User reviews

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. :-)

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

One of the most surprising and disappointing things I read on other peoples comments were the comparison with PIXAR and of course the quality of the computer generated images. It seems, that US public, values ART according the technical resources of the artist more than the spiritually of the work.

Cinema is art. In USA, that art has become almost absolutely dependent on business. The main reason I am anxious for digital (not film) movies and projectors in every theatre; it is because I will be able to see real artist working not just moneymaking customer oriented factories. Productions will become less expensive, and everybody would be able to create and be judged for their work. In the mean time, luckily in Europe (mostly in France), there are still people interested in art and this movie had a go; something should never happened in USA. A brief description of the argument follows.

HORUS (the god of the sky), about to be executed by his peers, is given 7 days to visit Earth for the last time. He spends his time searching for a particular woman he wants to impregnate. To do that he needs a human body to act as his vessel (or container). An accidentally escaped terrorist (or we can call it a rebel) becomes it. The woman herself is having mysterious body changes and a complete lost of past memories. A lot of small events and characters are involved in the whole situation.

IMMORTEL (ad vitam) is a strange movie; full of religious and philosophical bits. Do not expect more explanations than these. The mystery is part of the movie poetry and is really up to you to understand or feel it. The answers (if any) are pretty hidden inside the movie.

Technically, there are moments (not always but a good average) were the merge of human characters and digital images is credible. The BLADE RUNNER style background scenery is perfectly crafted. The few action scenes are OK but not spectacular; as this is not really an action movie you could accept that.

Final advise; spend a couple of hours with this movie. It would not change your life, but it would make your brain work; and sometimes that is a lot.

Having no idea what the basis for this film was I was drawn into seeing it by the strange visuals.As a visual treat this film is great, however as a dramatic work this film is a bit of a mess with sequences that go on too long and a good many bits that aren't explained or not explained enough.

Basically in a New York of 2095 a strange pyramid appears and the god Horus has 7 days to complete a mission before he "dies". There are aliens, people in cryo-sleep, evil scientists and other strange characters. I won't go deeper into the plot since its not the clearest part of the film.

The visuals are great, with one damning flaw, most of the cast is computer generated and for the most part look like they come from a video game. Its terrible, especially when you have real people on screen with them. It drops the film a point or two on many levels.

If you get the chance, do see it. Its a visual treat, but I'd wait for DVD.

This French made but English language sci-fi feature is certainly one of the most unusual films I've seen in recent months and that is really saying something.

For a start the story regards a futuristic world full of folks genetically modified while above them sits a floating pyramid full of Egyptian gods......for some reason!? It tells the story of a girl wanting to be human, not knowing exactly what she is but being targeted from all sides each person with their own agenda including a frisky Egyptian god.

The movie in many respects looks and reminded me of the television series Farscape (1999) but one thing sets it apart and it's one of the most damaging parts of the film.

Live action is merged with animation and by that I don't merely mean the sfx I mean half the characters are animated and animated poorly. The animation is that cheap horrible style you often see in kids cartoons and side by side with live action actors looked ridiculous! The premise of Immortal is solid and the cast were better than I expected but Roger Rabbit did a better job of merging live action and cartoon and that was back in the 1980's! Plus that actually explained why it was full of cartoons, this just looked terrible.

If you can get past this (Which I couldn't) you can do worse, but for me personally it made the film look shoddy.

The Good:

The concept

The cast

The Bad:

Poor animation

Holes in plot

After catching the first minutes of Immortel, I decided to record it and wait in excitement for a spare two hours to watch it. I began playing with anticipation and the first few minutes had it fulfilled, with Horus rising out of his chamber, then exiting the massive pyramid floating above NYC and colliding two nearby helicopters with his brute, god-like power. I was ravenous to see where the rest of the film was headed. Unfortunately, my anticipation and excitement began to disappear significantly as it continued.

Immortel ad vitam is the film adaptation of Enki's graphic novel series, which I never read, and as such, maybe I am seeing it differently than others, but to me, this film was a disappointment to what I was expecting. I really wanted to like this film, I really did. I really liked the premise of an Egyptian God coming to earth in the future and the CGI started off OK. But I knew, personally, I was going to find it hard to like this film as soon as I saw live-action actors mixed with CGI ones, and not only that, some shockingly bad CGI humans. My first question is, "why"? Why is there any need for it? You only time you ever need to integrate CGI characters with real ones is if the specific character is something that cannot be achieved any, or not many, other ways e.g, monsters, supernatural beings, animals. The CGI in this movie is so unnecessary and bad, it did make this film very hard to enjoy.

Furthermore, the plot structure was all over the place, which I am very picky about when it comes to movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for strange, weird movies that do take a bit of thinking, they're my favorite kinds of movies. I believe Eraserhead is one of the greatest artistic achievements in cinema history, and that's a weird movie. A movie can still be quirky and complicated while maintaining a nice plot structure. But this Immortel did not. I was really puzzled by the end of the film and still am as to what the whole thing was about. I mean, who was the red shark? And that creepy, black-clad guy? I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but missed it due to the untidy structure of the film.

While there's a lot to criticize about this film, there is definitely something there. Something special. And I intend to watch this film again soon in the near future to find that "something". Also, Horus is an absolute joy to watch and every minute he soaks up the screen is great. While Immortel is not for everyone, I still recommend giving it a shot.

Hamish Kearvell A.K.A Screaming Japan Productions - www.myspace.com/screamingjapanproductions

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.

I thoroughly enjoyed Bilal's graphic novel when it came out, and was amazed when I saw the trailer for this film, and even more so when I found that Bilal had directed it himself. The film, however, was a major letdown. The visuals are nowhere near the rich and gritty texture of the original artworks, and the story is poorly told. Bilal seems to have chosen to focus on the more esoteric aspects of the graphic novel, and he doesn't do a very good job at it, either.

The most enjoyable part of the original graphic novel was the friendship-hate relationship between Nikopol and Horus. They were both out of their right time and place, forced together by circumstance. Most of all, they were funny and likable. Not so here. Nikopol has no discernible personality whatsoever, and Horus is a pompous twit who just wants to get laid. Even though the film is French, Horus doesn't have to be!

We have all seen films we enjoyed, but wouldn't recommend to everyone, for some reason or other. I wouldn't recommend Immortel to anyone, except maybe as a warning not to overreach your talent and resources. Bilal's a master storyteller, but obviously not a master of every visual medium.

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.

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 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.

The feeling itself about the movie is really great - all the surrealism and sci-fi. But there's no good idea behind the movie. Nevertheless, I think it's a movie of new era, like The Matrix was. Except that The Matrix (I'st part) was a GREAT movie, with everything perfectly in it's place, and Immortel is something rather cheap.

I kinda liked the acting, but in some places the script is so unbelievable and cheap, that I don't know what to say. All the communication between characters are totally not real, very awkward.

Oh yeah - the "action" parts are totally without any action, like everything is in slow (like very slow) motion. So don't expect any here.

Overall, I would give 6/10. Worth a watch, see for yourself.

By the way - if you like surreal/sci-fi movies - watch "2001: A Space Odyssey", "12 Monkeys" or David Lynch's universe!

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.

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...

Even in 2004, this adaptation was a step in the dark-- the CGI FX were a little cruder back then, plus there was less experience with the mixing of real actors with animation on the scale that was attempted here.

Plus, the movie is colored Bleak. Dystopian to a degree that will turn off a lot of people.

That aside, younger (Though you are now adults) reviewers have to take into account that Enki Bilal comes from a wholly different milieu. (note: I purposefully use the french word-- it applies with distinct aptness) This graphic novel was serialized in Heavy Metal back in the day of the Early 80's. And in that time, the Graphic Novel took its lead from a European-French wave of Sci-fi writers and illustrators with all the 'NON-American' sensibilities entailed.

What I remember of this story when I read it in Heavy Metal-- was only VAGUELY coherent. The Story wasn't the reason I read it-- it was the ART. And the ART was the artist's insane and bizarre vision of a future reproduced in lurid color and detail. The notion of a "Story Plot" is grafted onto the panels to tie them together-- the way LSD and Nightmares seem to have continuity. Nikopol just happens to be the central character to tie everything together. He's in a weird place at a weird time and all sorts of weird and bizarre things are happening around him. The fact that the movie makers could even re-craft a SCRIPT out of that is . . . a miracle in itself.

The New York you see is NOT the New York of the future as we would imagine. This is a Frenchman's panorama of New York as HE re-envisions it. The Police and politics and society more resemble a Dystopian Paris than NY-- but hey, the man is French! The patchwork faces and people was Enki's trademark. Don't ask WHY. That's just the way he draws. If you want to know why, you're welcome to read biographies and go down that dark road on your lonesome.

Will it stand up to other complex Sci-Fi movies is Dependant on the viewer. I say it can't.

SO for this movie there are Three types of viewers:

1) Older Graphic Magazine fans who want to see the ART they remember attempted on the screen.

2) Viewers who are willing to see a Weird, Different take the Future. Don't expect it to make SENSE. That just ISN'T Enki Bilal. If you can roll with the bleak dystopian colour, it's a panoramic ride.

3) Viewers expecting something like "Fifth Element" You will be disappointed. Though both artists came from the same era-- Bilal and Moebius may both be FRENCH, but that's all the similarity you get. They are worlds Apart. Plus, even though "Fifth Element" preceded "Immortal" by 7 years and seems more colorfully alive by comparison-- remember that Moebius and Bilal saw the universe differently. Think of this movie as a historical record of this particular artist.

This movie will be an interesting Saturday afternoon viewing by Serious aficionados of the Graphic Genre. Wine and Cheese is mandatory.

I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie.

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.

Immortel closes the Singapore Fantastic Film Fest, and at first glance, it gave the impression that it'll be like Stargate, then Blade Runner done Sky Captain style, all rolled into one.

I shall only offer a simplistic view of the story, as try as I may, I just couldn't find a running theme in which this film attempts to explore in more detail. There were some promising touches on cybernetic human organ replacement, mythology and cryogenics, but somehow these were just "there" and weren't really explained to give the film a smoother narrative - you have to accept that it is, otherwise you'll never get past each scene.

It is 90 years into the future, and familiar landmarks in the New York City skyline like the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building are nowhere to be seen. Rather, the city looks like Star War's Coruscant, interrupted by the sudden appearance of a huge pyramid hovering above the city.

Horus (one of the Egyptian Gods, hence the pyramid) is given 7 days to roam the Earth, and he commits murders (of sorts) when finding a human body to possess without the host rejecting him. He stumbles upon a cryogentically frozen body of a deposed politician, and enslaves him by fitting him with an iron leg.

But Horus' real target turns out to be a mutant of some sorts - Jill, with her blue hair and white skin, and his mission these 7 days is actually to impregnate her, so that he'll have an offspring before he gets packed away on his eternal journey to space. To put it bluntly, it seemed like a disguised soft-porn movie (artistically shot).

If that sounds simple enough, that's because you might choose to ignore the other characters that appear in this film, like the doctor experimenting on Jill, Jill's secret lover, the detective, a host of gangly creatures, and some mystery surrounding Central Park.

But the saving grace is the CGI, which takes your breath away most of the time with its surreal landscape of the future. It's one of those pioneer films which have its actors film in front of a blue/green screen most, if not all the time.

The director of this film also wrote the comic books in which this movie is based upon, and I'd feel it might help if movie-goers have read some material to have a better understanding of the back story prior to this movie.

would be a good movie if the makers would stayed straight. so it seems like a mixture out of a arcade Game and the 5th element. either all chars in animation or none. thats the clou! or even just for me. the story seems to work, but with this animation overflow it looks like they went out of money for a good casting agent. and as in my point of view the animations ruined the whole bunch of real scenes, 'cause every time you watch an actor start to develop, there comes a cut to a CGI-scene and the whole atmosphere went out of the window. If you're really hooked on that CGI thing make it. but then get rid of the real actors, even this will work properly. But as in this times they just should be honored for the try of making an European based Sci-fi flick, against all this Hollywood made non-story-sci-fi-trash sweeping over the ocean.