Jupiter Ascending (The Wachowski Starship)

[Stay Puft]

JUPITER ASCENDING
Dir. Andy and Lana Wachowski

http://i.imgur.com/NiWil0G.jpg

IMDb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1617661)

[Henry Gale]

I liked it, but it's a "Looks: 10 / Personality: 4" sort of situation.

Everything the Wachowskis do with it as a consistently evolving visual tapestry that consistently fills itself with new shades to its endless scope, curveball character designs, world-building, stunning action set-pieces (particularly the first chase along the Chicago skyline) and perpetual "no fucks given" atmosphere, it all feels on-point. It's just when it feels the need to clutter itself and the kill the buzz of those thrilling images with the amount of exposition, intertwining character backstories, endless dramatic backstabbing in the moment, and all sorts of other scripting that somehow feels too truncated to breathe, overly dense, too simplistic, too complicated and too thin to grab on to emotionally all at the same time. Luckily, film is a medium that can deliver to the senses without limits (particularly when it has a budget as big as this in its hands) and the Wachowskis prove once again that they're virtuously gifted at delivering on those fronts if not with the backbone of their narrative here.

The irony of its delay is if it had come out on its original release date in July 2014, its wacky, adventurous space operatics would've beaten to the punch a lot of those sort of aspects Guardians of the Galaxy delivered on just a couple of weeks later. The greater issue is that Guardians also filled its universe with more character, potent heart-tugging undercurrents, less strained and more frequent humour, and just an overall zest and panache that is sadly lacking from the Wachowskis' often even more bizarre concoction and crowded mythology. As much as I may champion certain aspects of Jupiter as it inevitably descends into cheap, bomb-sniffed punchlines, Gunn's film really is the more deserved and rich oeuvre to look forward to moving ahead to represent similar things in the future blockbuster pantheon.

But Jupiter is also a nicely self-contained crazy marvel of a big-budget question-mark that doesn't leave open ends that require a forced continuation, and for that, it's worth observing from whatever lens and level of skepticism you choose.

[Dukefrukem]

Once again Henry, you set my expectations in place.

[TGM]

Let's just say that I understand why there were reportedly so many walkouts on this thing. My god was this hard to sit through. Such a headache of a movie, and there were points where I almost wanted to just chuck my drink at the screen in frustration. And the action scenes in this thing may seriously be the most tedious and incompetent action sequences I've ever seen in a movie. This movie is a steaming pile of dog shit.

[Pop Trash]

At least we have a front runner for the 2015 razzie awards.

[Spinal]

There will be many films far worse than this. However, this one will draw a lot of attention because it's highly ambitious and falls short.

[megladon8]

I'm reading a lot comparing this to Battlefield Earth.

[Henry Gale]

I'm reading a lot comparing this to Battlefield Earth.

Well, the only thing people might love more than piling-on is over-exaggerating. (Because space + make-up = equally bad!!!)

The Wachowskis will always have a baseline level of skill behind the camera that elevates their endeavours no matter how misguided their projects might (with this being the worst case I'll splice in the word "eventually") be, compared to... whoever directed Battlefield Earth.

[max314]

At this point, I've almost completely resigned myself to the likelihood that I won't enjoy this film.

Shame.

[eternity]

Jupiter Ascending should be the Star Wars of our time. I'm having a really hard time thinking of the last big studio blockbuster that is this mesmerizing, intelligent, and beautiful. Like much of what the Wachowskis have done before, it sticks to classical storytelling staples; the hero's journey, the chosen one, etc. Yet also, like with The Matrix (which they were celebrated for) and Speed Racer (which they were similarly maligned), they dive in head first to challenge the conventional language of contemporary American cinema.

It's a universally accepted notion that most megabudget Hollywood films are carbon copies of each other. They spin the same tale in the same way. People are willing to shell out money for them and enjoy each of them individually while concurrently bitching about how there aren't original movies anymore. Well here it is, people. This is what you get when incredible filmmakers the reign to swing for the fences with a gargantuan sci-fi epic. Jupiter Ascending is astoundingly captivating. Its themes are explored as deeply as its set pieces are exquisitely choreographed. Its only fault is that it does not hold your hand. It assumes you are ready for a movie that demands you to immediately accept its whimsical, extraordinary universe, and why shouldn't it? People spent $300 million domestic on a movie about a talking raccoon last year.

With this and Michael Mann's Blackhat receiving a critical drubbing this year, I profoundly think most film critics are failing us. There is clearly an echo chamber that is quick to bitch about the monotony of studio filmmaking yet seem to have a sick satisfaction with piling onto any movie a talented filmmaker is able to make within that system challenging the conventional norm. God forbid a mass market movie be ARTFUL.

tl;dr We don't deserve this movie.

[[ETM]]

I can't tell if you're being serious, eternity.

[max314]

I've heard it being called everything from "One of the worst movies ever made!" to "The second coming of Star Wars!" If anything, this has further piqued my curiosity. It would appear that "No-one can be told what Jupiter Ascending is -- you have to see it for yourself" ;)

However, there is at least one thing that is certain from the reviews: if you are ever considering seeing Jupiter Ascending at any point in your life, then YOU HAVE TO SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN!! Even if you dislike the film, it would seem that this is the only way to guarantee value for your money.

I'm hoping to see the film sometime this week.


Jupiter Ascending should be the Star Wars of our time. I'm having a really hard time thinking of the last big studio blockbuster that is this mesmerizing, intelligent, and beautiful.

[...]

We don't deserve this movie.

http://s17.postimg.org/60dwydarz/Jeremy_Renner.gif

[Skitch]

;533990']I can't tell if you're being serious, eternity.

I reeeeeeally hope hes being serious.

[Dukefrukem]

Bombed big time.

[Morris Schæffer]

Bombed big time.

well, at least the siblings have shown true ambition. They may be out of a job soon if they stick to these mega-budgeted monstrosities. Dial it down a notch, go small scale idiots. What? A 20 million dollar movie can't be ambitious?

[max314]

Dial it down a notch, go small scale idiots. What? A 20 million dollar movie can't be ambitious?

The film they REALLY wanna make is a futuristic Iraq War gay love story shot in verité style (yes, I put those words in that order) called Cobalt Neural 9.

It was budgeted at $20 million.

They pitched it to Warner Brothers, who said, "No. But do you have another potential sci-fi franchise knocking around in those pink-dreaded, skin-headed noggins of yours."

"Uh...yeah," they said. "It's like a space opera thing with--"

"How's $176 million sound?"

The Wachowskis were broke and had mortgaged their home to close financing on their previous film.

Hence Jupiter Ascending.

[eternity]

I reeeeeeally hope hes being serious.

Dead serious. This movie's dope.

[max314]

Dead serious. This movie's dope.

I cannot tell you how much I hope I end up agreeing with you.

[Skitch]

I cannot tell you how much I hope I end up agreeing with you.

Me too.

[max314]

'JUPITER ASCENDING' Rises to NUMBER ONE at the International BOX OFFICE (http://deadline.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending-rises-to-number-one-at-the-international-box-office-1201369098/)

[Spinal]

I've heard it being called everything from "One of the worst movies ever made!" to "The second coming of Star Wars!"

This says more about the current state of internet hyperbole than it does about the movie itself.

[max314]

This movie's dope.

Without spoiling the plot, perhaps you can help me with something?

The accusation I'm hearing again and again is that the Wachowskis are picking up narrative threads and then dropping them without the necessary payoffs.

If true, this is startlingly un-Wachowski-like, considering that all of their previous films are committed to the setup-and-payoff paradigm so typical of mainstream Hollywood movies.

So what's the deal? Are the Wachowskis actually dropping plotlines? Or are audiences just not keeping up?

[TGM]

No, it's a legit ongoing occurrence throughout the movie, where seemingly important characters and plot elements are introduced, only to be just completely abandoned without any sort of resolution to them.

[Dukefrukem]

That's probably part of the "trilogy" plan- but I doubt they'll get a trilogy out of this now.

[max314]

No, it's a legit ongoing occurrence throughout the movie...

Shame.


That's probably part of the "trilogy" plan- but I doubt they'll get a trilogy out of this now.

Double shame.

Still, it might be cool to get graphic novels of the sequels.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm still gonna try and see this. Sat morning sounds about right. I haven't disliked anything the Wachowski's have done.

[TGM]

Shame.



Double shame.

Still, it might be cool to get graphic novels of the sequels.

I do gotta say, given how hyped you were for this movie, I'm kinda surprised you haven't seen it yet. I figured you woulda been there on opening night. :P

[Spinal]

No, it's a legit ongoing occurrence throughout the movie, where seemingly important characters and plot elements are introduced, only to be just completely abandoned without any sort of resolution to them.

Yeah, I agree. Case in point: Sean Bean's character. I'm not even really certain why he was necessary. The whole splicing concept is half-baked. And then there's the whole bureaucracy sequence that is just weirdly incongruous.

[Henry Gale]

I agree that certain characters don't really achieve a huge sweeping sense of purpose to the resolution of the movie, but one of things I liked about it most after it was over was how self-contained the overall story felt, compared to almost everything else with a certain budget in this blockbuster climate that seem required to be designed as franchise-starters by leaving obvious dangling threads hanging, major villains alive and plotting for revenge, or just outright cliffhangers.

I can't really think of ways to continue much of what we're given with Jupiter's story, and I'm not sure the Wachowskis really had much desire to even if they had ideas and money-making incentive. The film's universe has a ton of backstories packed into it (and even rushed through unsatisfactorily), but the I read one interview with the directors where they talked about an early 220-page script that they gave to the actors with scenes they knew wouldn't end up making it, but they felt helped them with their characters' origins and motivations. One such sequence they talked about that apparently opened the movie involved a baby Caine with a pack of other genetic human-wolf splices fighting over a mother's teet.

I WANT THAT INSANITY (instead of just hints at it and brushed past ideas that don't really advance anyone's arcs).

[eternity]

Without spoiling the plot, perhaps you can help me with something?

The accusation I'm hearing again and again is that the Wachowskis are picking up narrative threads and then dropping them without the necessary payoffs.

If true, this is startlingly un-Wachowski-like, considering that all of their previous films are committed to the setup-and-payoff paradigm so typical of mainstream Hollywood movies.

So what's the deal? Are the Wachowskis actually dropping plotlines? Or are audiences just not keeping up?

They're not keeping up. The narrative is very clear; anything that is touched upon but not followed through with is ancillary detail that serves to inform Jupiter of the world she is in. Just because it is her story does not mean the film's world revolves around her. The way the narrative is set up is meant to highlight this. It's very deliberate what we do and do not see of the non-Mila Kunis cast, who each are participating in their own movie-worthy storylines we only get to peek into whenever their stories intersect Jupiters.

[max314]

...I'm kinda surprised you haven't seen it yet.

Real life intervenes, I'm afraid :D


It's very deliberate what we do and do not see of the non-Mila Kunis cast, who each are participating in their own movie-worthy storylines we only get to peek into whenever their stories intersect Jupiters.

That sounds like incredibly deft and confident (and vast) worldbuilding.

I'm finally watching the film tomorrow. All will be revealed!

The suspense is unbearable...

pleasebegood, pleasebegood, pleasebegood, pleasebegood...

[transmogrifier]

Seriously, why care so much? I've never seen anyone invest themselves so much in some random movie. Seems so weird.

[Dukefrukem]

Seriously, why care so much? I've never seen anyone invest themselves so much in some random movie. Seems so weird.

Huh?

[Morris Schæffer]

Huh?

I think i understand what he means. Although max's enthusiasm could be seen as infectious, he was so prominently promoting the movie - you should have seen his posts over at RT - that one could be forgiven for thinking he was a plant. And it nearly was a kind of promotion, rather than some dude being hyped for a movie. He established himself as the go to guy for all things JA, posting positive reviews from critics no one's ever heard of just to, well, to do what? To persuade us? That's what it felt like. Which is odd given that the movie wasn't out yet and that the general consensus seemed to be that it would more likely be a dud than a good one.

Hey max, got no problems with any of this. Hope you have a good time when you see it.

[Dukefrukem]

It sounded like transmogrifier was puzzled by the fact that someone could be exited by [any] project from an artist that person has historically loved.

[max314]

Seriously, why care so much? I've never seen anyone invest themselves so much in some random movie. Seems so weird.

I'm a Wachowski fan. Their films "speak" to me.

And this is a film forum – isn't enthusiasm, like, the basic requisite? :D


[MAX] was so prominently promoting the movie [...] that one could be forgiven for thinking he was a plant. [...] to do what? To persuade us?

The narrative surrounding Jupiter Ascending was becoming so lopsided towards the negative (delays, poor reviews, underwhelming trailers, etc.) that I wanted to contribute an alternative narrative (i.e. hype) that might've helped to balance it out.

Pathetic? Sure. But it's what I got.


Hey max, got no problems with any of this. Hope you have a good time when you see it.

No worries.

Yes, I've seen the film. Review pending... ;)

[Morris Schæffer]

Allright dude :)

[Skitch]

Yes, I've seen the film. Review pending... ;)

Its all come to this....quit making me wait! :D

[max314]

Jupiter Ascending (Wachowski, 2015):



http://s7.postimg.org/y3nml14p7/jupiter_ascending_frame_grab_6 00.jpg


Jupiter Ascending is exactly like The Matrix. Both Jupiter Ascending and the Wachowskis' paradigm-shifting chef-d'oeuvre finely stitch together comprehensively immersive universes from a polymathic range of interests and influences. Both films attempt to make sweeping commentaries about life, love, humanity and society. And both films wrap these ideas in comforting genre conventions, all whilst searing our eyeballs with audaciously dreamlike visuals.

Jupiter Ascending is, also, absolutely nothing like The Matrix. Where the films diverge is in their style and tone. Where The Matrix engineered a grimy, industrial aesthetic that reveled in rebellious cool, Jupiter Ascending celebrates its own silliness, pitching itself somewhere between the Wachowskis' cubist experiment Speed Racer (2008) and the Neo Seoul storyline in their pantheistic opus Cloud Atlas (2012).

The real question, then, is not: "Does Jupiter Ascending live up to The Matrix?" Rather, the question is: "Does Jupiter Ascending live up to its own ambitions?"

The short answer is: "Yes."

Set to a palette of unhinged imagination that evokes both Brazil (Gilliam, 1985) and Alejandro Jodorowsky's conceptual artwork for his conspicuously unproduced adaptation of Frank Herbert's 1965 novel, 'Dune', Jupiter Ascending has all the childish abandon of a Saturday morning cartoon show from the '80s, like ThunderCats or He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. It has just as many thrills and spills and excuses to giggle as something like the recent Guardians of the Galaxy (Gunn, 2014). Every action scene would end with a realisation that my fingernails were set deep into my palms; proof enough that the Wachowskis haven't lost their penchant for directing visceral action. And the Wachowskis haven't lost their penchant for crafting cool characters, either. The likes of Channing Tatum's wolf-spliced bounty hunter, Caine Wise, and Eddie Redmayne's flying dino-henchmen strut into the duo's Badass Hall of Fame with effortless swagger. Even the unfairly maligned Eddie Redmayne himself – dripping with disconcertingly Oedipal sensuality – has every chance of being remembered for an iconic performance, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.

Speaking of unfair malignment, the film's plot does not lack focus, despite myriad accusations to the contrary. The primary narrative and emotional drive of the film is that of Mila Kunis' regal recurrence wanting to re-unite with her family back on Earth, but being compelled instead to confront the cosmic duties that have been thrust upon her. This emotional anchor works because we actually care about Kunis' birth family, specifically her mother (Maria Doyle Kennedy), with whom she shares a genuine warmth and love in the film's opening reel. Their relationship pays off in the film's climax, and is arguably the real "love story" at the heart of the film.

It's not that Mila Kunis' refreshingly female-assertive romance with Channing Tatum doesn't work, because their chemistry crackles with endearing playfulness; but it ends up playing more like a subplot than the A-story, which may also be why some audiences were left emotionally distanced from the film. The other reason people may have felt distanced was the fast pace. When the credits roll, the audience feels like they just want more of everything – more of Caine's anti-gravity acrobatics, more of Jupiter's ostentatious wardrobe, more beautiful worlds for your eyes to feast on, more interplay with Tatum and Kunis, more backstory about Stinger's history, more Abrassax conspiracies... And yet, when you look back on the film, you realise that it was packed to bursting point with all of the above. As we swiftly follow Mila Kunis through a fascinating cross-section of the latest Wachowski-verse, the journey is perhaps a little too swift, a little too condensed. The positive is that there is plenty to mull over during repeated viewings – the jargon of Caine and Stinger, for example, evokes worlds and images in the way a novel might. The negative, however, is that audiences may have trouble settling into the groove of the story.

Jupiter Ascending would have pre-dated its contemporaries in space fiction, Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar (Nolan, 2014), had it not been pushed back several months from its original 2014 release date. There is a noteworthy comparison to be made by way of Jupiter Ascending taking the fun-but-vapid space cowboy genre conventions of the former, and combining it with the somber, socially aware commentary on human consumption and collonisation of the latter. The coincidence that these films occurred within approximately half a year of one another is a graphic confirmation of the Wachowskis' mission to combine high concept with high thinking. Perhaps even more importantly is the fact that Jupiter Ascending rejects both the realist mantra of Christopher Nolan and the reluctantly fantastical tone of James Gunn, choosing instead to use its outlandish budget to construct the most lavish cosmic phantasmagoria that we have ever seen. It is a graphic confirmation that the Wachowskis' sense of artistic exploration, in an industry that clings in terror to the status quo, is as awe-inspiring as any space adventure.

Jupiter Ascending may not the best entry in the Wachowskis' filmography, but it is among their most visionary. That's saying something.


★★★★★

[Skitch]

Caught this today. I'm on the positive side as well. I quite enjoyed it, surprisingly so with my lowered expectations.

I guess I can understand why Redmayne's villainous character annoyed some people, but my buddy and I both agreed he was a highlight of the movie. He was so damn creepy, which worked perfectly for a spoiled brat rich kid. He was Joffrey in space. :D I recall someone earlier in the thread mentioning unfinished character arcs or something like that? I didn't see that...at all, really. I thought the entire film was very straight forward about every thing. I didn't see a lot of speculative points. It all seemed pretty directly stated.

Its not perfect, but I had fun with it. I might even try to catch the 3D version when it drifts to the dollar theater. Some of those space scenes probably will look neat.

Edit: I will say this as well: This is a commitment film. That is, you either buy into the film's mythology and just go along for the ride, or you don't. And thats okay too. If you're one of those people who immediately scoffed at the lightsaber as impossible or enjoy telling your friends how silly it is that tie fighters explode in fireballs in space...this film is probably not for you.

[Morris Schæffer]

A commitment film? We now have a word for it? I always thought it was the filmmakers who were supposed to commit. Us? We should get swept up and taken along for the ride. ;)

[Skitch]

That would be true if we all had the same imagination. Not saying people that dislike this have less/no imagination, but that people have different imaginations. The world would be pretty damn boring if we didn't.

[Stay Puft]

I can dig it but it might be my least favorite Wachowski effort. Amazing production work, a visually arresting journey on that level, but at the same time disappointing given the bar the Wachowskis have set with previous films. I found the actions scenes surprisingly limp, and the film overall not terribly impressive in terms of camera work, shot composition, etc. (it has its moments, but mostly feels like the art direction is doing the heavy lifting, whereas a film like The Matrix is full of specific and memorable images; one problem that kept bugging me was obvious shots of actors on small sets surrounded by digital backdrops, which led to some simple and dull blocking and made the whole world feel sort of inorganic at times).

Always cool to look at, but not always engaging on a dramatic or even visceral level. I do agree with some of the positive posts re: the story, though, in that it was straightforward and I found smartly centered around Jupiter's journey through cosmic bureaucracy. The world building is quite fine, and I liked that it dealt with essentially one small corner of a larger universe (Abrasax being only one of however many - 3? - dynasties or companies they mentioned), though at the same time it leaves so much in the margins, so to speak, that it begs for a sequel that will now almost assuredly never materialize.

[max314]

...one problem that kept bugging me was obvious shots of actors on small sets surrounded by digital backdrops, which led to some simple and dull blocking...

I know what you mean: Reloaded, Revolutions and Speed Racer had some of the Wachowskis' most wooden blocking (although one can argue it's a stylistic thing).

For my tastes, Cloud Atlas and Jupiter Ascending were far more interesting with regards to staging.

Stinger's farmhouse, for example, has some of my favourite conversational blocking of perhaps any Wachowski film, and even the later scenes on the foreign planets seemed imaginatively staged; especially in 3D, it almost looked like a stage play.

[Dukefrukem]

Can someone please explain the "blocking" reference.

[Spinal]

Can someone please explain the "blocking" reference.

Blocking refers to how actors move throughout the space, or in relation to one another.

[Pop Trash]

Can someone please explain the "blocking" reference.

It's referred to more in theater than film, but generally in film it's about hitting marks or actors moving within the mise-en-scene (aka everything you see within the frame).

[Mal]

It's like a chizzled preppy man - at times probably very attractive but mostly dumb as hell.

[Skitch]

Yay China (http://https://www.yahoo.com/movies/jupiter-ascending-finds-redemption-in-china-113160122687.html)

[Dukefrukem]

No, it's a legit ongoing occurrence throughout the movie, where seemingly important characters and plot elements are introduced, only to be just completely abandoned without any sort of resolution to them.

This is my biggest gripe with the movie and it's so distracting to the point where I couldn't enjoy it. So many questions. This world is not established enough.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShAeafYCqxk

[Dukefrukem]

Was just coming to post this. It pretty much nails it.

[[ETM]]

The opening sentence is blatantly wrong. I turned it off. "Honest trailers" are pure trash, IMO.

[Dukefrukem]

;540236']The opening sentence is blatantly wrong. I turned it off. "Honest trailers" are pure trash, IMO.

It's a joke. They were showing Speed Racer as they said that.

[Sycophant]

And the joke is that Matrix is cool and Speed Racer drools.

Endlessly reinforcing safe conventional pop culture wisdom.

[Dukefrukem]

I think the joke is nothing will ever be as cool as the Matrix.

[Skitch]

I think the joke is nothing will ever be as cool as the Matrix.

I said the same thing about Jurassic Park and T2.

[Peng]

I have always included the Wachowskis in a group of directors whom I found might not pick or write the best of scripts, but can often elevate weak material into the realm of consistenly watchable through sheer craftmanship and style alone (other example of mine: Ridley Scott). Jupiter Ascending really tests this theory for me, though. The backstory is kind of goofy, and there is a whole load of it, which the film unfortunately decides to take seriously. Therefore we must have several stretches where the film stops dead so the characters can endlessly spew and spew the details of their world(s) to us. What might come off endearingly goofy turns deadly boring and silly when compressed to long-winded speeches. This compression of story and events also make the characterization hard to relate and the romance totally unconvincing.

The Wachowskis are still game though when it comes to their directing skill. I have heard complaint of CGI before watching it, and I don't know if it is because of watching on a smaller screen than theater or being too engrossed that I don't noticed it much. But as usual, they excel at filming chaotic action scenes in a clear, easy-to-follow manner, always with a firm grasp on spatial relation whether they're using slow-motion or spinning 360 degrees in the air. The early fight/flight scene through Chicago is an especially fun and thrilling example in this regard.

Throughout, I feel many actors struggle on how to approach the film's tone (Mila Kunis doesn't fare quite well, and is part of why the romance fails to convince for me). Still, I thought that both Channing Tatum and, contrary to most people, Eddie Redmayne work best, because they are on opposite spectrum and thus suited to such goofy material. Tatum plays it totally straight and so comes off rather sincere (what tiny twinge of investment I ever have in the romance comes almost wholly from him), while Eddie Redmayne chews and gobbles down his part like there is no tomorrow, to entertaining effect. In fact, both performances encapsulate the film quite well: an unholy mix of tones that somehow still just barely work for me (still least favorite Wachowski though), but your mileage may vary.

[Grouchy]

I'm saddened by the negative critical response towards this because, even if it's not a great movie, it's still an original screenplay for a space opera and that's almost unheard of in these days of remakes, reboots and adaptations of everything you can scourge.

That said, there are plenty of flaws in this. I think JA is great when it's introducing new worlds, needlessly ambitious sci-fi premises and new aliens and hybrids. When it attempts to ground all those elements into drama or *shudder* romantic subplots, I am inmediately reminded of Attack of the Clones. But the rest is so good it's almost 100% forgivable. Whoever said on this very thread that the Wachowskis have trouble directing action scenes knows jackshit about action. Their set pieces are impressively conceived and their directing style for these is classical in a way that's refreshing.

I think this flick is an enjoyable ride which is very easy to make fun of because it actually dares to be earnest and unapologetic about its genre.

[Skitch]

I agree. I've watched it twice and it works for me. Its not perfect, but it works well. I often tell people if you're one of those that asks "Why is her hair like that?" or "Why are his ears pointy?" this is not the movie for you. If you take one step down that road with this fantasy film, you're fucked. But if you let yourself get into it like a little kid watching a fantastical movie, its quite entertaining.

[Dead & Messed Up]

About an hour in. Flick needs more humor and less exposition. The flight through Chicago is fun, especially the final spiral down. The bee fight looks like Masters of the Universe. Poor Doona Bae, under that goofy-ass makeup. There's some fun in teasing out the Wachowskis' obsessions with reincarnation angle and anti-corporatism. "Your Earth is a very small part of a very large industry."

[Dead & Messed Up]

About an hour in. Flick needs more humor and less exposition. The flight through Chicago is fun, especially the final spiral down. The bee fight looks like Masters of the Universe. Poor Doona Bae, under that goofy-ass makeup. There's some fun in teasing out the Wachowskis' obsessions with reincarnation angle and anti-corporatism. "Your Earth is a very small part of a very large industry."

Flick just had too much story in its story. Way too much screentime was spent explaining instead of developing. And its aesthetic kinda felt like Space Opera Font, or a Maya plug-in. There's little opportunity for awe and wonder with all the vistas we see, which is strange given the Wachowskis. Redmayne's fop with the Pacino loud-softs is a hoot. I loved how easily he can be incapacitated with a shot to the nuts or a literal shot to the leg.

The flick's hardly terrible, and a streamlined version of it could've played with some of the same energy as The Fifth Element (if not the same cheeky wit). Probably the least of the Wachowskis' work, but I do think fans of theirs should give it a shot.

[Skitch]

The flick's hardly terrible, and a streamlined version of it could've played with some of the same energy as The Fifth Element (if not the same cheeky wit). Probably the least of the Wachowskis' work, but I do think fans of theirs should give it a shot.

This. This is all I ask for. I didn't think it deserved the amount of vitriol it received.

[[ETM]]

I liked it enough. It's stunningly beautiful and with a different male lead it would have been noticeably better.