't for some bad animations and that I didn't like the way they plotted the sharp-teethed alien that I never remember the name of. :-)