Babylon A.D.
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.89 You Save: $12.09 (81%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.71 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Babylon A.D.
Movie Review: Not a bad movie.
Summary: 5 Stars
I really enjoyed this movie. All around a respectful sci fi thriller with exciting action.Movie Review: EVEN TO THE MOST PERCEPTIVE THE FUTURE ALWAYS SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE IF ONLY BECAUSE IT MUST REMAIN COMPLETELY UNKNOWABLE
Summary: 4 Stars
The Sci-Fi adventure epic is that venue in which the improbable and the inexplicable stay, thrashing in their own matrix of danger. Here, DIESEL is up to speed and a little beyond, at last, with this one. That spooky-scary kinetic rush of physical power and rage-aholism that animated XXX, PITCH BLACK and RIDDICK is back again, after a spate of gaffs and dung nuggets, and we can see the man as the MovieStar he is, for what he is, in his element. What is that element? It's that unpredictable area of semi-consciousness, part dream and part myth, where primal forces collide under the direction of men like David Twohy -- who orchestrated RIDDIK -- and Luc Besson, who directed, wrote and produced THE FIFTH ELEMENT. And in many ways BABYLON AD closely resembles that movie, FIFTH ELEMENT. Actually, the character Toorop of BABYLON AD is interchangeable with Korben Dallas of ELEMENT, played by Bruce Willis. In their careers, both actors play archetypes and for the past five or more years, have been and are to a degree rivals, and except that they are not physical twins, their roles have been nearly identical: SIN CITY, yet another rescue mission. And so, this snippet from the blurb for FIFTH ELEMENT fits very well here: This cast of actors stars "In an outrageous sci-fi adventure, an extravagantly styled tale of good against evil set in an unbelievable twenty-third century world."
Both these actors, WILLIS and DIESEL have transcended their national origins, and even their original stereotypes (sarcastic West Side of Manhattan toughies) as well as their ethnic and racial origins, and become Types. What types? Brutes. Or, just Americans as Europeans may well see us; mindless, mercenary Thugs. Remember, if you check the very lengthy walk-out credits, you'll find that this movie is not an American movie, but a pan-European or International one, with credits for artistic and financial production coming from virtually every financial center in the world, an with artistic creation originating in Paris, Prague, Rome, London and only incidentally from New York. In fact, considering Michelle Yeoh's considerable contribution, it wouldn't be strange if the Chinese film business contributed to BABYLON.
But what's BABYLON A.D. like to watch? Luscious, to my way of thinking; irrational, wonderful, unnpredictable action and virtually all the actors give surprising performances.
DIESEL? He looks great. They've finally figured out how to vary his 'look' so that he's at least plausibly attractive in a street-like way. (A MAN APART, a fairly good action flick, puts him in Mexi-Latino LA, and with facial hair he fits in.) Here, they find ways to make him look interesting on camera. They do exquisite creative work with his tatooing; great forearm motifs, good hand stuff; they bring lines and slashes up to his hairline and do suave things with his scalp and rug. So fine! In a scene near the end of the movie he's caught in the shower first, with bleeding wounds and a spectacular all-over Egyptian-style dorsal tatoo and next, with Melanie Thierry in her undies. They don't wrestle, but they don't have to. Total Venus and Mars. Arousing, like something out of DUN.
MELANIE THIERRY is a ravishing girl/woman with blonde hair and the face of an angel or, yes, yes, admit it; the face of the Madonna. Like Milla Jovovich, she has the huge, pale wide eyes and Finnish-like not-quite androgynous body and the sense of unearthliness the role calls for. Through most of the flick her role is passive: She appears to be psychotic, but turns out to be psychic, we find, en route. However, she's always being pushed and pulled everywhere, by nearly everybody, so its hard to tell. But somehow she maintains an unearthly poise that is both upsetting and attractive.
MICHELE YEOH brings to the film those qualities which, if you haven't ever seen her (in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) or anything else, must remain inexplicable. Grace, poise, beauty, strength and athleticism. She is a marvel. Chen-yu.
GERARD DEPARDIEU was a complete surprise. I didn't look at the credits on the box and didn't realize that the character I saw, the Russian thug who set the story in motion, was indeed himself. He is so great, but we seldom if ever see him in English-language movies.
And get ready for CHARLOTTE RAMPLING. What a monster! Almost didn't recognize her, haven't seen her for so long. This beautiful bit will certainly bring her back more often.
The sets? Peculiar. Very, very interesting.
The premise is far beyond improbable; it is astonishing. Toorop, our hero, this out-at-the elbow post Bush-Oil II American mercenary is living somewhere in (Post-apocalyptic) Russia (of all places; no explanation) as a Russian and on very damned little, but gets an offer for work from one of the big Official Mafiosi. He is not in a position to refuse, if only because his acceptance means the possibility that he may be able to escape to the USA and return to his family home. It's a pick-up and delivery gig; some kind of wierd girl. The trip? From Russia, which looks like a scrap yard of barely operational military junk, to possibly Mongolia and an isolated monestary to fetch the girl who will not travel without her own special nun; then by partly-armored vintage 70s Zil, under and over the Silk Road, and then partly by rail to Vladivostak. There, to pick up boat tickets, they wait at the edge of the fozen-over harbor. Did you hear me? It's a trip across frigging Asia, man!
Meanwhile, at the Vladivostak terminal there's a horrific bomb blast -- which thanks to the girl they avoid -- and a confusing series of fights and brawls with swarming, dangerous American kids like Juvie orphans, in and through a kind of rickety scaffolding that is almost but not quite architecture. The incoherence is intense, and when the sub appears in the frozen harbor like a black, iron whale, and the fugitives swarm, that dreadful scene is handled with cruel, Soviet-like efficiency.
After more submarine experiences and near-lethal adventures crossing the Alaskan/Candian wastes, they find themselves in New York City. (Now, pop. 21 million: it's Dekerd's cityscape from BLADERUNNER, seen from above. Kosher Tokyo.) There, in Haarlem, the story takes an abrupt twist, and the insane religious fanatics who paid for the delivery of the girl, prepare to receive her. (It's The murderous Queen of the Night from THE MAGIC FLUTE and her nasty entourage.) After promptly murdering her mate, she brings with her unending psychotic malice coupled with unspeakable violence. There is an explosive convulsion in which nearly everyone dies.
But not everybody. Our anti-hero is resurrected or transformed into a loving, partly-bionic man, or fusion-droid, in up-state New York. And from there... It's short but home sweet home.
BABYLON A.D. is about as pure a HEAVY METAL adventure as you can find these days, and I intend to watch it again this afternoon. (Envy me, you pathetic corporate deeves!)
Movie Review: And They Say that the Cyberpunk Genre is Dead...
Summary: 4 Stars
I originally saw this movie in theaters because it was a sci-fi flick, and as a casual writer of science fiction, I tend to like to go see sci-fi movies. I can understand the people's reviews here that scored it lower if the only version they watched was the theatrical release, because I walked out of the movie hall with mixed feelings about it. I've never read the novel "Babylon Babies" that it's based on, so I tried to judge the movie on its own merits. The movie was dark. It was gritty. It was cyberpunk in a style that some would say is dead. That was decent enough. But you could tell that the main purpose of the original version was as a build-up to the sequel that Twentieth Century Fox studios fairly screamed they were going to make at the end. The theatrical version was clearly designed as a pilot to a franchise. It had some good action scenes with well-designed special effects, but as a whole, it ended up being rather disjointed. It went from one action shot to the next with only minimal connection between the characters and I ended up not identifying with anything. It was almost as if Fox expected you to go "Gosh, wow!" in a mindless fashion every time you saw something explode on screen and come out saying "AWESOME movie, man!!" with a little bit of drool hanging out of the corner of your mouth. So, if the original version was the only one I had to look forward to coming out on DVD, I would have to give it a rating of 2 1/2 stars, with 3 stars if I was feeling generous.
The unrated, extended cut changed all that, and that was all due to the extra footage and the alternate ending. This cut delved deeper into the characters, both pro- and antagonistic, gave them more reason as to why they acted the way they did (especially why Vin Diesel's character 'Toorop' was as hard-bitten as he was, showing him as a small child of about 6 or 7 years old in one of the recall scenes surrounded by a group of rough types laughing and cheering as a double-barreled shotgun was placed in his hands). As a result, the whole of the movie gelled together much more effectively into a personal, more human-oriented story. The ending of the alternate cut also allowed the movie to stand on its own merits. You knew there was a sequel coming up, but it was more subtle. I almost think Fox shot themselves in the foot by releasing the alternate cut because if people identify more with this version than the original, the studio is going to have a tough time coming out with just another action slug-fest in a way that people can connect the two together, when and if the studio does a sequel.
A lot of people gave this movie low marks simply because Vin Diesel was in it. I have a feeling that if a current golden child of the industry had been cast in the role of the lead instead, it would have done much better, both at the box office and in home viewing. People seem to forget that Vin was thought of as the bomb (wow, a muscle dude that can actually act; take THAT Schwarzenegger!) until he opted out of doing the sequel to the Fast and the Furious. How DARE he?! Suddenly, general consensus was that everyone hated him. Fickle... Also, a few people make the claim that he's the same character in all of his movies. I offer that he does a good job with the parts he's given. It's hard to avoid type-casting in Hollywood. Look at Will Smith. He does fabulous in his shows, but those parts are picked especially for him, and he ends up being recognizable as Will Smith, not the character he's supposed to be, except in the movie masterpiece 'Ali' (he WAS Ali in the show). This is not entirely Hollywood's fault. People have certain pre-conceived notions going into a movie and are offended when those expectations are not met. The Hollywood studios have a feel for public mindset and are willing to feed off of that to get the highest dollar. I put if forth to all of you to have an open mind when watching this and other movies. Try it. You might like it.
I also gave this movie good marks because it boldly takes up a stance against, and sets itself up for attack from, rigid religious views. Understand, I have absolutely no problem with religion or faith, as long as the core tenets of that faith espouse kindness, compassion and respect. My parents are devout catholics, and they are GOOD people, not just because they say God tells them to be, but because they feel it's the right thing to do. One of my cousins and her husband pray regularly at a small buddhist shrine they have set up in their living room. They leave their door unlocked and say that if anyone comes in from off the street and needs their help, they've got it. I'm a tried and true atheist (I just can't believe that humanity's special enough to have been created by some supreme entity, in his or her or its own image no less, and then given the entire universe as our playground until the end times come when the faithful receive eternal bliss as a reward) but I am firmly convinced that I act in a more Christian manner than about 95% of the so-called Christians out there. I'm 39 now, and in that time, I've met a LOT of religious people who were flat-out jerks. This movie shows that religion can also have a dark side to it and it challenges religion to step up and take accountability for its member's actions and the tenets it teaches.
Also, some people might be offended at the idea of genetically engineered children, bred for a specific purpose or niche. I remind everyone that nature has been doing this for uncounted millions of years (unless you're a Creationist, then the universe and everything in it is only about 6000 years old). That's why we have black people, white people, oriental people, latino people and all the other subtypes therein (but, you know what; we can all have children together and that says we're all the same, with about one-tenth of one percent genetic difference MAX between yourself and anyone else you're staring at at the moment). Nature directs itself to find the most suitable form for a specific environment, so the idea that we're on the verge of technologically taking charge of our own genetic paths is a reality that's closer than we might think (roughly about 25 to 50 years away). This movie takes that particular bull by the horns as well. Kudos, Babylon!
All in all, this movie-the unrated extended cut especially-was an enjoyable romp around the world for anyone who's brave enough to gaze at how it might be a few years from now. It did borrow material from other movies, but which movie doesn't? Look at it from that standpoint, and delve deeper into the social issues it contends with, and you might like it more than you thought you would.
Peace.
Movie Review: Hmmmm
Summary: 4 Stars
Vin Diesel plays a tough guy who is hired to smuggle a special girl out of mongolia, through Russia and Canada, to the United States in a near future almost postapocalyptic world.
The movie is pretty much one extremely long action sequence punctuated by Vin Diesel making gutteral grunting noises as he intimidates bad guys.
Pros
-Vin Diesel
-The special effects were good
Cons
-The story really doesn't hold together well
-The near future is rendered just ok (tries to be bladerunnersish but falls well short)
-The story has no conclusion
-There is little rationale for why the characters do what they do
Overall, this movie presents a paper thin plot for Vin Diesel to Kick Butt.
The movie is replete with cool special effects, Vin fighting in a cage, Vin playing with CNNs interractive screen in his trunk, cool special effects, blowing things up, blowing things up, gutteral grunting from Vin, more gutteral grunting from Vin. No Plot.
If this sounds like your idea of a great enteratining movie, go out and rent it or buy it. If this reads like the movie is a complete mess, steer well clear.
[...]
I will say this, if this movie didn't have Vin Diesel and the neat special effects - it could very well wind up being one of those horrible plotless Sci Fi Channel movies that tries to be a B movie but is really an F. It gets the stars it gets because of Vin and the special effects.
If you want to see how a movie like this is done correctly, try watching The Fifth Element (Ultimate Edition) where you get Bruce Willis trying to recover some precious rocks with Mila Jovovovich (SP?) across borders, on starships -- but in contrast to Babylon AD, in the Fifth Element, you get great character development, a bit of comedy, lots of action, and very memorable characters. In short, there is a right way and a not so right way to do a movie like this. Babylon AD is an example of how not to do it while The Fifth Element is an example of how to get it done right.
Movie Review: Intriguing stunner...... bad editing
Summary: 4 Stars
I rarely go into Vin Deisel movies with high expectations given his limited range. Lets face it, when you build a certain physique and persona you have to accept the pigeonholing as an actor. I read other reviews and removed this from my pre-order list and made it a rental instead. What a surprize to the upside. Some of the critique for this movie is warrented and the ending as you find it now will leave questions. The most important attitude to see this movie with is to enjoy the process and not look for simple gratification in the ending. As a near futuristic movie, this film tackles the challenge of envisioning a near future with new technology that is, if not realistic, still far from the utterly rediculous that many movies try to present. THIS IS NOT JUST A DUMBED DOWN ACTION SPECTACLE. One might be surprized to see Vin in what is actually a very ambitious, intelligent movie for this genre in my opinion. Though any one part of the plot by itself may not be original, I found the sum total to be refreshingly different. There are also spectacular visuals, very well orchestrated action scenes, thought provoking issues and conflicts and very wonderful performances by many actors. Pay attention to the technologies and gadgets here and there, a little satyre on religion and the questions of real faith and spirituality. This is a really good movie that just couldn't do everything it wanted in the time allowed. Don't get me wrong, if I were rating the construction or editing of this movie it would be two stars. I have no doubt that it was butchered by idiots who had no faith in an original vision. If what I have read in other reviews is correct, this movie could really be a marvel if there is an extended version that doesn't screw it up. I wouldn't normally find myself looking forward to a three hour Vin Deisel movie but I would really like to see what they can do with this one.