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