Kassovitz on BABYLON AD:  “It’s pure violence and stupidity.”

Reader Comments

1. Mike 08/25/2008 @ 11:57am

   Well, it sounds like I’m definitely holding off on seeing this in the theaters.

2. Rhythm-X 08/25/2008 @ 12:53pm

   Wow, between this and the Clive Barker story over at Bloody Disgusting, it’s a “smack down the suits” kind of Monday.

3. Airchinapilot 08/25/2008 @ 12:54pm

   Dark Horizons is reporting that there will be no previews for critics. We know what that means…

4. The Visitor 08/25/2008 @ 6:42pm

   maybe it’s becos Kassovitz has balls the size of melons?

5. dequinix 08/26/2008 @ 1:48am

   Or he’s saving his back and his La Haine legacy.

6. M@rc 08/26/2008 @ 3:03am

   How predictable (that the movie turned out bad).

7. mary 08/26/2008 @ 4:30am

   BABYLON AD is very different from GOTHIKA.

   GOTHIKA is a commerical movie that was developed by Hollywood Studios, and Mathieu Kassovitz was hired to do what studios/producer wanted him to do.  (Mathieu Kassovitz knew it..... and he fulfill the mission)

   However, BABYLON AD is Mathieu Kassovitz’s dream project; he developed this project himself for a long time. In fact, BABYLON AD is the main reason that led Mathieu Kassovitz to direct GOTHIKA: he knew BABYLON AD would be a big-budget movie (which wouldn’t get made unless it could get a US distribution deal with a Hollywood major studio) , so he thought that if he could direct a Hollywood box office hit, it would make Hollywood major studios interested in BABYLON AD.... ( GOTHIKA had successfully became a box office hit.)

   Therefore, I understand why Mathieu Kassovitz is so angry.

8. Bench2020 08/26/2008 @ 5:33am

   One of the most refreshing extras I’ve seen on a DVD were the ‘making of/ interviews’ with Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel on the US disc of ‘Crimson Rivers’. Instead of the vapid ‘He was a joy to work with’, ‘Every day was a magical life-affirming experience’-style comments, these two seemed more honest about the experience; it was obvious there was level of conflict on the set. If I recall, one of Cassell’s points was that Kassovitz had the opportunity to make the story either nonsensical and exciting, or logical but slower - and Kassovitz had gone for exciting and stupid, which Cassell hadn’t agreed with.

   Either there’s a general gallic attitude towards honesty/ bluntness, or it’s a Kassovitz thing.  Either way, it’s refreshing and far more interesting.

9. ColdNorway 08/30/2008 @ 9:55am

   The whole debacle throughout the making of this movie sounds very fishy to me.First off,the director confirms that the movie only lost 15 min. in the editing process,NOT a whopping 70 min. as many have claimedto be a fact before.In a interview with the director some time ago he talked about the movie getting cut quite a bit for the US theatrical release.But it sounded like he didn`t really mind too much as he would get to make a longer European/dir cut later on.This new interview sounds much more harsher,perhaps he got cut off from making his own version?But whatever the case must be,there is no way the movie changed from amazing art to pure rubbish because it lost 15 min. worth of scenes.There must be something else that messed up the movie.The main reason is mentioned in this new interview.The problem was the fact that the director and investors never had the same vision for the movie.He wanted a “European” slow paced artsy movie,the investors made in the end a noisy “bad” fast-paced action movie.If this was the end product the investors wanted all along I`m totally lost to understand how this movie deal got signed in the first place.

   I might sound a bit harsh saying this,but the director sounds like a little cry baby.I expect he,as most directors in the industry,contact possible investors whenever they have a script they want to see made into a movie.
   Investors will either say:"Sure follow your vision and make the movie as you want,we`ll just give you money whenever you need it”,sadly this carte blanche no-limit funding is only a reality for a very small selected group of directors in the world(Spielberg/Lucas/Cameron).Most directors will hear the words:"We will fund the movie,BUT we want to talk about adding/changing something to broadened the demographic/focus group”.Some directors will straight up walk away from the deal if they feel the investors will ruin the movie,but most will continue working as they need money to put food on the table.If the investors suddenly change from silent partner to noisy and demanding partner after the deal is signed and the production has started,the directors either walk off set never to return or they suck it up and try to get as much of “his/her” personal stamp on the movie in the final product.Perhaps the director got a rotten deal on this movie,but it`s too late to complain about it now.I don`t know if this movie was doomed from the start due to the low budget.But reading that the production’s insurance company had to save the movie when it ran over-budget and was significantly beyond schedule certainly don`t help the relationship between the investors and the director.It must have been a money drain for a long time.Perhaps the investors interfered too much and the director gave up,I don`t know,but I expect in the end the investors tried to salvage the movie the way they thought were best.Cut the fat and show off the action:""Kids will swallow anything these days if we blow things up,hey perhaps we can use some good old slow motion too?”

   Anyone with some level of intelligence will see that there is a mayor conflict of interest in how all the involved persons want the final product to be.In the end,from reading the bad reviews so far,the movie ended up not working at all.The “artsy” slow stuff got cut creating problems with fully explaining the story,yes the dreaded plot hole syndrome.

   When I first heard about this movie being made I thought:"Haven`t I already seen this movie?"Then it hit me,Babylon A.D.is the alien freak version of the movie Children of Men.

   “Dude you must be using something?”
   Is this the words you spat out at the screen after reading my opinion?

   As I haven`t seen the BABYLON AD yet,I don`t know the ending.But the main story of the two movies is basically the same one.
   What we got here is:
   One guy(Vin Diesel/Clive Owen) escorting a pregnant woman(Melanie Thierry/Clare-Hope Ashitey from point A to B,and there is danger lurking around every corner.Both movies feature a world engulfed in chaos and anarchy.Stange cults are also involved in the plot,and the not-yet born child holds the key to the future of mankind.So you see I`m not worried if BABYLON AD fails,I still have the great movie Children of Men to satisfy my post apocalyptic genre need.And that movie has no plot holes and the action is good.Thank God the investors in that movie didn`t mess things up.

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry