Spoilers ahead, I guess. But it's not like knowing what happens will make this movie less enjoyable. I'm not actually sure that's possible.
I wanted to like this movie.
Yes, I know it has Channing Tatum in it. I don't care. I still wanted to like it. There's several reasons for that, but among them I'm going to credit a trailer filled with astonishing set pieces and a visual style that doesn't echo anything. This isn't Star Trek. This isn't a gritty reboot of a Star Wars clone. It's not even closely paralleling a book written by Issac Asimov or Arthur C. Clark. It's unique. And it's gorgeous. It takes one aspect of technology and looks at where it might go over the next few millennia. Coming out of the trailers, I was excited. Okay, maybe cautiously optimistic. But hey, it had Eddie Redmayne in it, and I rather like him. So I was looking forward to it.
That having been said, it didn't review well after release, so I lowered my expectations and hunkered down for when the stars of "it's out on dvd" and "I've got time and nothing better to do" would align.
They aligned slowly. I had to watch the movie in chunks. But I'm going to be honest.
Even with my lowered expectations, I might not have finished it had I not watched it in chunks.
I'll get this right out of the way. Sean Bean is in this movie. He doesn't die.
I know, right? I mean, fail on everything else, but casting Sean Bean as a character that doesn't die? Somebody in the casting process really should have caught that. That aside, he did an okay job with a one-dimensional trait-less character. And I'm-a be honest, Channing Tatum actually wasn't bad. He wasn't great, but his character was basically "stone-faced white male bad-a fighter" without any actual unique traits. And Channing Tatum can do stone-faced white male to a T. And while I would complain about how Mila Kunis' character was really terrible and her performance was yawn inducing, the fact is I think I slept through most of her performance because I can't even remember her character's name.
Oh, wait. It's Jupiter. Because whoever wrote this thought they were Orson Scott Card.
But what really bothered me was Eddie Redmayne. The man is a good actor. I loved him in Les Miserables. I loved him in The Theory of Everything. I was all set to enjoy a nuanced and emotional performance here as well. I got a repeat of Charlize Theron's character from Snow White and the Huntsman. In both cases a perfectly talented actor was given the direction of "talk quietly and blandly most of the time until the hero arrives. Then scream. And suddenly loose your mind without any warning. And then display a completely uncharacteristic lack of self-preservation, resulting in your not-at-all-surprising demise."
It was, frankly, appalling. I don't want to blame him for it, just like I didn't blame Charlize for Snow White. It was probably a combination of bizarre direction and the ridiculous script. I didn't go into this movie expecting good characters, but I was expecting a good performance from Eddie. Didn't get that. That was probably my biggest disappointment.
My next biggest disappointment was realizing, about mid-way through, that STILL nobody in Hollywood has figured out what makes really good sci-fi. I'm going to give you a hint; the secret is right there in the genre name. SCIENCE! That's not to say that the fictional universe this movie takes place in wasn't based on scientific things. There was great sci-fi economics, technology, biology, the works. All the building blocks were there. And had they been the focus of the character's actions, this movie might have really been something.
Unfortunately, we didn't get that. The characters and story were so bland that there was no way they could carry this film, and yet the science was nothing more than set dressing the entire time. A solid, well thought through sci-fi setting can carry perfectly ordinary or even sub-par characters and plots. Just look at Interstellar. But all this movie had going for it was impressive sci-fi set pieces.
And shoot, but they were impressive. And maybe what depresses me the most is that this movie bombed in theaters. I don't think it deserved to succeed wildly or anything, and I certainly don't want a sequel, but the fact that it tanked is not going to encourage studios to go with the original sci-fi ideas that are surely hitting their desks regularly. Instead, we'll get another Transformers movie, and maybe that's the greatest injustice of all. Please, everyone, just please listen.
If you're going to waste your movie-going dollars on trash, the world would be a much better place if you'd waste it on movies like Jupiter Ascending instead of Transformers.
I wanted to like this movie.
Yes, I know it has Channing Tatum in it. I don't care. I still wanted to like it. There's several reasons for that, but among them I'm going to credit a trailer filled with astonishing set pieces and a visual style that doesn't echo anything. This isn't Star Trek. This isn't a gritty reboot of a Star Wars clone. It's not even closely paralleling a book written by Issac Asimov or Arthur C. Clark. It's unique. And it's gorgeous. It takes one aspect of technology and looks at where it might go over the next few millennia. Coming out of the trailers, I was excited. Okay, maybe cautiously optimistic. But hey, it had Eddie Redmayne in it, and I rather like him. So I was looking forward to it.
That having been said, it didn't review well after release, so I lowered my expectations and hunkered down for when the stars of "it's out on dvd" and "I've got time and nothing better to do" would align.
They aligned slowly. I had to watch the movie in chunks. But I'm going to be honest.
Even with my lowered expectations, I might not have finished it had I not watched it in chunks.
I'll get this right out of the way. Sean Bean is in this movie. He doesn't die.
I know, right? I mean, fail on everything else, but casting Sean Bean as a character that doesn't die? Somebody in the casting process really should have caught that. That aside, he did an okay job with a one-dimensional trait-less character. And I'm-a be honest, Channing Tatum actually wasn't bad. He wasn't great, but his character was basically "stone-faced white male bad-a fighter" without any actual unique traits. And Channing Tatum can do stone-faced white male to a T. And while I would complain about how Mila Kunis' character was really terrible and her performance was yawn inducing, the fact is I think I slept through most of her performance because I can't even remember her character's name.
Oh, wait. It's Jupiter. Because whoever wrote this thought they were Orson Scott Card.
But what really bothered me was Eddie Redmayne. The man is a good actor. I loved him in Les Miserables. I loved him in The Theory of Everything. I was all set to enjoy a nuanced and emotional performance here as well. I got a repeat of Charlize Theron's character from Snow White and the Huntsman. In both cases a perfectly talented actor was given the direction of "talk quietly and blandly most of the time until the hero arrives. Then scream. And suddenly loose your mind without any warning. And then display a completely uncharacteristic lack of self-preservation, resulting in your not-at-all-surprising demise."
It was, frankly, appalling. I don't want to blame him for it, just like I didn't blame Charlize for Snow White. It was probably a combination of bizarre direction and the ridiculous script. I didn't go into this movie expecting good characters, but I was expecting a good performance from Eddie. Didn't get that. That was probably my biggest disappointment.
My next biggest disappointment was realizing, about mid-way through, that STILL nobody in Hollywood has figured out what makes really good sci-fi. I'm going to give you a hint; the secret is right there in the genre name. SCIENCE! That's not to say that the fictional universe this movie takes place in wasn't based on scientific things. There was great sci-fi economics, technology, biology, the works. All the building blocks were there. And had they been the focus of the character's actions, this movie might have really been something.
Unfortunately, we didn't get that. The characters and story were so bland that there was no way they could carry this film, and yet the science was nothing more than set dressing the entire time. A solid, well thought through sci-fi setting can carry perfectly ordinary or even sub-par characters and plots. Just look at Interstellar. But all this movie had going for it was impressive sci-fi set pieces.
And shoot, but they were impressive. And maybe what depresses me the most is that this movie bombed in theaters. I don't think it deserved to succeed wildly or anything, and I certainly don't want a sequel, but the fact that it tanked is not going to encourage studios to go with the original sci-fi ideas that are surely hitting their desks regularly. Instead, we'll get another Transformers movie, and maybe that's the greatest injustice of all. Please, everyone, just please listen.
If you're going to waste your movie-going dollars on trash, the world would be a much better place if you'd waste it on movies like Jupiter Ascending instead of Transformers.
Dang, but I just love to read what you write, even though I didn't see the movie and never intended to. You have, however, convinced me to see it rather than another transformer movie, ever 😁.
ReplyDelete