Immortal (2005)

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

This movie is based on two comic books of a trilogy from Enki Bilal. Anyone that likes his work will really appreciate a lot of details in the design of the movie, which is directed by the same that made the comic book. The story is much more complex in the comic book, and there are many more characters, but for a movie on it's own, is not bad at all. The CGI is not the best you'll see, at moments, but if you focus in the designs and in why some people are made by CGI and other real people, it works well and allows to tell a good sci-fi story. There's an obvious budget restriction here, and I would love to see how a trilogy would have worked out in movies, but as the budget/earnings are not as good as in USA for European movies, I know it would never happen and I'm happy to have this. Interesting movie, it feels like it left a lot from the comic out that could have been interesting, but it's still good. Good acting, story, writing and photography. Highly recommend it for European sci-fi lovers.

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.

Read some decent things about this movie and thought I would give it a go. I am probably no more the wise for watching it as to be quite honest I was kind of left asking myself "what the hell was all that about?". Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just watch it for the decent enough attempt at making a sci fi movie which does not follow any of the old plots laid out by so many. That is one good thing about this film, it is definitely original. So original I didn't have a clue what was going on most of the time. The acting is OK, nothing special. The CGI is a bit hit and miss, sometimes it can look amazing and flawless, then you get some character who's face looks like it was made on an old ZX81. Would I watch it again? Nah, not worth it, once you have seen it that's enough really.

I enjoy most SF and fantasy fare, and am always happy to make allowances for rough edges and failings where a film seems to deserve such indulgence. However, it would be unnecessarily generous to imply that Immortel ad Vitam is anything other than rubbish. It's overblown and tedious and it offers nothing that you have not seen done better in countless other films. Anyone who is familiar with the works of Philip K Dick, Frank Herbert and Roger Zelazny will see just how much shameless ripping-off is going on here, and (my only real complaint about this) how badly such material is being wasted. The same could be said of the excellent Charlotte Rampling.