New Jupiter Ascending Movie Received Mostly Mixed Reviews From Major Critics
Warner Bros. Pictures released their new action/sci-fi film, “Jupiter Ascending” into theaters this weekend, and the reviews are in from the major,top movie critics. It turns out that it was only able get a mixed reaction from them with an overall 40 score out of a possible 100 across 38 reviews at the Metacritic.com site.
The film stars: Sean Bean, James D’Arcy, Tim Pigott-Smith, Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth, Doona Bae and Tuppence Middleton. We’ve provided blurbs from a few of the critics,below.
Alonso Duralde from TheWrap, gave it a very nice 85 score, saying: “Who cares if the story is occasionally impenetrable or if some gags land with a thud when the thrills and the eye candy keep coming at such a breathless pace? Jupiter Ascending doesn’t break the new ground that the Wachowskis have managed in the past…but the film never slacks in its efforts to wow us.”
Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle, gave it a 75 score, stating: “A film very much of its moment, in ways both good and bad. But the important thing is that its virtues are extraordinary, while its flaws are easy to forget because they’re so common.”
Joe McGovern over at Entertainment Weekly, gave it a 58 grade. He stated: “Jupiter Ascending’s early cleverness dries up quickly, especially when Kunis is offscreen, leaving us with just another incoherent sci-fi spectacle.”
Manohla Dargis from The New York Times, gave it a 50 score, stating: “With its nods to the original “Star Trek” and David Lynch’s proto-steampunk hallucination “Dune,” it seduces the eye with filigreed flourishes even as the mind reels from some of the mildewy storytelling.”
Kenneth Turan over at the Los Angeles Times, gave it a 50 score, saying: “Jupiter Ascending is best during its purely visual moments, of which there are many… All of which makes it a shame that the only sense the Wachowskis can count on is their visual one.”
Lou Lumenick from the New York Post, gave it a 50 grade. He said: “An instant candidate for the so-bad-it’s-sort-of-great hall of fame, Jupiter Ascending is totally bonkers, a sort of black-velvet-Elvis mash-up of “Star Wars’’ and every other sci-fi/fantasy movie of the past half-century right up to “The Hunger Games.”
Michael Phillips at the Chicago Tribune, gave it a 50 score, stating: “The movie doesn’t really work, but the jet boots would be the envy of Iron Man, and they allow our hero, unwisely named Caine Wise, to speedskate through the air, leaving pretty little trails of light over downtown Chicago.”
Matt Zoller Seitz over at RogerEbert.com, gave it a 50 score, stating: “It’s blandly, often listlessly bad, check-the-blockbuster-boxes bad, just-out-of-film-school-and-shopping-a-tentpole-screenplay bad.”
Todd McCarthy at The Hollywood Reporter, gave it a 40. He said: “Even with all its familiar action tropes, less-than-fresh special effects and loopy plotting, the most depressing element in the Wachowski siblings’ latest sci-fi mash is that, as they conceive it, human society has been around for more than a billion years but is still presided over by a rivalrous British-style royal family that treacherously behaves as if it were the 1550s.”
Peter Debrige at Variety, gave it a 40 score, saying: “While the Wachowskis have always put their greatest emphasis on aesthetics, they allow the visual impulse to get the best of them here, investing so much attention in creating unique fashions, technology, architecture and design that they’ve blinded themselves to the huge logical gaps in their own story.”
Ty Burr from the Boston Globe, gave it an awful 38 grade, saying: “Dazzling to behold yet puny of imagination, the movie takes the “Star Wars” formula — hero myths nicked from Joseph Campbell, cutting-edge visual effects, comic-strip dialogue, goofy-looking aliens — and reduces it to generic Big Box shelf product.”
Claudia Puig from USA Today, gave it a 38 score. She stated: “The sci-fi film’s reported $175 million budget must have gone largely into loopy production design, wild costumes, outlandish hairstyles and colorful make-up. It certainly didn’t go into developing a coherent script or coaching believable performances.”
Peter Travers over at Rolling Stone, gave it a very bad 25 score, saying: ” This kind of pandering FX padding, unnurtured by humor or heart, is what shifts Jupiter Ascending from a shambles to a fiasco. In an effort to win back audiences by lowering their standards and their daring, the Wachowskis wind up where you never expected to find them creatively: on the ropes.”
Joe Neumaier from the New York Daily News, gave it a 20 grade, saying: ” Talk about lost in space. The whacked-out outer-space melodrama Jupiter Ascending has embedded in its genes the DNA of “Barbarella” and “Flash Gordon,” some dust from “Dune” and even a bit of Michael Jackson’s Disneyland short “Captain Eo.”
Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal, gave it the lowest of the low 0 score, stating: “Heaping derision on such a woeful debut may be tantamount to shooting fossils in a tar pit. Yet this lumbering industrial enterprise, which was written and directed by the Wachowski siblings, Andy and Lana, is bad enough to be granted landmark status.”
Finally, Richard Roeper from the Chicago Sun-Times, gave it another baddest of the bad zero score, claiming: “There’s no defending Jupiter Ascending. There’s no explaining Jupiter Ascending. There’s no way Jupiter Ascending isn’t making an appearance on my list of the Worst Films of 2015.” Whoa! Stay tuned. Also, get your favorite Movie stuff, and more by Clicking Here.
