Jupiter Ascending (The Wachowski Starship)

[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

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?

[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!

[max314]

Jupiter Ascending (Wachowski, 2015):

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. 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

[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.