An original blockbuster film, not based on any known property, is hard enough to come by. But a decent space opera type of adventure would be virtually non-existent in this time and age. For whatever reason, the audiences lost interest in outer space and wondrous possibilities it could offer (unless we count Star Wars, of course). Once a source of amusement and entertainment in things like Barbarella or Flash Gordon, now it is often labelled as childish fare for underdeveloped brains. It is largely true, of course, but people who say that often give superhero things rave reviews. Go figure.
Even with all things considered, you can’t help but think everyone made up their minds about Jupiter Ascending long before it even appeared on big screens across the world. And that has nothing to do with its quality (or lack thereof). Warner Bros. must have thought it wasn’t too be any successful because there was no real effort to market it and get people excited. Good or not, there are worse examples of that made huge amounts of money and it’s a shame studio wouldn’t even make an effort to sell this.
The film itself is incomprehensible. The Wachowskis’ jammed every single frame of their latest fresco with… well, pretty much everything one could think of: space battles, expansive sets, fairy tale elements, campy comedy, bizarre creatures of various sorts. In their baroque excess, there were no efforts made to make it any coherent. Quite the opposite – as we explore the latest universe courtesy of this notorious duo, the boundaries between conventions, or even genres, become blurred and, ultimately, non-existent. It then comes as no surprise Terry Gilliam himself makes an appearance.
The story itself involves humble Russian immigrant janitor Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) being unsatisfied with her life and wanting to change things. As it happens in these types of things, she gets involved with the intergalactic intrigue of epic proportions. Turns out the humble girl is an exact genetic reincarnation of one important royal figure in grander universe. As soon as her identity is revealed, the girl becomes the target of assassination and an ongoing bargaining chip in a conflict between three heirs to Abrasax family’s inheritance. That is when Channing Tatum comes in playing, well, Channing Tatum in flying boots and with funny ears. He saves the girl at least dozens of times, while trying to atone for sins of shady bestial times and reclaim his wings. Literally.
The performances from two main actors are not exactly the most convincing. Tatum’s Caine Wise is a likeable character but devoid of any real personality. By the end of the day, it’s really hard to name a single unique trait of this character, other than his physical appearance. His sole purpose seems to be serving as a convenient plot device to get out female lead from yet another ordeal. Mila Kunis seems completely lost in this production. Not only she doesn’t seem surprised in the slightest by all astonishing things that are happening to her but she doesn’t even sell the basic love story very well.
But these two are not the worst Jupiter Ascending has to offer. That honour would go to the trio of villains, each representing a different levels of vanity and caricatures on blasé higher classes. Balem offers a hilarious and anorectic take on Brando and it's very funny to see Eddie Redmayne receive an Oscar for his take on Stephen Hawking while having this hammy performance fresh in memory. The other competing sibling of Abrasax family is Titus (Douglas Booth) who presents an eternally nonchalant Bond villain with a Dorian Gray touch. Marie Antoinette-like Kalique (Tuppence Middleton) doesn’t even fulfil any real role in this overcrowded script, save for delivering a portion of heavy exposition. One has to wonder why is she even in the film at all. Truly, all those characters are as likeable as their names and best illustrate what’s wrong with this space opera as a whole; a lack of focus.
One might say that Jupiter Ascending is impressive visually. Not really. At this day and age there is actually nothing imposing about extensive use of CGI and how it finds its way into every corner of the frame, often for no reason whatsoever. We see that virtually every two weeks now. Having said that, the Wachowskis manage to stage several impressive and well-choreographed action sequences, of which the early chase across Chicago cityscape is most energetic and fun.
The production design of this film serves as its strongest element, even if it only contributes to the growing overall cinematic mess. But it’s nice to look at and manages to impress for its own sake. The design for certain space ships seems to, funnily enough, resemble those from John Carter (of Mars), another “disappointing” old-fashioned space opera from recent years. The similarities don’t end there: both were scored by the same composer – Michael Giacchino. But, unlike its predecessor, Jupiter Ascending leans mostly largely on composer’s own dramatic and compositional instincts, rather than trying to be a love letter to other composers and their past great works of old. All of which can be a good thing.
It might be hard to gather from above paragraphs but this this latest opus from Wachowskis, for all its drivel and lack of coherence, manages to entertain. Partially because of its grand ambitions and partially because of its failure to live up to those. In any case, this trashy appeal serves as its strongest asset and one thing that catapults Jupiter Ascending into guilty pleasure status. There is a very retro sense vibe of older, more naïve and innocent, age of science-fiction. Less polished and respectable but also quite refreshing in its unapologetically nonsensical storytelling. And while there is no slapstic visible enough to definitely confirm this, the film feels very much like an intentional play on old conventions and a pastiche. With your brain switched to low mode, you might have some real fun from watching this ridiculous romp.
- Karol
Julian Fellowes, he of the popular Sunday night entertainment and now morality play Downton Abbey, has written an adaptation of William Shakespeare's most famous romance, the tragedy of Romeo & Juliet. It turns out, tragedy is entirely the right term, though not necessarily in the context meant by the Warwickshire wordsmith. For Fellowes has crafted what I am confident in saying is the worst adaptation of a Shakespeare that I have ever seen. And that's a list that includes She's The Man.
When tackling a play with such a lengthy, memorable performance and cinematic history as Romeo & Juliet, it is necessary to take a new approach to the material and provide audiences with a chance to look with fresh eyes at this giddy teenage (and very silly) romance. Zeferelli provided a beautiful, timeless adaptation that took a historical approach to the material, casting teen leads and giving us a story for the ages. Laurents, Bernstein and Sondheim gave us an all-singing, all-dancing version in one of the best musicals ever. Luhrmann cranked it up to eleven and brought the play screaming into the modern day, launching stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes in the process. All wildly different interpretations of the same play and each with something to say about the material. So what do Fellowes and director Carlo Calei give us? The flattest, dullest and most bog-standard interpretation of Shakespeare's text.
Now I am no Shakespeare purist by any means; he is one of those rare writers that can be transported into a wide variety of locations and situations that bring new meaning to his centuries-old words. Fellowes and Carlei could have taken us anywhere, done anything with the text that they wanted to. So we got 16th century Verona. Right. Not only that, but Fellowes kindly did us the honour of each character repeating all the major plot points first in modern(ish) language and then the actual Shakespearean line. Sometimes, just in case we poor souls were completely lost, he even let us hear the same line in modern English again. Thanks Julian. It's just so hard to pay attention to films these days. It's nice to have it repeated at great length.
This insulting and arrogant attitude to the audience was not confined to Fellowes' additions to existing scenes, but also in his creation of entirely new ones. Sometimes, this can be used to great effect, much like re-setting the play in a different location. Here, it seems to have been simply to give supporting cast member Damian Lewis more scenery to gnaw through. These extra scenes served little to advance the plot beyond making sure the audience knew exactly what was going on at any given moment. There were odd scenes such as the one in which Tybalt (a hilariously growling Ed Westwick) swore Juliet's honour was his only care. It set up an odd dynamic to their relationship that was picked up and dropped again as Tybalt's corpse hit the ground. Poor Natascha McElhone got saddled with the brunt of these scenes in an attempt to flesh out her character of Lady Capulet. It didn't work.
It also ensured that the pacing to the film was completely off. Big moments like Romeo (Douglas Booth) and Juliet's (Hailee Steinfeld) meeting at the dance is sped through and culminates in a scene my friend memorably described as a 'kissing behind the bike sheds' moment. Likewise, Mercutio (Christian Cooke) is barely a footnote in a play in which he's one of the most popular characters. His death scene that is full of fantastic language and damning speeches is reduced to about three lines and a bloody cough. Even the many fencing scenes are boring, badly choreographed and over far too quickly. Instead, we get the lengthy scene in which the Friar tells Juliet of his plan that gives us an alternate reality version of climax of the play for seemingly no other reason than to labour the tragedy of the ending.
Scenes that should carry some emotional heft barely even register; Mercutio and Tybalt's deaths carry so little weight that as the turning point of the play, it feels like a slight bend rather than the complete hairpin that it should do. In fact, Fellowes seems in such a rush to get to the final scenes, because we all know how it happens, that he forgets to make us care about these characters. None of the family dynamics are present, none of the conflict that family loyalty brings is present for the central pair beyond the words they speak. For someone so confident in his audience not understanding the play, Fellowes has managed to completely misread it in just about every way possible. Relying on the tragic ending alone to inspire sympathy for your characters is just lazy.
The butcher's approach to the text bled into the performances of the cast, a random hotch-potch that felt like every single one of them was in a completely different film to the next character along. Westwick tries to bring a weighty gravitas to Tybalt by scowling and stalking through every scene he's let near; the effect is rather comical and I defy anyone not to laugh when he appears for the duel, hair blowing in his face and dust rising from his heavy footsteps. Paul Giamatti's Friar Lawrence manages to bring actual gravitas to his role and seems to be the only person who understands the emotional beats of the scenes he is in. Damian Lewis, on the other hand, veers from comical to patriarchal tyrant so fast, it feels like he's filming various different films at once.
As central duos go, there could have been a less appealing combination than Hailee Steinfeld and Douglas Booth. Though their delivery of the Shakespearean dialogue occasionally reminded me of many an afternoon sat listening to classmates murder blank verse, they imbue their characters with a wide-eyed enthusiasm that carries them through the film as the rest of it falls apart. She is pretty and floaty, he is heroically masculine yet sensitive. Just to hammer that home, Romeo's introduction finds him carving a statue whilst wearing a shirt open to the navel, bearing his sweaty, manly, manly chest for all to see. I think I was supposed to swoon, but instead I rolled my eyes. It was the first of many.
Perhaps the only positive that can be salvaged from the film, and I am really struggling to find much more, is that it looks beautiful; light casts down in angelic beams that highlight the production design. The costumes are beautiful though the colour schemes seemed a little confused when it came to distinguishing Montagues and Capulets. The fact that it looks so pretty softens the blow slightly as you are watching Shakespeare's text ripped to shreds in front of your eyes.
A film so heavy-handed, it feels like being bashed over the head with a copy of The Complete Works, Romeo & Juliet will do absolutely nothing to challenge the existing iconic adaptations of the play. In fact, it may just make you appreciate them that little bit more.
*
- Becky
Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page
