Immortel (ad Vitam) Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
This movie is set in the year 2095, hence the presence of mutant humans and extraterrestrials. The main character is known as Jill (Linda Hardy). She is not human. When she is discovered by Dr Elma Turner (Charlotte Rampling) she is diagnosed as being the most interesting genetic test subject Turner has ever come across. Her organs are not in the right place, she has no memory and she appears, biologically to be only three months old. Turner gives her a break, gives her an identity card and a place to stay, in exchange for being her guinea-pig to work on and discover more about. Nicopol is a frozen prisoner who is due to be released a year after the film is set. There is a problem in the prisoner ward and several are thrown down to grow (dying in the process), including Nicopol (but only his leg). There is a lot more to this story but I can't disclose it in this summary, I don't have the words.
| Linda Hardy | Jill Bioskop |
| Thomas Kretschmann | Alcide Nikopol |
| Charlotte Rampling | Elma Turner |
| Frédéric Pierrot | John |
| Thomas M. Pollard | Horus |
| Yann Collette | Froebe |
| Derrick Brenner | Jonas |
| Olivier Achard | Checker |
| Paul Bandey | Dayaks |
| Paul Barrett | Pilot Helico |
| Geoffrey Carey | Froebe, Checkers |
| Leslie Clack | Co-Pilot, Additional Voices |
| Javon Constantin | Eugenics Little Boy |
| Lemmy Constantine | Additional Voices |
| Gary Cowan | Tycho Barman |
| Enki Bilal |
5.90 out of 10 (7049 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Eerily beautiful, A stunner...
posted on 02 Aug 2009Darkly surreal as the graphic novels from which it was drawn, Immortel is tragic, thought provoking and dark, Yet leaves the viewer with a wistful hopefullness; Bilal has created a cinematic ally stunning film, Which, Like any good tale, leaves more implied than is presented. The mix of CGI and live action is, At first, A bit jarring, but lends itself to the story uniquely...I was very impressed...A lesser director may have, As is often the case, let it be all sparkle, No content.I was never a huge fan of Bilal, But now my interest is piqued; As SF or Fantasy, This film works on all the levels...And like any film worth its' weight, It will stick in your head for a good while.
Am I Blue?
posted on 15 Jul 2009Enki Bilal and Immortal January 29, 2008 03:53PMFirstly, I was perusing the science fiction area of my local video rental store, thinking sci-fi films seem to be really good or really awful, and trying to find something new to me, that isn't awful. Immortal was in the new section and I just decided to take a chance on it. I am still amazed that I found a used copy to buy. I loved this flick and watched it 4 times before returning it. It is a blue screen film and the sets are based on Enki Bilals artwork from his graphic novels. He also directed and produced this film. It is also an international film (like Beowolf & Grendel) with Charlotte Rampling (English), Thomas Kretschmann (German, also in Peter Jacksons King Kong, and for film buffs, Jackson uses some of Kretschmann's dialogue from Immortal) and the perfect actress for the alien/protagonist Linda Hardy (French) although the film is in English. The story is based on Bilal's novels about an ancient god's search to avoid death in 2095 by reincarnating although only a very special kind of female will do. To me it has everything a sci-fi film should have and more. The art is fascinating, the world created interesting and almost believable. It has a lot of humor and it is super creative, in my humble opinion. The god's idea of procreation is typical of god's through the ages, that is not exactly by consent. Yet this god, Horus does try to find a human host for himself that is compatible but who will also be compatible with the woman he pursues. I don't know why but apparently this film did not do so well in theatrical release. Still if you did like V for Vendetta I think you will like Immortal. Here is the Secondly. I HATE films that I have to read. Film is a visual medium and reading a film can make me miss the imagery that is so important. So I am very tolerant of dubbed films but I really appreciate good dubbing. And after watching Immortal at least 10 times I was bollixed to learn that Linda Hardy only speaks French and is dubbed. It is the best dubbing I have ever seen. See this movie and decide for yourself and THEN come tell us all what you think.
A good movie with interesting techniques
posted on 13 Jul 2009I didn't read the comic books that inspired this movie (but I am going to do so as soon as i can), but I loved it all the same. The plot is not as simple as it seems and not as complicated as the Gods wanted to make us think. Of course it doesn't go "beyond our human understanding"! However it's well structured and really interesting and original. The most noticeable aspect of this movie is the graphic: most of the characters are in fact realized in computer graphic, with a few "real" actors. To be honest the computer graphic for the human characters is not the best I have seen on the market, however the final effect is really astonishing and pleasant. What you get when you are in the theater is a great comic book with advanced animation and very few negative aspects. 8/10
More structured than the comics...
posted on 27 Jun 2009Enki 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. :-)
Enki, I like you, but please, stop directing
posted on 27 Jun 2009I had to give a low rating to this one, despite the fact that I've been amongst Bilal's great comic strips most eager readers in the 80's and 90's, and despite some stunning visuals in "Immortel".With "Bunker Palace Hotel", Bilal made what appeared as a very interesting directing debut. I actually liked it quite a lot. But he had quite a bunch of outstanding and intelligent actors to work with, with the collaboration of the great Trintignant, which may explain why "Bunker" works, while his later movies don't. I left the theatre during "Tykho Moon" because I felt nauseous from the terrible acting. While I actually watched "Immortel" in its entirety, I got quite nauseous too for the same reason. The Eric Rohmer syndrome strikes again.Sorry Enki, I like you, but you are among these guys who are totally clueless about what acting is, and this shows big time. Each and every line of the screenplay is contrived and formulaic. This approach may work in comic strips, and yours are outstanding. But when using actors on screen, would they be real ones or CGI ones, it doesn't. It sucks.Why people like you and Pitof don't stick with what you're good at, i.e. global conception, art direction and production design, why you consider yourselves as directors, I don't know. It's a pity as the result of your total misunderstanding of this aspect of movie-making ends in works that look like visual toys, like music videos, like ads, whatever, anything but movies. Seeing Charlotte Rampling directed by you was a huge embarrassment. You made her look and sound like a clumsy 1srt grade cheap theatre wannabe! Such a shame.I am disgusted to see such an amount of wasted talent, yours included. You are one of the visually most creative artists of the last 30 years. But this is not enough to make good movies. You should seriously consider working with a decent screen writer and a director who understands acting. And of course, this includes synthetic characters (which were another source of embarrassment since they look like cheap video games ones).Because you don't, and despite the outstanding visual imagination and the nicely quirky art direction, 'Immortel' feels like a "Matrix" cheapo byproduct. How appalling.
Evangeline, you're wrong.
posted on 23 Jun 2009Sorry, Evangeline. But you're ill-informed. The Matrix was actually written, cast, filmed, edited and post-produced all at Fox Studios in Sydney, Australia. As were the two subsequent films in the franchise. Before you brandish the 'Hollywood' cliché, consider that the three most recent Star Wars films were also shot in Sydney. So too, in recent months, was the new Superman film. (What is more 'Hollywood' than Star Wars or Superman?) It may serve you well to do some research. You will also find that the sound engineering for many modern 'Hollywood' films is mixed via satellite by Soundfirm, also in Australia. So tell me, what do you mean by 'Hollywood'?
An interesting film that will keep your eyes on the screen
posted on 11 Jun 2009A lot of the others have said that they either hated this movie or loved it. Personally I loved some parts and thought others looked unfinished. You could tell more time was spent on some character models than others, the doctor with the skin grafted face and the two dayaks as pets for instance was fairly well done. However the senator and everyone who worked for him looked terrible.The story itself was quite well written, and I think the acting was good enough. However I do think that Jill needed some more likability... she didn't seem as much of a sympathetic character as she should or could have been. Honestly the only reason I am giving this movie an 8 is because of its originality and story.
No, just no.
posted on 07 Jun 2009I love bad movies. I love them with a passion (of a Christ!(Ba-zing!)). But this was too much awfulness. not only couldn't I tell what the hell was going on, the graphics were awful and it made the film look like ITT tech commercial. Plus Horus' mechanical penis covering was way out of place, I mean, come on, he is a freaking' god, he don't need no penis covering. I don't see how they managed to squeeze out more than thirty minutes of this shat, its pretty hefty! the movie may try to be artsy or something like that but, seriously, the topic is of a hawk (ka-kaw!) trying to knock up some chick with horrible makeup. not visually pleasing to look at, with the bad graphics and the overall gray and dark color scheme kinda doesn't work, NYC isn't that color. NO, NO, NO.
Lookout Plan 9 here comes immortal
posted on 20 May 2009This must be the modern equivalent of an Ed Wood film. The visuals were creepy. The actors rigid and lacking depth. The plot well I refuse to call it such. It might be a high grade soft porn flick given proper care. The monsters were nearly laughable and the concepts well it is better fit for a Scary Movie style title than a science fiction film with serious aspirations to action.I originally picked this movie with the hopes it would have some similarities with the rather interesting Stargate movie from 1995. However, not only does it not deliver to that possible arena it has no hope of being considered a serious film. I am not a fan of burning pieces of art or thought, but someone should have seriously considered burning this before it was forced upon the public.
Renewal of the real story
posted on 10 May 2009Maybe not technically perfect, but
what an atmosphere and what a story...After Tykho moon, Bilal now proves himself
to be a true master of the movie art. The way Horus and the other Egyptian gods, wander around on the streets
of future earth is overwhelming. However bizarre the image of the future Bilal shows us, might be... it seems so realistic.
badly made film with no point
posted on 04 May 2009This movie was a complete waste of time. I normally enjoy art house or french films but this movie was completely pointless. The integration of the 3d characters was shocking. the story made no sense either. Save yourself 2 hours and avoid this stinker. I can not imagine what the makers were thinking when this went into production. You could write the entire script of this film on the back of a coaster. It is apparently an adaptation of a comic strip.. i think is should have been left alone. I am a 3d animator myself by trade, and I did like certain aspects of the visuals, but that simply isn't enough to build a film around.
Immortel = very bad movie from a good comic artist
posted on 30 Apr 2009Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes.
Beautiful !!!!!
posted on 24 Apr 2009I'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 flawedSee 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.
Muddled
posted on 16 Apr 2009I saw this at an arty cinema that was also showing "Last Days" and some Charlie Chaplin films. Based on the quality of the other features, I decided to give "Immortel" a chance. I nearly walked out of this movie, and I LIKE science-fiction! The story is set in a futuristic New York city, filled with Blade Runner-style sky advertisements and some similar debates about cloning/synthetic humans. Unfortunately, the screenplay was not condensed enough for an hour-and-forty-five-minute movie. Three groups exist in this world: humans, artificial humans, and Egyptian gods. The artificial humans seem to have the upper hand and control the politics of the city. The humans are slaves and are used for eugenics and organ donation. The Egyptian gods have a floating pyramid (modeled on the Great Pyramid of Khufu, and complete with a deteriorated exterior, leaving a smooth "cap" on the pyramid. Wouldn't a floating futuristic pyramid be in perfect condition?). The pyramid rests above the city and nobody on the ground understands what it is or why it's there. I won't bore you with the so-called plot, but there is lots of unnecessary gore and many gross-out scenes. The film, as I said, looks to have been influenced by Blade Runner, and perhaps also by The Fifth Element and The Matrix. At the end of the film credits were listed thank-yous to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The film is FRENCH, but uses British actors who don't speak French. Hence, it is obvious that their French dialog has been dubbed. This is a distraction, and I also thought that switching back and forth between real humans and animations quite distracting. It doesn't help that the animations are poor--no better than a video game. Skip this one.
Visuals aesthetics
posted on 02 Apr 2009The visual universe is IMO beautiful. In the beginning when he pushes the two choppers together I thought it was poorly made, then I realized that this seemed to be part of the style.They mix really great visuals, with poorly done visuals and humans in order to create a unique feeling.The music is wonderful, my favorite part is when June visits the museum and walk around the city.If anyone is interested the music is done by Sigur Ros an icelandic band.The song is calledHjartao Hamast (Bamm Bamm Bamm)
Beautiful. Uneven. Flawed.
posted on 31 Mar 2009Director 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.
Uninspired pastiche that's easy on the eyes
posted on 27 Mar 2009To not mince words, "Immortal" is dreadful. Visually, it's a pastiche of "Blade Runner", "The Fifth Element" and that part of the animated "Heavy Metal" movie about the Manhattan cabbie of the future (Harry Canyon, if anyone's wondering).Anyway, this thing was adapted from at least two French comics and, while watching the film, I kept thinking about how much better and in-depth the comics must have been. So many tertiary characters fall flat and/or have subplots that go nowhere (like Rick Deckard... oops, I mean the partially synthetic detective whose specialty was tracking down replicants... oops, I mean, particularly nasty genetic experiments made by the Tyrell Corporation... oops, I mean, Eugenics).Our lead character pretty much was Lilu from "Fifth Element" except with blue skin and dressed like she just jacked into The Matrix. Turns out she's an alien but didn't know it because she has been taking memory suppressants given to her by... oh, who cares? I could go on about how weird and pointless it is to have Egyptian gods suddenly show up in a floating pyramid, or how about half the cast of humans is computer animated (sub "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" level) to distracting effect, or how there's this mysterious guy named John (whose character is never explained and adds nothing to the story) who coaches this faux-Lilu, or how there's a poorly-explained "incursion zone" in Central Park that may or may not be a gateway to other worlds...Enough. I will say it's nice eye candy and leave it at that. Otherwise, a befuddled and irritating waste of time. Should have been four hours long to give proper screen time to all the subplots or they should have cut characters and plot lines down to a manageable level to make a compelling story.
Like a model - aesthetically pleasing with no substance
posted on 23 Mar 2009The Good:Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.The Bad:Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?The Ugly:Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.Overall:Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production.
Flawed
posted on 09 Mar 2009Let me start off by saying that the visuals, especially the backgrounds were for the most part, lovely. Plus the back story had intriguing elements. I mean, what's not to love about a futuristic city populated by heavily medically modified denizens? It's the natural extension of our own obsession with plastic surgery.That said, I found presence of *both* live actors and CGI human/humanoid characters jarring. Either the film needed a full cast of actors, or all the mostly human characters needed to be CGI. It would help with the continuity, and make the world more believable. Unfortunately, the rigging in the faces didn't seem to work properly. There was no emotion, the faces looked dead, or plastic. But this is a minor thing compared to the major flaws, i.e. character development and story telling.99% of sci-fi and fantasy films lack one or the other, and this one lacks both. LOTR was successful because Peter Jackson made the story and the characters central. The X-files series was successful for the same reason - the characters were fully developed, the stories were told in engaging ways.After watching this, I felt that who ever came up with the characters had no concept of how people interact. Especially after Jill is raped. It was purely basement-geek fantasy. She should have been hysterical, had some emotional conflicts, crying, some kind of deep reaction from being violated against her will... but there was NOTHING. Yeah yeah, you could argue that she isn't human, and her reaction shouldn't be a human one... But even the human characters are just shells.And the story. The story was bogged down in the concept. Don't get me wrong, I like a great concept as much as the next person. However, care needs to be taken that it doesn't overshadow the story. I feel that there was so much great material here, that if it had been in different hands, it would have been a masterpiece. As it is, it's just a decent time-killer. As a film, It just doesn't have a strong enough structure to hold up the concept.
inspiring
posted on 20 Aug 2009I'll base my comment on some comments on IMDb that i read before watching this movie. First, you can really see many resemblances to Fifth Element and Blade Runner. The latter especially was very significant, because its been so long since I've seen a serious sci-fi that utilizes the achievements of modern cinema-making technologies and mixes is with a believable, dark anti-utopic visions of the future. The isn't much of a dialog, but i wouldn't say this is bad. Based on some comments I was afraid that, not having read anything about the story (comics or books) beforehand, the film might seem disconnected. Well, for me it wasn't. Perhaps you have to embrace the world presented to you, boldly dive into a new universe. Being a sci-fi fan for years and having seen so much crap labeled 'sci-fi', I was hesitant at first, but quickly as the movie evolved I relaxed and just enjoyed it.A second point many comments mark is the mixture of CGI and human personages. I think i wasn't a bad idea. Whatever idea the creators of the movie had doing it this way, I accept it. It didn't hurt my perception of the movie in the least, perhaps I'm only sorry a bit that the inspector wasn't represented by a human as well. In my thoughts there was a need to make this role more impressive and 'human' as the inspector had his distinct story to tell as well. But, OK - having another important character in the story represented by a CGI pays tribute to this virtual guild of actors :)So, to cut the long story short - this is an impressive movie, based in a CGI world, but unlike so many movies that only exploit the CGI technologies to show 'what' can be done with them, this movie DOES it - the great story makes it a REAL movie, not just a collection of awing effects...10/10peace and love