Film Review: Eternals (2021)

For thousands of years, the group of immortals called Eternals have defended planet earth from the unnatural species of predators called Deviants. But in the present day, one of the Eternals finds out that the deviants still exist and they need to assemble to complete the unfinished business once and for all.

I haven’t read about Eternals in comics, so this film is the source of whatever the director felt to make the use of Jack Kirby‘s creations. So on paper, Eternals, I believe, are the strongest group of superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And the group being socially diverse makes sense as the celestial picked his team to find deviants around the world.

A recent winner of the Oscar for Best Director, Chloé Zhao, was roped to work on this MCU project that brought a lot of challenges for the production. Because an Oscar-winning director for a superhero project becomes hyper-interesting as the audience expects the comic-book film to be a well-written and fine productional craft. And then the cinematography, visual effects, and Ramin Djawadi‘s score are other plusses giving a boost to the motive of the story.

But I am looking at the bigger picture. Into its fourteen years of existence and twenty-sixth film in line with the greatest cinematic universe ever, how important is this film for the future? Zhao’s direction does bring new breathing and way of observing a Marvel film but I guess despite having the magnitude of her quality presentation, the plotline is neither apt nor the screenplay is compelling.

If a viewer with a bird’s eye has to scale down a 156-minute film, he/she will certainly realize that there is something really wrong with the film. Let me try to point out why Eternals is not even close to being considered an average film.

One major blemish about the film is the introduction. This group of immortals is new to the audience and we have no idea how they were ever created. A Star-Wars-style intro text is not enough to accept them the way they are. Yes, the intro text emphasizes that they were needed but how these people ever become Eternals, there is no backstory. Instead, we travel time with them and observe how they protect some ancient civilizations and empires from deviants. I felt the dramatizing of old times was taken way too seriously and lost the meaning between the lines. Two of the Eternals are shown to develop a romantic interest in Babylon in 575 BC. Next scene? They are getting married in 400 AD in the Gupta Empire. The same amount of time would have been taken in dramatizing the intro text.

Another factor that ‘may’ have not worked with the audience is that Eternals is very quintessential to MCU aesthetics. They are so close to perfection and lacks human sympathy that was found for almost all the Marvel superheroes in the previous films. Seeing them fighting and killing the deviants straight from the start without knowing their whys and hows makes the purpose bleak.

The middle part of the film is a dead soul. The audience can easily give his/her popcorn to the person on the other seat and leave the theatre giving up. Amongst the team, Sersi (Gemma Chan) was easily the least favorite of all the characters, and she was chosen to lead the group. In the cast, I need to know why such established actors like Salma Hayek and Angelina Jolie were part of this project. Especially Jolie, what a terrible waste! Even Kit Harrington is not utilized.

There is no villain in the film. Fine, it is not compulsory to have a villain in a superhero film but the story has to be much captivating; the grip of the screenplay was loose. Eternal is a confusing experiment in which the director struggles to plot the film in a non-linear style and attempts to apply forced humor out of nowhere to keep the audience somehow happy. As the film tries to find its zone of compliments with such an excessive time, the film loses its transmission and drops flat.

Ratings: 4/10

Film Review: La sirène du Mississipi (1969)

La sirène du Mississipi (Mississippi Mermaid) is François Truffaut’s romantic film based on Cornell Woolrich’s novel ‘Waltz Into Darkness‘. A French film with a romantic genre is icing on the cake but what I like about this film is the exaggeration of misunderstanding between the two.

 

Let me summarize you the first half of the plot in brief. A rich man Louis (Jean-Paul Belmondo) owns a tobacco plantation on Réunion island in the Indian Ocean and is about to get married to a girl Julie (Catherine Deneuve) to whom he has never met but has exchanged letters. He has her photograph, so he arrives at the port to receive her but he happens to meet the other girl claiming that she is Julie and the one in the picture is her sister.

 

Later on, they fall in love and get married. Louis gives her access to his bank accounts. One day he gets a letter from Julie’s sister complaining her absence and threatening to call the police. He informs Julie about the call and suggests to write and inform her sister asap. The other day, Louis comes to know that the lady he married was not Julie but an imposter who ran away absconding 28 million francs from his bank accounts.

 

Louise and Julie’s sister Berthe hires a detective to investigate the matter. Days later in the French city of Nice, his eyes catch Julie’s imposter who actually works as a dancer in a nightclub. He catches her but comes to know that the impostor whose name is Marion, actually is innocent and has none of his money. They restore their relationship and one day Louis happens to meet the hired detective in the same city who is here to find the imposter. Boooom!!! Where goes the money? How will Louise save Marion from the investigation? Where is Julie? You have to find all the answers in the other exciting half.

 

There are few goofs in the film. I see a sudden change of dresses in two different shots of the same lunch eaten by the couples. Then there is a scene when Louise is looking for a vehicle on one side of the road where his shelter is located. But Marion takes him to the shelter on the other side of the road lol.

 

There are some doubts in few scenes over flaws in Truffaut’s direction. I noticed the actors were not displaying shocking emotions on their faces where the scene really needed e.g., when Marion is caught by Louis in Nice after running away from home, there is zero expression on her face. I expect big eyeballs if she doesn’t bother to scream. Same case when Louis meets the detective which should carry a huge surprise on detective’s face.

 

Anyhow there are plusses more than the above-mentioned minuses. One of the best things about François Truffaut’s direction is that he keeps the viewers busy and make them anxiously wait for the next scene. The excitement grows with the passage of time. Also in this film like all of his other directional work, he gives importance to small elements attached with individual’s life which offers you realism of free state of expressions which has been the major focus in French New Wave films.

 

Now just take an example of the introductory credits. There is no music but the presentation of introductory credits is fixed with the background audio of different male and female suitors demanding their requirements. The voices begin mixing and is exaggerated. Two theories develop from this, one is conveying the message to the viewers that an admirer will be seeking a partner in crime in the beginning phase of film and the other is an ugly truth that the necessary wants of the suitors are ridiculously high.

 

In the opening scene, both soon-to-be-married confess the truth at their first meeting despite showing sincerity in exchanged letters. Then there is a 5-minute scene where Marion the impostor wakes up one late night with respiratory problems handled by the husband somehow which gives you some glimpse of marital life. Another interesting scene is in their wedding when Louis make failed attempt of wearing her a wedding ring showing the letters never went concern of asking her the size of her finger for wearing her a ring. How natural!

 

In such a serious romantic drama, there are bits of funny scenes like Marion calling a lady the name of Popeye‘s sweetheart, Olive Oyl, which she truly resemble her. Then there is Marion stripping in the middle of the street which makes one driver victim of a car accident that looks so real to laugh at.

 

Overall, it is a Louise and Marion show. Their confused relationship has a greedy suspense. Both are lost in emotions and would make the viewers grow their concerns over suiting and choosing a right lady with expectations of no misfortunes. Although the film does be based on a novel but still the amount 28m in any currency is an enormous figure to lose in one shot. The same film was remade 32 years later as Original Sin starring Antonio Banderas and Angelina Jolie.

 

Ratings: 7.8/10

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @saminaik_asn