“It’s pure violence and stupidity,” says Mathieu Kassovitz, the director of “Babylon A.D.,” in an interview regarding his most recent release. “I’m very unhappy with the film,” he says in a series of statements that almost nullify my job. When a filmmaker goes out of his way to heap scorn on his own hard work, what need the critic do? Nod his or her head in agreement? Dispute the film’s key creative force and insist that they in fact did create an endearing work of art?
With this sort of discussion, you’d think an off-the-rails disaster had just been unleashed onto cinema. “Babylon A.D.” is not dreadful, nor is it without merit. It’s not good, either, and one would be hard-pressed to make sense of the plot without a rewind button and a surplus of patience. Throughout the first half scenes abruptly stumble into one another without regard to pacing, while by the second half the filmmakers seem to give up and toss ideas and twists into the air like a deck of cards.
It’s a sort of cyberpunk “Children of Men,” that magnificent film’s unbearable tension and allegory replaced by an action hero, machinegun fire exchanges, and explosions designed to thrill instead of frighten. Like that film, the hero of “Babylon A.D.” is a cynical man guiding a young woman and her handler through a washed-out dystopia. In “Children of Men,” the hero’s disillusioned worldview and quest for cash transformed into a crusade to salvage the future of humanity, motivated by a discovery of the life-affirming kind. In “Babylon A.D.,” the hero’s disillusioned worldview and quest for cash transforms into a crusade to protect a hot piece of ass, motivated by the discovery that he might can hook up with said hot piece of ass. How inspiring.
Now, I’m not saying that I don’t buy his motivation, because I do, but watching character transformations that resemble those undergone by every other man I know on a near-daily basis doesn’t strike me as particularly stirring. The hero, named Toorop, is played by Vin Diesel, whom we’ve long been promised will become the premier action star of this generation, though at this point he’s a decade late and counting. Toorop lives in Eastern Europe and works as a mercenary, not a particularly lucrative profession, apparently, as he must barter for animal carcasses outside his rundown apartment building in order to cook dinner. He soon takes on a job escorting Aurora (Mélanie Thierry), a girl with a phenomenal intellect and psychic powers that come in handy precisely three times, to New York City (looking like a completely uninspired architectural clone of the Los Angeles seen in “Blade Runner”). They’re accompanied by Sister Rebeka, Aurora’s surrogate mother of sorts, and since she is played by Michelle Yeoh she karate kicks a few goons before she’s reminded of the superiority of the gun to the flesh.
Along the way, they’re harassed by various factions, including some stupid cult, another stupid cult, and a gangster that is a continent or two out of his jurisdiction. The closer to the end the film gets, the easier it becomes to see what the director was so pissed about; the lack of narrative cohesion suggests that more than a few moments of footage hit the cutting room floor courtesy of the studio.
Individual scenes make sense on their own, but strung together, they’re substantially less than the sum of their parts. Just why are all these people shooting at each other, what’s that robotic man talking about, and what’s this about a resurrection? These hang-ups are punctuated with big-budget bluster, competently staged, but not nearly enough to make us forget that we aren’t even sure why all this mayhem is happening.
Through the nonsensical haze, it’s not difficult to spot the potential of the material. “Children of Men” it was not destined to be, but there are slick visual and technological flourishes (I was particularly amused by the future of roadmaps), as well as the absence of awfulness paradoxically sitting alongside the dearth of story substance. It might not be good, but if I’d be willing to give a director’s cut a chance, it did something right, whether or not the filmmakers agree.
2 out of 5
3 comments:
This review was very entertaining to read, and almost made me want to see the movie, but your lackluster rating will stay my hand at the video store. (I get the sense that you are feeling a bit more cheerful these days?)
I wonder, if you were to write a more entertaining review, will it make more people want to see the movie than if you write a more sensible criticism?
I liked your review of this film. The director's comments, as well as the general feel of this film, are what made me stay away from it at the theater. If a Directors Cut comes out that makes more sense I'd be willing to give it a try, but if the studio keeps it as is I wont watch it.
Why would anyone even want to see a movie that the director is not proud of? Ah well, the idiotic masses appreciate fluff and no substance I suppose.
Ramin: Thanks! Unfortunately, I've no data on whether or not I've successfully encouraged or discouraged anyone from seeing anything. That would be nice to know.
Will: If the DVD release is a director's cut, I'll rent it. Even then, though, it could still suck. Sometimes directors just can't admit they did a lousy job and would rather blame the studio or whomever.
Post a Comment