Immortal

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.

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.

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.

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