Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Director: Luc Besson

Cast: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen, Rihana

My expectations were extremely high for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) because the filmmaker behind the camera was the one and only Luc Besson, a director who has proven himself time and again to be a visionary with films like The Fifth Element (1995) and Lucy (2014). And he’s also proven himself in non genre films like Leon: The Professional (1994) and  The Big Blue (1988). Besson’s always been a prolific director who jumps effortlessly from genre to genre with success. But I was extremely excited with Valerian because it marked his return to big budget, larger than life, escapist science fiction that we saw him play with in The Fifth Element, a film I was blown away by when I first saw it. I literally saw it five times in theaters! And if the trailer for Valerian was to be an indication of what we could expect, Besson was poised to wow us again. Does Besson still have the ability to amaze us?

Valerian is all about these special government agents, Valerian and Laureline, who are assigned to retrieve a creature, the last of its kind, who can reproduce a pearl that can offer limited amounts of energy to the universe. But of course, dark, evil forces (read: the government) are after it and so, the race is on to protect this little creature from certain death. At the same time, Valerian is trying to prove his love to Laureline, will he ever learn to love anything but himself?

This film has lots of pros, but unfortunately lots of cons as well. But lets start with the good shall we? The good is that the film is a visual tour de force, a barrage of ideas that never stop coming. Right from the opening sequences of the movie, where we see how the titular city of a thousand planets is formed, we are wowed with race after race of alien beings, who start forming a part of the gigantic floating city in space. I get what Besson was going for with this movie. He wanted to do something that was so filled with imagination and creativity that there is no way it could be ignored. He wanted to give us an overdose of awesomeness and for all intents and purposes he succeeded. Imagination never stops with this one; you’ll be saying “cool” every five seconds. Now considering the amount of imagination and design involved in this movie, it should have been a huge hit in theaters. So what happened? Why did it flop so spectacularly?

The flopping came as a result of some of the films negative attributes. For starters the films plot is paper thin. There is no plot here save for running from one place to the next, trying to save a cute little creature. Sadly, without much more than that in terms of story, the film turns into a beautiful looking, empty spectacle. Pretty to look at, but with no substance, Valerian turns into the classic case of style over substance. Then there’s the fact that American audiences like a little familiarity with their genre fare and you’ve got yourselves the ingredients for a perfect bomb at the box office. If a film doesn’t come from some pre-existing universe that audiences were just dying to see come to life, then they won’t care or connect, even if the film is good. Valerian and Laureline comes from a French comic book from the sixties that American audiences never read or heard of until now. For Besson it’s a lifelong dream come true to bring his childhood comic book heroes to life, but for American audiences Valerian and Laureline is something they are not familiar with at all, filing it under the “too weird” file.

Then there’s this male chauvinist thing about it. Valerian treats women like sex objects, and for most of the film he treats Laureline like crap, even though he’s supposed to have affection for her. He’s always being the quintessential “guy” telling her to “wait here” while he takes care of everything, which today is considered “passé” by savvy movie audiences. In todays modern films, women have grown past the damsel in distress cliché, but apparently, nobody gave Besson the memo. Even the title of the film is chauvinist when you think about it. The comic was called Valerian and Laureline, not just Valerian. Why kick the female out of the film’s title? Is she not integral to the film? Are they not a duo? I roll my eyes at that type of thing. Then there’s the thing about the two protagonists having zero chemistry together. They do not look like they are attracted or in love with each other at all! It’s like we’re supposed to believe Valerian is passionately in love with Laureline, but there’s nothing there to prove it to us. It seems to me that if LOVE is the theme that is going to hold this film together, and it is supposed to be, well then Besson should have made sure it was passionate and heartfelt. He should have made sure their love for each other shined through and quite honestly, it doesn’t. Valerian comes through as a selfish cold guy who cares only for himself. I mean, I get it, he’s supposed to be selfish and cold in order to learn the ways of love, but come on. At least a glimpse of their love for each other would have been nice.

But I don’t think Besson ever meant for it to be “deep” or profound, it was simply meant to be a spectacle, eye candy in its purest form. So maybe if you go in with that mentality you won’t be disappointed. There’s a couple of inside jokes in there as well for lovers of The Fifth Element, actually, the film has many similarities with The Fifth Element, certain scenes in Valerian felt copy pasted from The Fifth Element, but fear not. Valerian has so many new ideas, you won’t mind. Final say is that this is an amazing film visually, conceptually and design wise, but is totally void of the love and emotions that it professes to be about, so that in my opinion is its biggest fault and in my opinion the reason why it tanked at the box office. And that’s weird because Besson’s theme, in a lot of his films has always been love, and human emotion, so in that sense I was surprised that the film was lacking in that area. Yet, in the films defense I will say that it didn’t deserve to fail as big as it did because there is space out there for escapist films whose sole purpose is to entertain us, and in that respect, Valerian did not fail at all.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Angel-A (2005)

Angel - A (2005)  

             

Director/Writer: Luc Besson

Cast: Jamel Debouzze, Rie Rasmussen

Luc Bessson’s films have always had this strong visual sense to them, he likes to load them with amazing shots, an abundance of color and detail. But one of the things that I’ve also noticed about his films is that he cares a lot about emotion, he likes to make us feel, to appreciate each other, to enjoy life. He likes to make us remember that love overpowers anything. Remember how in The Fifth Element (1997) the final element in the equation was true love? Besson likes to show through his films that love is what makes life worthwhile, which is something I enjoy about his films. Angel-A is no exception, it’s yet another film emphasizing love for others and for oneself. The thing about Angel-A is that the first few minutes lead you to believe that this is going to be just another by the numbers film about a guy who owes money to some gangsters, but if you keep watching, you’ll soon realize that that’s just the kick off point for something far more profound and touching.

Angel-A is all about a hustler named Andre. He owes around 50 thousand dollars to various unsavory dudes out on the streets and they have all decided to come collecting at the same time. So Andre has a couple of henchmen after him looking to punch his lights out. When he sees no exit to it all, he decides to jump of a bridge. Before he does that, he looks up at the sky and asks God why he’s never answered any of his cries for help. Andre doesn’t know it, but God has listened this time. And he’s sent one of his angels to help, her name is Angela.

The premise for Angel-A (2005) is not a new one; that of an Angel being sent down from heaven to help a human who is in a particularly nasty situation. One example that comes to mind is The Heavenly Kid (1985), a film about a guy who’s got to earn his place in heaven by helping somebody on earth. The idea of an Angel falling in love for the person they are supposed to be helping has also been done before in films like Date with an Angel (1987), Always (1989), City of Angels (1998), and one of my all time favorite movies about angels: Wings of Desire (1987). But Angel-A is a different kind of angel movie. Angela is far from perfect, she’s no goodie little two shoes. She smokes cigarettes, kicks whoever’s ass she has to kick and fucks like there’s no tomorrow. Some movies play with the idea of a god sent Angel with more respect then others, this one is a loosey goosey version of an Angel. But besides that, she’s here to help Andre find his path and learn to love others and himself. Will she achieve her mission? Will Andre ever set his life on the right track?

A couple of things made this one a keeper for me. Number one is that it’s actually an unpredictable film; you think it’s going to play out one way and it goes another. I also enjoyed the fact that the film was in black and white. As an illustrator of black and white comic books, I enjoy the black and white aesthetic very much, I think it offers its own visual flare, it’s own uniqueness. Luc Besson exploits this black and white look of the film very much, the sets, the illumination, everything is done to exploit the black and white nature of the film. I loved that Paris is one of the main characters in the film. There are a few films in which the city becomes a character. Films like Taxi Driver (1976), Hirsohima Mon Amour (1959) and Lost in Translation (2003) are examples of films in which the city becomes an integral part to the films look and feel and Angel-A is one of these films. Besson chose some beautiful, iconic locations to set his film in and it just makes the movie that much more splendorous. I mean, Paris at night, there’s no way you’re not going to love that.

Then we have the final element that truly got me and it was this films heart. Besson’s films tend to be all about people truly feeling for each other, making connections in the middle of dire straits. Besson’s films are all about humans helping each other, especially when they are hitting rock bottom.  Besson’s Leon: The Professional (1994) was all about Mathilda, an orphaned 12 year old girl finding an unlikely savior in the form of Leon, a hitman. Leon accepts her into his life, even though Mathilda obviously disrupts it. On Angel-A, it is Andre who begs God for a savior and gets it in the form of Angela, the sexy as hell, six foot, chain smoking Angel. The dynamics between Andre and Angela are fantastic. The contrast between a little guy and a six foot, sexy Angel makes for an interesting visual. Jamel Debouzze (Andre) and Rie Rasmussen (Angela) have great chemistry together, I bought their unlikely romance, they manage to stir some real emotions into their performances. There’s this amazing scene that really got to me in which Angela is showing Andre all about learning to love oneself, it literally brought tears to my eyes. It’s not every day a movie can do that to me. And it’s a testament to Debouzze and Rasmussen as actors and a testament to Besson’s talents as a filmmaker who knows how to nail emotions and a beautiful looking movie home.

Rating: 4 out of 5     

                                                    

The Illusionist (2010)

The Illusionist (2010)

Director: Sylvain Chomet

Sylvain Chomet is a very special animator that all lovers of traditional hand drawn animation should be exposed to. His style is so unique, it’s a true delight to watch. The first time I was exposed to his work was while organizing a short film festival. I was looking for some of the best short films ever made and upon my research I stumbled upon a 25 minute animated short film entitled The Old Lady and the Pigeons (1997). This short film won many awards when it was released and it’s not without merit, the short film is a wonder of animation, beautiful, grotesque and nightmarish at the same time! And this is a short film about an old lady who goes to the park every day to feed pigeons! Search it out on you tube, you won’t be disappointed! So anyways, the short film was a hit on my short film festival, people clapped and cheered at it. So of course, I searched for Chomet’s other films. I had to see this wonderful animator’s whole body of work.

This is how I came upon The Triplets of Bellville (2003). I wasn’t expecting to get my mind blown by a film about a grandmother who trains her grandson to become a world class cyclist, but there I was entranced by the awesome mix of visuals and sound. The thing about Chomet’s films is that the unique visual style of his drawings will keep your eyes glued, but so will the sounds and the absence of dialog. To Chomet, actions speak louder than words. We get sounds, we get music, but when someone speaks, it won’t be often, and usually it will sound like a language you might know, but it will more than likely be a muffled sound sounding like language, meant to transmit an idea, an emotion. Kind of like when Charlie Chaplin speaks gibberish in Modern Times (1936)? Or how he speaks "German" in The Great Dictator (1940)? You swear Chaplin's speaking in a known language, but he’s actually speaking gibberish? Like that. This is how language works in a Chomet film, which makes for an amazingly unique audio visual experience. I was very impressed by The Triplets of Bellville, which is why I was delighted to discover he had one more film in his animated repertoire: The Illusionist (2010), the film I’ll be talking about today.

The Illusionist tells the tale of an aging Illusionist who is on the verge of becoming passé, his act has become old hat, replaced by young rock and roll groups. So he decides to travel the country, searching for new venues that will appreciate his particular talent. So he travels to Edinburgh where he finds a variety of venues that give him a job, but basically, he’s a lonely guy living from gig to gig. On one of his venues, he meets this young woman whom he immediately befriends. She is extremely poor, so he decides to buy her a pair of shoes. She immediately becomes attached to the Illusionist and decides to become his traveling companion. He on the other hands becomes her protector and provider, so they become friends. But questions immediately arise, she’s a young woman, and he’s an older fellow. What are his intentions with her? Is he merely interesting in helping the girl? Is he in love with her? Is she in love with him? Is it a platonic thing? Is he just a Good Samaritan?

The Triplets of Bellville (2003) was such an exhilarating experience, a nonstop barrage of amazement, such a tour de force of animation that of course my expectations for The Illusionist were extremely high. And while The Illusionist does deliver in many ways, mostly with its visuals and over all ambiance and feeling…sadly it fails to deliver a film with substance to it. It feels like it could have worked better as a short film rather than a 90 minute film. The story is just too thin, not enough happens, to justify a full length picture. But putting aside my desires for a slightly more complex story, there’s still a lot to be enjoyed here. I mean, Chomet manages to capture Edinburgh, he makes it magical. He does something with its localization that not a lot of movies can do: it makes you want to live there. This has happened to me with some Hayao Miyazaki films, like Ponyo (2008), were I felt like I living in that little town by the sea. Well, the same thing happened to me with The Illusionist (2010). It made me want to live in this easy going, magical looking city. But yeah, that’s about all this film has to offer, the beautiful art work and animation, which I still enjoyed to the max. I mean, any love of traditional hand drawn animation will have a feast here. 

Ultimately, this is a film to be enjoyed from a purely visual perspective, it’s meant to be enjoyed simply as a visual treat, because there’s not a lot of mental stimulation, not a lot of meat with the potatoes. Sure the film does address certain themes, like when do we become obsolete? Should we adapt to the changing times? What is platonic love? But it’s all touched upon lightly, this film is more about absorbing visuals, feelings, emotions and the beautiful artistry with which the visuals were brought to life. But if I was to recommend a Sylvain Chomet film, one that would really blow you away, it would be The Triplets of Bellville (2003), it’s the superior of the two. Chomet went on to direct live action films as well, but I’ve yet to dive into those. Last words on The Illusionist (2010), it’s purely style over substance, but oh what style!

Rating: 4 out of 5   

The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Title: The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Alexandra Pic, Isabelle Teboul, Bernard Charnace

This film comes to use from one of the great French horror directors, Jean Rollin. Now this of course depends on who you ask because some critics dismiss Rollin as a pornographer, an amateur filmmaker or simply a maker of sleazy, gratuitous b-movies. But I beg to differ, I really do. Sure Rollin’s films had gratuitous nudity and violence, but to me Rollin’s films are also poetic and haunting and though some of them might come off as empty examples of style over substance, I also find relevant themes in his films. Take for example The Two Orphan Vampires, one look at it and you might say the film is paper thin, with little in the way of plot. And in a way you’d be right, because it is a simple film, but if you give this film a deeper look you’ll find a film that comments on religion and the contrasts between new ways of thinking versus the old.

In The Two Orphan Vampires we meet Henriette and Louise, two young girls living in a catholic orphanage. Their unique situation is that they are both blind, nobody knows why, nobody knows how, they simply are. One day, an ophthalmologist comes visit the orphans to inspect their eyes and soon decides to adopt and take care of them, he becomes their father figure, taking them from the orphanage and welcoming them into his home. The nuns are happy the orphans finally have a home, the orphans are happy they are finally out of the orphanage and the doctor is happy to help these two blind girls. But unbeknownst to all these people, the two orphan girls are only blind during the day! At night they become vampires and can see just fine! When night unfolds, the two girls roam the city streets looking for victims to feed on. How long will they continue this charade before others discover their secret? Will they ever be caught?

Thematically speaking, The Two Orphan Vampires is all about beliefs. First off we have these two girls living a lie. They live in a catholic orphanage, where they give this façade to the nuns, making everybody believe they are these two angelical blind girls. Now the meanings behind the girls being blind while living in a catholic orphanage are pretty obvious, this was Rollin’s way of addressing how religion can blind people, shutting their eyes to the realities of life. Humans are always drawn towards the lurid, seedy aspects of life, this is why the girls go out at night. It’s after they sneak out at night that these girls enjoy life, it’s at night that their vision returns, it’s when they escape the confines of the orphanage that they have their fun in the world, this is the time when they really see life for what it is. A mix of fun and struggle to survive, a dog eat dog world with moments of wonderment as well as suffering, a bitter sweet existence. An interesting aspect of all of this is that the girls are teenagers, a time when most people succumb to the more rebellious aspects of life; the teenage years are a time when you question everything and want to push your limits. This is why the girls escape their elders to smoke their cigarettes and drink their alcohol. So the film depicts two rebellious teenage girls giving their backs to Christianity in order to have their fun in life.

At the same time, the film addresses existential issues. The two orphan vampires are constantly questioning who they are and where they come from. They are vampires who have died many times over and have come back to life, with foggy memories of who they use to be. Problem is they can only remember a few of the lives they have lived, they can’t go that far back into their existence, so they start to wonder who they used to be in earlier lives and they come upon this book about Aztec civilization that gives them the idea that they were these ancient Aztec gods. Kind of like how humanity has a recollection of past civilizations, but at some point our history becomes foggy and we end up asking ourselves where we all really come from? Same as the two orphan vampires, we too have a foggy memory about these things. The two girls can only imagine they were Aztec gods, they are not certain, the same way we cannot find the answers to the big questions in life, so we make up answers and call these answers religion.

The Two Orphan Vampires features Rollin’s signature poetic visuals, the film is also told at Rollins usual slow pace, as if it was in no hurry to tell you its story, it simply unfolds at the pace it wants to whether you like it or not. I’ve grown to like this aspect of Rollins films because to me they are a breath of fresh air when compared to the frenetic pace of some of today’s films. So in that sense Rollin fans will find this to be like many of Rollins other pictures. But where this one takes a left turn is in the absence of nudity and violence, there’s very little of both on this film. Also, those looking for lesbianism will find the film lacking in that aspect as well, for while the girls hug a lot, it is never implied that they are in love. They function more as sisters. There is one scene where they are naked together, but it’s a completely unnecessary scene and seems to be spliced in the movie only to appease the producers who always asked Rollin to fill his films with nudity and violence. When compared to previous Rollin films, this one feels restrained in these areas, which was something that hardcore Rollin fans didn’t like about this film, personally, this didn’t stop me from enjoying this one.

The Two Orphan Vampires was made late in Rollins life, he was into his sixties when he made this one, and very ill I might add, yet the film still retains many of the aesthetically pleasing elements that I enjoyed about his earlier works like The Grapes of Death (1978), The Living Dead Girl (1982) and Fascination (1979), and though this film isn't nearly as good as these I've mentioned, there are still many good things to say about The Two Orphan Vampires, for example, the beautiful localizations are present…this was one thing that Rollin loved about filmmaking, shooting in actual beautiful locations, so we still have these beautiful shots of actual places, sometimes Rollin would compose these shots on the spot, an aspect of his films that I love. True, this is not Rollins best film, it has a few flaws, like the actresses who play the orphan vampires, though beautiful this was the first feature film for both, so sometimes their performance isn’t the best. The bad dubbing kind of hinders the enjoyment of the film; it makes the poetic dialog come off as robotic and unnatural. Still, I enjoyed the visuals, the music and the themes, it is not the disaster that some would have you believe. Sure it was late in Rollins career, but wow, the guy made this film through some serious illness, sometimes going from the hospital to the set, it’s a miracle he managed to pull off a beautiful looking film and on such a low budget! Admirable in deed.

Rating: 3 out of 5