Perceptions of a Kilted Hungarian

This past week I saw what is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. So maybe that’s a bit too much; I’ll just call it the “least entertaining movie I have ever seen.” Immortal seems to be the result of the movie-makers’ fantasizing for much of pre-production about just how awesome this film is going to be, as it pays homage to every genre EVAR. You know how, more often then not, papers and assignments you have to cram for, or stay up until 4 in the morning the night before its due, turn out like rubbish? Well, if you were cramming for a movie, Immortal would be the result.

For starters, Immortal seems to have an insurmountable identity crisis: “Am I a video game cut-scene or a b-movie?” I feel strongly that mixing live action with CGI can be successful, if executed correctly. I was very impressed with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and how it brought to life a new and extra-ordinary world in a pointedly graphic and stylized manner. Sin City successfully used extensive computer stuff to realize a very specific vision. Even Yoda and [cringe] Jar-Jar merged beautifully with their “real” environments, enhancing the viewers’ suspension of disbelief. The EXTENSIVE CGI in Immortal accomplished none of this. The viewer is left asking “Why?” during the ‘better’ parts and “WTF?” during some of the not-so-good parts. Characters that are lacking in any semblance of realism are acting alongside real actors. Why? Please tell me: why? This movie would have been so much more entertaining if it had just picked one or the other. Concern 1: addressed.

It is my understanding that a protagonist and antagonist are basic building blocks of a story. Someone that the viewer can relate to, pull for and learn about this strange new world with. I guess the latter part was addressed with the three month old, fully grown chick. I have narrowed the contenders for this role down to three characters: some Egyptian deity, a dude and a chick. The Egyptian guy wakes up one morning and decides he’s going to die at the hands of these other Egyptian deities (who reside in a flying pyramid, by the way) if he doesn’t do this one thing in seven days. Homeboy kills, like, seven people in his attempts to secure a host that can hold his awesomeness. So, recap: homicidal, Egyptian deity is probably not our protagonist. If you’re anything like me, you’re probably concerned that this guy might fit the bill for the antagonist (read: “bad guy”) but I beg to differ. His quest is the reason we’re watching the flick: we are meant to relate to his need to survive, despite the fact that he’s a first rate douche. The guy is only really a candidate because of his screen time: he does absolutely nothing of his own accord and he definitely does not pull the viewer into the movie or its universe. He is at best a puppet with an amusing accent. The chick has these bad ass powers that she doesn’t really ever use… she just has them for, well, why the hell not? She has a mysterious benefactor that tells her stuff then abandons her in (of all places) central park (which has become this horrid vortex of awfulness, and we know this because some news bit in the movie tells us). So, we are left with really no one to tell us why some of the inhabitants of this world are piss-poor CGI and some are piss-poor actors and why we should give a frak about any of these people or this world.

Overall, the basic premise had tremendous promise, as did the broad concept of the universe, but was very poorly executed. There are countless issues that I’m sure were meant to make the film more artistic, but instead make it nearly impossible to watch, but more importantly, there is nothing to make you WANT to follow or understand it. I was considering holding on to the DVD for another night, to give it a second chance, perhaps to find something I missed the first time around, but after brief consideration, I realized that I should quite while I’m ahead, while I only have two hours invested in this debacle. In summation, Immortal was, at best, a half-assed rough draft of a decent movie that should have never been approved for any sort of release.

We are all familiar with the ‘post-apocalypse’ genre of film making. In recent years the amount of these movies spewn upon us by Hollywood has turned what is essentially a powerful and potentially meaningful genre into more of a parody of itself… movies so impressed with themselves that they ignore the fact that there is no story, no character and nothing new to offer the viewer or the art form. What is most refreshing about The Book of Eli is that it isn’t two hours of “we tore a hole in the sky” environmental commentary. That part is in there, to be sure, but its handled matter-of-factly, both by the characters and the film itself. As far as the in-film universe is considered, there is no use crying over spilt milk. Odds are that when people are starving and thirsty, they are probably not going to spend any significant amount of time (time that would be better spend finding food and water) discussing philosophy and the environmental and social ramifications of thirty-odd years before. This adds what might be viewed as a certain element of realism, or at the very least believability, to a genre that is historically lacking in that area. The characters and their motives are simple and straight-forward, and still all the principles come off as rich, well-rounded individuals that the viewer often finds himself empathizing with.

Even though the primary plot is pretty clear-cut and simple, the film is interesting to watch, the characters are surprisingly relatable and well-rounded and the film is still able to engage, and even suprise, the viewer.

It is difficult enough to gauge a movie on its own merits, but the re-introduction of a century’s old character and story arch brings the additional elements of continuity and consistency that is a hurdle for any “re-boot” (to coin a phrase from the vernacular). In this particular instance, the franchise has gone long enough without any attention that any attachment to stories or characters on the part of the viewer are easily over-looked, allowing the viewer to enter into the viewing experience with an open mind, a “clean slate,” as it were. That having been said, the writer has (for all intents and purposes) only a cursory knowledge of the source material and characters as they were originally written. Some might argue that an accurate assessment of this movie’s place in the Sherlock Holmes lore cannot be made without a firm grasp of back-story, origins and original concepts. Conversely, it might be argued that to critique the movie as an independent work and art form, the writer must be able to overlook or forget previous interpretations or incarnations. Or, as in the case of this writing, begin with an unbiased perspective and a blissfully ignorant state of mind.

Initially, there was some skepticism about a Sherlock Holmes movie directed by Guy Ritchie, since the character seemed dated and not very relatable in today’s world, and because Guy Ritchie is not known for the cerebral styled work that was sure to be required for such an undertaking. The first point proved to be moot, since Hollywood is finding all sorts of ways of recycling ideas and concepts for the next blockbuster. The latter proved to be an underestimation of Ritchie’s artistic and visionary capabilities. Revolver in particular illustrated perfectly his desire and ability to branch out from his trademark gangster flicks. Now, with Sherlock Holmes, he finally has a mainstream (read: PG-13) hit to tack on to his already impressive resume.

Ritchie’s style and tone translated beautifully into the Victorian London of Holmes’ adventures. Holmes exists in the same lived-in, grungy world that Turkish and Brick-top inhabit a century later, but that’s all set dressing and pretty colors. At its core, Sherlock Holmes can best be described as a buddy flick, a story about Holmes’ and Watson; hetero homeboys for life (character piece? Guy Ritchie’s forte, perhaps). The primary story arch and subplot are consistently overshadowed by their relationship with one another. The absent minded intellectual, lacking any sort of social grace, desperately needs a connection to the real world, a connection provided by his friend and compatriot, Dr. Watson. Watson, in turn, feels an overwhelming desire to protect Holmes from both the mischief he is sure to get himself into, as well as the mischief that normally seems to gravitate toward him.

Another element of note in Sherlock Holmes is the main story. As before, the primary story is not the main focus of the film, but serves more as an adhesive that binds the whole together. The classic mystery/crime drama presents an almost novel approach to the Hollywood blockbuster (which Sherlock Holmes is, both by design and in practice). It is certainly enjoyable watching any film which does more then bombard the viewer with shiny eye-candy.

In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes was a very enjoyable cinematic adventure on many levels. Acting, cinematography, dialogue et al are all top notch, facilitating both the viewers’ suspension of disbelief and the value of the work itself. Also, its always grand when the industry swerves (even if ever-so-slightly) from the proven formulae that have historically yielded them mass fortunes. As an aside, hopefully this will not simply be a re-defining of the formula: Ritchie needs to continue to innovate, instead of finding something that works and doing nothing else [Johnny Depp and his Captain Jack].