Immortel (ad vitam)

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.

This is a very stylish and artistic movie, but it doesn't forget to tell a story. It is all done in bleak and washed out colors. It is a poetic movie; while the genre is science fiction, the author obviously could not care less for real science fiction. It's just design material, just as the piece of Egyptian mythology. The story line is straight, and has a style that is a mix between french and Japanese comics. It has the deadly epic seriousness of anime, and the designwork is both kitsch and awesome at the same time, as is customary for the french metal hurlant style. And, most refreshing, there is not a hint of Hollywood in this. So, sit back and let it flow.

I give the movie nine out of ten, but I can't say I feel hungry for more. No, what I'd like to see on the screen is some real science fiction. Not Star Wars crap and not poetic artistry, but the real thing, a modern novel by the likes of Iain M. Banks or Greg Egan adapted for the screen. Sadly enough, sf for the movies is becoming something that is exploited for it's kitschy futuristic themes and it's design and action possibilities, rather than a way to express the true visions the bookshelves are actually overflowing with. But here's still hoping...

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.

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

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