Jupiter Ascending

Chris Johnston said:
Saw the movie in the theater and also rented at the red box. While I'm a fan of Sci Fi, this was just the most ridiculous concept I think I've ever seen.
(not that the basic concept of turning humans into super goo is bad, but I could think of a few ways to get a lot more goo than the way it was being farmed.)
Not to mention the fact that if your aim is to "harvest" the planet when it gets full, why not stop wars, religion, epidemics, etc? (Spanish flu cut world population by 4-5 % alone 90 years ago...why not stop that?)
Click to expand...


I thought the concept was cool but the execution was very poor. Pretty but ultimately a snore fest. I saw this just before I saw Mad Max and consequently saw the extremes of action storytelling (or just inconsequential action in the case of Jupiter) in the space of a few days.

I wish they'd focused on the politics and the galactic otherworld instead of mindless action sequences, several of which I dozed off in the cinema to wake up only to see they were still going. I wasn't even tired going in. They were some interesting characters (hint, not the main ones), pity we only got to see them for a few minutes. I found the ordinary world and the special world clashed clumsily. I don't think they thought past the contrivance that the queen of the universe is cleaning toilets. The only part of the backstory that worked was her father and his telescope but beyond her wanting a telescope and "space" it wasn't utilized.

I didn't feel any sense of scope - of a wider world - like you do in Star Wars or even Guardians of the Galaxy. Which totally undermines the concept of a pan galactic civilisation that threatens our existence. In the context of this film Jupiter is local (as in down the street) and we never glimpse further than that. The story itself was a largely arbitrary pastiche of sequences that never felt cohesive or meaningful. I felt no sense of authentic progress in the story.

I did like the base (underdeveloped) ideas and several of the performances of minor characters. I thought the universe insofar as we glimpsed it had a lot of unrealised potential. I've watched it a couple of times since to try and work out why I didn't respond to it and the flying rollerblades don't annoy me as much now and I even find Tatum tolerable but otherwise my original impression remains unchanged. As far as the Wachowskis go I loved Matrix (the first one only), Speed Racer was a pleasant surprise and I thought Cloud Atlas was brilliant and fail to understand how people couldn't follow it. Everything else they touch has been profoundly disappointing. But better to achieve brilliance and dross than be consistently mediocre, I guess.
 
Egg Born Son said:
I thought Cloud Atlas was brilliant.
Click to expand...
Jupiter Ascending was an okay, cotton candy film. Nice for the brief ride, but not any kind of depth to stay with you. Sadly, I could follow Cloud Atlas, and found it depressing. I also think, from the trailers and advertising, that it was misrepresented to the public. They sold it as a story of how reincarnation, and actions taken in the past, reverberated through the ages. Something like that. I thought it pretty much show cased exploitation through the ages, slavery, bondage, and at least two forms of cannibalism.

I liked the Matrix (1st one) and also BOUND - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115736/
 
This film didn't work. It fell into the trap a lot of Cinderella stories do in that the protagonist is too passive. Things just happen to her to too often. She doesn't push the story forward enough and it makes for a not very compelling storyline. The same can be said of the original Cinderella but passive heroines don't work anymore. You have to make the character work for the glass slipper, not have it handed to them. I liked the backstory concept (that the class system and power structure of modern day earth extends even higher into interplanetary space), and Channing's performance and character. And of course Sean Bean classes up anything. But it was another miss for the Wachowski's.
 
Batutta said:
This film didn't work. It fell into the trap a lot of Cinderella stories do in that the protagonist is too passive. Things just happen to her to too often. She doesn't push the story forward enough and it makes for a not very compelling storyline. The same can be said of the original Cinderella but passive heroines don't work anymore. You have to make the character work for the glass slipper, not have it handed to them. I liked the backstory concept (that the class system and power structure of modern day earth extends even higher into interplanetary space), and Channing's performance and character. And of course Sean Bean classes up anything. But it was another miss for the Wachowski's.
Click to expand...

I'm sort of ambivalent on that 'critique'... yes, the protag was more 'passive', but then... I wonder about the need to put in an action figure girl, just for the sake of actionfigureness.

But then I'd watch anything with Mila Kunis in it...

In some wyrd sense I liked the "Divergent" series over the "Hunger Games", mainly because the protag in "Divergent" is more 'hesitant' at least in the books. The film does actionize her... because of course... we must have action figures...

I'm going to get the Bluray of Jupitor shortly so I'll watch it again, and perhaps post my thoughts on second viewing...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I'm sort of ambivalent on that 'critique'... yes, the protag was more 'passive', but then... I wonder about the need to put in an action figure girl, just for the sake of actionfigureness.
Click to expand...

She didn't have to be an action heroine. They just needed to design a better story where her actions and decisions more directly propelled the movie forward. As is, this amazing thing just falls in her lap and then she's dragged along from place to place wether she wants to or not for most of the running time. She comes across as weak. Not because she doesn't throw a punch but because she truly is helpless most of the film. If they were going to tell this specific story, they probably should have told it from the point of view of Channing's character, as he is the hero who had the most at stake and most dramatically compelling arc.
 
Like I said, I thought it was "OK." I didn't feel like I wasted my time watching it, and for the Wachowskis these days (really, since The Matrix?), that's a step up.

But I'm not turning cartwheels over it.
 
Batutta said:
She didn't have to be an action heroine. They just needed to design a better story where her actions and decisions more directly propelled the movie forward. As is, this amazing thing just falls in her lap and then she's dragged along from place to place wether she wants to or not for most of the running time. She comes across as weak. Not because she doesn't throw a punch but because she truly is helpless most of the film. If they were going to tell this specific story, they probably should have told it from the point of view of Channing's character, as he is the hero who had the most at stake and most dramatically compelling arc.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it yet because it got such lackluster reviews, but I think Batutta is right about the fundamentals of story telling here. In the first act things should happen to the protagonist that create unavoidable conflict. Most the protagonists actions in the first act will be reactive, just trying to cope with what is happening to them.
But in the second act for the audience to really root for the protagonist and get involved in the story, the protagonist must take an active role in the second act and try to solve the conflict. That doesn't mean blowing up anything or shooting guns, it just means that the protagonist has accepted their role as the hero, even if reluctantly, and they make a plan to change things and try to execute that plan, even if it fails miserably in the first part of act 2.
 
Waiting for the inevitable day in which The Matrix is re-evaluated through the lens of failure after Wachowski failure.

Fair? Unfair? Dunno, but it'll happen.
 
I've only seen Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs (the good/okay ones); and The Village, Lady on the Water, After Earth (the indulgent/bad ones).

I'd put Jupiter Ascending in the After Earth range. Or maybe Lady in the Water since that too had a couple of cool ideas buried in the dross.

If you're just pitting director v director - i'll go with the Wachowskis just for Matrix/Cloud Atlas which I liked much better than Unbreakable/Signs. Wachowskis are capable of genius. M Nights best hinges on a twist.
 
Last edited:
I thought Jupiter Ascending was tolerable. I'm a sucker for great sci-fi vfx and they have some interesting starfighter and starship stuff. It definitely has the 5th Element vibe. It is also full of seemingly bizarre juxtapositions of TV Star Trek worthy aliens and Star War prequel worthy costuming. Lots of clumsy dialog and major characters introduced who come and then go, never to be seen again.

I expect no sequel. :)
 
Jupiter ascending looked like a Disney picture.
Better than the Sense8 fiasco imo but still not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top