Jupiter Ascending Review

The Wachoswkis are known for some outstanding  films and a few bombs. The Matrix Trilogy is an example of great movie, a mediocre movie, and a dumb movie (in that order, in fact.) I really loved their work in Cloud Atlas, and I'm a fan of V for Vendetta. The trailer for their latest movie, Jupiter Ascending (2015), looked as riveting as any of their other works, but ended up being surprisingly dull and uninteresting.

 Jupiter Jones was born under a night sky, with signs predicting that she was destined for great things. Now grown, Jupiter (Mila Kunis) dreams of the stars but wakes up to the cold reality of a job cleaning other people's houses and an endless run of bad breaks. Only when Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered ex-military hunter, arrives on Earth to track her down, does Jupiter begin to glimpse the fate that has been waiting for her all along - her genetic signature marks her as the next in line for an extraordinary inheritance that could alter the balance of the cosmos. But the children of House Abrasax, the most powerful of the alien dynasties, Balem (Eddie Redmayne), Kalique (Tuppence Middleton), and Titus (Douglas Booth), quarrel over the same inheritance and seek out Jupiter to help meet their own agendas.

I love a good sci-fi flick as much as the next geek. Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. One could argue that looking at how our science fiction stories have changed over the years is just as telling of our history and social issues than history books are. Even a sci-fi/fantasy romp that intends to tell an action packed story rather than critique contemporary society is fun from time to time; the original Star Wars trilogy for example. I am truly not sure which end of the spectrum Jupiter Ascending was aiming for. It mostly revolves around the action, even if the context for said action is a bit nebulous. It seem to try to say something about indulgence and consumption, but never draws a thematic conclusion. In fact, the resource everyone is seeking is developed to be a precious commodity but seems to be a sustainable industry, questionable as it may be. Thematically, Jupiter Ascending simply doesn't seem to know where it is or where it's going.

The story seems haphazardly stuck together. There's lots of sci-fi stuff happening and I wasn't able to discern a reason for a lot of it. At its most basic elements, the story is fairly straightforward, but there's so much extra stuff going on peripherally to the main storyline that it becomes confusing and hard to follow. A lot of time is spent on subplot devices that have little or no effect on the bigger story. It ends up being sci-fi for the sake of being sci-fi, but it's a poorly written and developed sci-fi to the point that it resembles the campy old Flash Gordon movies.

I wasn't impressed with the cast either. The only other movie I've seen Mila Kunis in was Oz The Great and Powerful, and that was pretty bad, too. I've really liked Channing Tatum in most of his movies, but after seeing Jupiter Ascending, I'm convinced he's just good at playing Channing Tatum rather than being a decent character actor. I was most disappointed in Eddie Redmayne. He was up for an Oscar for Best Actor for his incredible performance in The Theory of Everything, but here it's as if all his acting skills fell out before they started shooting. He is a skilled actor, but doesn't seem cut out for action roles, or maybe he's just not good at playing a villain. I want to say that overall everyone just had poor material to work with, but most everyone really was bad in this movie.

Jupiter Ascending was not what I had hoped it would be. The story was a weak and befuddled narrative, the characters were shallow and uninteresting, the acting was bad, and the theme was confusing. I know The Wachoswkis and most of the cast can do better than this; and that made the movie all the more disappointing. The special effects were fantastic, and most fight scenes were not bad, but that's about where the good qualities of the movie end. It's sci-fi for the sake of sci-fi. Overall, I cannot recommend seeing Jupiter Ascending. The only way you'd enjoy it is if you're looking for a senseless action movie that doesn't require any thought on your end and if you enjoy special effects more than story or characters. If that's the case, I'd still wait until you can rent it. It's not worth the cost of a movie ticket.

What was a movie that you were particularly disappointed in? Comment below and tell me why!

The Theory of Everything Review

As I said in my review of Creation, it seems that Hollywood is capable of giving any event a romantic spin. The relationship between Charles Darwin and his wife in Creation took center stage and was less about the development of the theory of evolution. The Theory of Everything (2014) is similar; we see the relationship between Stephen Hawking and his wife Jane and the life they had together. I thought it was odd to have a biographical romantic drama about a person who is still alive, but The Theory of Everything proved to be a darn good movie.

As a healthy, active young man, Cambridge astrophysicist student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) was a brilliant student. While at a school dance he meets Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) and the two form a deep love for one another. Stephen begins having some difficulty with fine motor movements, and after a terrible fall received an earth-shattering diagnosis at the age of twenty one. He has Lou Gehrig's Disease, a degenerative motor neuron disease that is incurable, he is expected to live for only more two years. Stephen embarks on his most ambition scientific work, studying the very thing he now has precious little of - time. Together, Stephen and Jane defy impossible odds, breaking new grounds in medicine and science, and achieve more than they could ever have dreamed.

The Theory of Everything is part biopic and part love story. There are some cute moments between the two main characters, but few that truly tugged at my heartstrings. I liked the relationship between Stephen and Jane. Stephen flirts like a stereotyped scientist; awkwardly. His flirtatious lines usually involve explaining in scientific terms why some things in the world look beautiful. Jane is a pretty church mouse who is studying arts at Cambridge. It's very much the same character set up as it was in Creation. Two very different people get married and have struggles and are occasionally conflicted about theology, yet they both love one another. Most of the conflict is in the mounting stress and Jane feeling overwhelmed  as Stephen's body slowly deteriorates. It's encouraging to see a relationship like theirs last over the decades.

Jane and Stephen Hawkings' wedding
photo recreated for the movie

The actors were outstanding, Redmayne in particular. He's played handsome young men in other movies such as My Week with Marilyn and Les Misérables. Playing the renowned physicist was very different. Here he played a an awkward young man losing his ability to control his muscles. His portrayal of the disease was depicted with uncanny accuracy. To be frank, it is uncomfortable seeing someone with a noticeable physical handicap struggling with something. Redmayne played his character's handicap so well it was often uncomfortable to watch him on screen. And yet his depiction of Stephen Hawking was so compelling and interesting that I cared about him and wanted to help out the character on the screen. He's simply incredible.

The sets were also very impressive. The story spans a number of decades. While we see the characters age with the magic of makeup, the passing of the years is most prominently depicted in the sets and costumes. The story starts out in the early 1960's and ends roughly in the late-1990's. The hair styles and clothing fashions change and evolve over the years. The buildings and interior decoration slowly takes on a more contemporary look as time in the movie passes. The changes are so gradual and subtle you hardly notice them, yet the sets are so detailed they are hard to ignore. The camera captures the actors and the background in such beautiful detail that every shot looks gorgeous, and every scene like a perfectly captivated moment from the past.

The Theory of Everything is a good movie. While science plays a role in the movie, you won't leave knowing any more about general relativity or quantum gravity than you did going in. What Hawking developed was less important in this story than how it was developed. The story remains just interesting and inspiring enough to hold my attention to the end, but it still feels a lavishly produced period drama that was probably produced for the sole purpose of earning nominations for Academy Awards. Basically, it's Oscar bait. The story is not bad, though does little outside Jane and Stephen's relationship. The acting is phenomenal, especially Redmayne. Even if romantic biopics aren't the kind of movie you enjoy, seeing The Theory of Everything is worth it just to see Redmayne's acting. There is very little that can be said negatively about this movie, the only reason not to see it is if this particular genre doesn't appeal to you. I think it's worth seeing, but you're probably safe waiting for it on DVD.


The real Stephen Hawking is still around and was able to see this movie. He said the following about it:

"Watching the The Theory of Everything Movie at the London premiere last night was an intense emotional experience for me. It is perhaps the closest I will come to time travel. Based on Jane's book, it follows our life together exploring the mysteries of the universe. I enjoyed watching it with my family and friends, and I hope audiences around the world enjoy it as well."
--Stephen Hawking

My Week with Marilyn Movie Review

To this day there is still a lot of mystique and gossip about Marilyn Monroe, especially for a person who has been departed for over fifty years. Her image was sexy without being promiscuous, vulnerable and sweet, yet confident and hopeful. Marilyn embodied the womanly ideal of her day and was hailed as a sort of American royalty that everyone loved and adored. Such an interesting and dramatic contrast practically begs for a film to be made. Thus, My Week with Marilyn (2011) was created.

Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh), the nearest thing to royalty among British actors, is making a movie in London.  Young Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), an eager film student, wants to be involved and through some bold negotiating he finds himself a job on the set. When film star Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) arrives for the start of shooting, all of London is excited to see the blonde bombshell. When Olivier is struggling to meet her many demands and acting ineptness, Colin is intrigued by her. Colin’s intrigue is met when Marilyn invites him into her inner world where she struggles with her fame, her beauty, her loneliness, and her desire to be a great actress.

My Week with Marilyn is all based on real events. Colin and Marilyn did spend a week together during the shooting of The Prince and the Showgirl while her husband, Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott), took a short trip back to the US. Olivier was at his wits end accommodating Marilyn’s apparent ineptitude, and Marilyn actually wasn’t able to accomplish much of anything without her acting coach Paula Strasberg (Zoe Wanamaker) and her business partner Milton H. Greene (Dominic Cooper). It was a tough and trying time for all involved. Frankly, it doesn’t make for a very interesting story, but it does makes for a fascinating character study and a unique look into the real Marilyn Monroe.

The real Marilyn Monroe vs. Michelle Williams

The best aspect of My Week with Marilyn has got to be Michelle Williams’ portrayal of the starlet. Marilyn had abandonment issues, sought a father figure, lacked confidence, acted glamorous and sexy, and exuded a lovable, feminine aura. There were so many facets to Marilyn that it would be a considerable challenge to portray this cultural icon, and Michelle Williams nailed it. She acts and looks the part so much it is truly uncanny and amazing to watch. There are times when she is very well composed and portraying Marilyn’s “public image” self, and other times when she is overwhelmed with depression and catatonic. Yet it’s still Marilyn. There’s scene when she and Colin are looking at a doll house, and she points to the doll family saying that the father is Colin, the mother is herself, and the kids are their children. Similar to how a little girl might project fantasies onto her toys. But coming from a thirty-year-old woman, it’s rather bizarre. The scene is important since it shows Marilyn’s desire for the normal family she’s never really had, while also showing us she’s a bit off kilter.

I’ve seen a couple of BBC movies, and I’ve noticed they seem to reuse a lot of actors. This isn’t bad, they are excellent actors. But I couldn’t help but notice actors that have played in Doctor Who, others from the Harry Potter films, and some have even been in both. Emma Watson appears as a wardrobe assistant that develops a relationship with Colin. It makes me wonder if Great Britain only has a handful of actors.

My Week with Marilyn teeters between interesting and tedious. Seeing Marilyn in such a diverse set of situations to show us what she’s really like is interesting, but at the same time it gets tedious and repetitious since everyone is exasperated and impatient with her by the end of most every scene she’s in. While the performances are excellent, the story (such as it is) tends to become sappy and doe-eyed from time to time. It’s got an R rating for some language, but apart from that it’s quite tame. I enjoyed watching it, and I recommend seeing it, but I don’t think it’s worth more than one viewing. Therefore, it’s a renter, albeit an intriguing one.

Admittedly, I'm not a big Marilyn Monroe fan. I like her photographs more than her movies. What is your favorite Marilyn Monroe moment? Comment below and tell me why!

Les Misérables Movie Review

Les Misérables is a story that has been told through the medium of film many times before. It's a classic novel by Victor Hugo and has had at least two film adaptations per decade since 1907. But the 2012 version is the fist film adaptation of the stage production. Les Misérables brought all the power and emotion of the longest running Broadway Musical ever to the big screen.

After 19 years in prison (five for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family, and the rest for trying to escape), Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is released on parole by the policeman Javert (Russell Crow). After a merciful Bishop (Colm Wilkinson, who famously played Valjean on stage) gives Valjean some precious silver to sell for money, Valjean turns his life around and makes himself a wealthy factory owner and mayor of a town in France. Javert is still hunting for Valjean since he did not meet parole. One of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), has a fight when the other workers discover she is sending money to her secret illegitimate daughter. When Valjean discovers that Fantine has resorted to prostitution to care for her daughter, Valjean swears to the dying mother that he will rescue and care for the girl himself. Valjean takes the young Cosette away from The Thénardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen & Helena Bonham Carter), and she grows into a fine young woman (Amanda Seyfried). Later Cosette falls in love with a young man named Marius (Eddie Redmayne) who is deeply involved in the French Revolution. It is through Marius's friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks) that Marius discovers Cosette. In the interest of keeping Marius alive for the sake of Cosette, Valjean aids the young rebels in their revolt while being ever vigilant to avoid Javert who remains hot on his trail.

When you see Les Misérables on stage you're watching singers act; but in this movie you're seeing actors sing. Several of the actors had some musical background, while others clearly did not. Russell Crow is a great actor, but not much of a singer. He sounds like he stifling a yawn while singing; but given his lack of vocal training, he hit the notes right and did a descent job. Eddie Redmayne's singing sounded nasal, and you could see his jaw and neck trembling with his vibrato. That's not necessarily bad, but it was distracting and an indicator of lack of vocal training. Hugh Jackman was phenomenal! He has Broadway experience and he did a great job singing this iconic role. I think the best performance was from Anne Hathaway. She did very well singing, but her emotional delivery simply blew me away.

Fans of the Broadway play will be head over heels in love with this movie version. As mentioned above, this is actors singing. The classic Broadway music is secondary to the story; the opposite of what happens on stage. I've heard these songs countless times before, but seeing an actual context for them made them much more poignant. In Les Misérables, we are shown close up images of the emotions and pain the characters are experiencing as the story progresses. I've heard “I Dreamed a Dream” before, but Hathaway's delivery made you really think about the lyrics and the pain the words are portraying. That whole song was filmed in one take; the camera doesn't move from her as she weeps and sings of broken dreams and abandoned love. It was powerful, and brought me to tears.

Possibly one of the things that made Les Misérables so good was that is was recorded live. Normally for a filmed musical, the individual actors sing the parts ahead of time in a studio before gathering together to film the scenes and lip-syncing to their own recorded voices. This causes the actors to have to make any acting decisions months before ever seeing their costars face to face. That removes some potential for the actors to act off of each other and generate emotional depth and realism in their delivery. For Les Misérables, the actors sung their lines as if it were the script and later had the music added. This allowed the actors to create a real sense of emotion and projection with their characters that has not been done before in a musical movie like this.

The sets were numerous and gorgeous. The bigger sets were probably enhanced with computer graphic additions, but it was so seamless. We got a feel for the French locations with sweeping exterior shots; it didn't feel confined to a stage. The historic costumes were so detailed and believable. The muskets fired at the barricade looked authentic and even the foley art was excellent.

There was very little actual spoken dialogue; the whole script was dependent upon the songs from the Broadway play. This made the interactions between characters seem unrealistic from time to time. The shots between songs were rushed; for example, one song ends and we see two or three short shots of the unconscious Marius being taken to a hospital, a doctor tending him, Marius walking again, and then suddenly he's at the old tavern where he and his friends used to hang out before starting in on his next song. That should take a lot of time, but we're thrown a couple of shots to suggest the passing of time in a matter of seconds to lead into the next song. While it's clear what has happened, it made the flow of the movie a bit choppy and rushed.

If you enjoy musicals, you will enjoy Les Misérables a lot. This was a powerful rendition of the Broadway classic, and it brings the story and characters to life on a level of reality that cannot be done on a stage. It's a classic story of broken dreams, unrequited love, passion, sacrifice, redemption, and the survival of the human spirit. I've never seen Les Misérables on stage, but this version does the story and music justice. If you don't enjoy musicals much on general principle, you'll likely be waving a white flag of exhausted defeat well before rebels wave the French tricolors. I think this was a beautiful movie and easily one of the best films of 2012. Not many movies can cause me to tear up multiple times, and Les Misérables certainly did. Go see it in theaters while you can. I recommend that you consider buying a copy for your home collection as well.

What is a Broadway Musical that you would love to see made into a major motion picture? Comment below and tell me why!