ABOVE: Watch the trailer for Jupiter Ascending.
TORONTO — One of three new major releases at the box office this week is Jupiter Ascending, a science fiction drama from Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski, the siblings responsible for The Matrix trilogy.
The movie boasts a cast that includes Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Sean Bean and 2015 Oscars contender Eddie Redmayne.
Will sci-fi fans flock to cinemas to see this interplanetary spectacle or will Jupiter Ascending be the next flop for the Wachowskis (after Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas)? Here’s a look at some of the reviews.
At the New York Daily News, Joe Neumaier described Jupiter Ascending as a “whacked-out outer-space melodrama” that is “lost in space.”
He said the movie’s “earnest, adolescent enthusiasm is noble. But with a blunt wit, misguided performances and a dull story, Jupiter ends up falling down.”
Neumaier noted that Kunis’ “perma-scowl is out of synch with her character’s sense of awe” and the actress “is never given much to do.”
Worse, according to Neumaier, is Redmayne.
“His whispery villain swans around as the embodiment of the movie’s much-too-much approach,” he wrote. “He’s game for it all, and it costs him.”
READ MORE: What the critics are saying about other movies
At the Hollywood Reporter, Todd McCartney complained about the movie’s “less-than-fresh special effects and loopy plotting.”
He added: “Jupiter Ascending at least possesses familiar sci-fi genre elements that are promotable to its target audience and will thereby generate reasonable returns, especially overseas. But anyone hoping for the old Matrix magic to rematerialize is due for more disappointment.
Joe Morgenstern at the Wall Street Journal found Jupiter Ascending “dismally, even definitively, dim.” What’s more, it “isn’t thrilling, romantic, mysterious or much fun.”
He wrote: “It’s hardly the first time a studio has given reluctant birth to a theatrical feature that, in a rational universe, would never have been put in production, let alone seen the light of day.”
Mick LaSalle of San Francisco Gate wasn’t as hard on the movie, although he found many of the action sequences “dull and not well choreographed.”
LaSalle actually liked Redmayne’s performance, calling it “one of the most enjoyable things about” the movie.
“Few will be sorry to have seen Jupiter Ascending,” opined LaSalle. “The Wachowskis have devised a compelling universe, and if they want to continue exploring it for a sequel or two, well, for once that’s probably a good idea.”
Max Nicholson of IGN is less excited.
“Unfortunately, the story doesn’t quite hit its mark, with several extraneous subplots mucking it up. While Jupiter Ascending reaches for the stars, it falls a bit short of that, landing somewhere in the middle of deep space,” he wrote.
“That said, Jupiter Ascending is nothing if not ambitious, and the world-building here is top-notch. You can tell the Wachowskis put the time and effort into bringing their universe to life. It feels both plausible and mythic, drawing on science, folklore and religion to create a multi-layered domain. That’s not to mention the spectacular visuals, which feature gorgeous art design and exciting action scenes.”
Nicholson said the movie also suffers from awkward pacing and “loses sight of the things that make it interesting.”
At USA Today, Claudia Puig was clear with her view of Jupiter Ascending.
“The story is laughably inane and uninvolving,” wrote Puig, who called the movie an “ambitious misfire” and “a ridiculous intergalactic action-adventure.”
She added: “The sci-fi film’s reported $175 million budget must have gone largely into loopy production design, wild costumes, outlandish hairstyles and colourful make-up. It certainly didn’t go into developing a coherent script or coaching believable performances.
“Jupiter is a convoluted, design-happy space opera whose special effects are underwhelming and whose story grows ever more absurd as it goes along.”
Comments