REVIEW: “Jupiter Ascending”

September 16, 2015 by Keith Garlington

It took some time but I have finally come to an unimportant realization – I am not a fan of the Wachowskis. I’m not sure why it took me so long to admit it because I’ve never had the best experiences with their films. “The Matrix” was a good movie, but I never saw it as the monumental classic others have. It’s sequels interested me less. “Speed Racer” was an unwatchable mess. “Cloud Atlas” was one of the most laborious theater experiences I’ve ever had. Yet despite these not-so-stellar reactions I always find myself watching whenever a new movie comes around.

The latest from the Wachowski siblings is “Jupiter Ascending”, an ambitious science fiction romp that has all the ingredients to be yet another slog. Six years ago Warner Brothers approached the Wachowskis about creating an original sci-fi franchise. Lots of money and resources were put behind the project in hopes of producing a profitable series. That hope looks unlikely. The film barely recovered its production costs and it found very little critical support. But here is the big surprise – it’s not a terrible movie. That being said it is another Wachowski movie whose ambition is only surpassed by its flaws.

The story isn’t nearly as intelligent as the Wachowskis probably think, but it’s also not as incoherent or convoluted as some critics proclaim. In fact, at times it is pretty basic stuff, but at other times it’s just downright silly. The story is basically a melding of Cinderella and the Wizard of Oz thrown into a big, vibrant science fiction world. Mila Kunis plays Jupiter Jones, a young woman who housecleans for wealthy Chicago elites. But actually Jupiter is the reincarnated heir of planet earth.

Make sense so far? Probably not so here’s the deal. Earth and a number of other planets are owned by a powerful alien royalty called the House of Abrasax. The Matriarch of the royal family has been murdered leaving the ownership of the planets split between three siblings: the power-hungry sociopath Balam (Eddie Redmayne), the conniving playboy Titus (Douglas Booth), and the sweet but equally devious Kalique (Tuppence Middleton). The planets are considered harvest grounds by the aliens and Earth is the most profitable. Jupiter’s existence means the siblings can’t control Earth and therefore the profit so she finds herself stuck in the middle of one big family squabble.

Thankfully there is Channing Tatum as the ridiculously named Caine Wise. He is a genetically engineered “splice” – a half human and half….ahem….wolf. Yep, you read that right. To add to the character’s absurdity, he speed skates through the skies with a pair of rocket boots and has a penchant for eyeliner. His main contribution to the story is to constantly rescue Jupiter from various states of peril in the nick of time. We also get Sean Bean as Caine’s buddy Stinger. He is half human and half honeybee but do we really need to get into that?

I will say the Wachowskis know how to world build. The creativity behind some of the effects are impressive and the locations are a lot of fun. For example to get to Balam’s “refinery” you enter through the big red spot on Jupiter’s surface. On the flipside not all of the action sequences work as well. Watching Tatum skate through the sky or fly around in these bird-like ships is cool at first but the movie milks them and they grow tiresome. The movie relies heavily on its CGI which is both good and bad.

But the film’s problems don’t stop there. The story is built upon a pretty interesting mythology and foundation but most of it is told through a ton of exposition. Rarely does the film show us anything. Also for all of the cool and interesting things the story does, there are also too many moments and details that are beyond. And then there are a couple of key performances that don’t work at all. Tatum is cold, emotionless, and uninteresting. Some of it is the role but Tatum does it no favors. And what on Earth is Eddie Redmayne doing? His husky mumbling and sudden outbursts are laughably bad at times.

In a weird way “Jupiter Ascending” was a nice surprise. After my past experiences with the Wachowskis I was expecting the worst. But this is a watchable bit of sci-fi and often entertaining. Unfortunately some of its ideas are shockingly silly, it relies too heavily on its special effects, and a couple of the more important performances hurt the film. So while this may be better than some Wachowski films, it’s only marginally better and definitely not enough for me to call myself a fan of their work.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

“Les Miserables” – 4 STARS

January 11, 2013 by Keith Garlington

I’m not a fan of musicals. Never have been, never will be. Now there are one or two that I guess I could say I like, but as a whole it is one of my least favorite genres. So why would I think for a minute that I would like Tom Hooper’s “Les Miserables”? Well as suprising as it may sound, I liked “Les Miserables” a lot and if not for its mildly sluggish pacing leading up to the final act I would have gone as far as to call it a great film. Releasing a movie like this today would seem like a risk. Modern movie fans pour money into lame raunchy comedies and brainless rom-coms so it was refreshing to see “Les Miserables” reach a wide audience. The film has a lot to offer. Just as long as you prepare yourself and know what you’re going to get.

For the few that don’t know, “Les Miserables” is French writer Victor Hugo’s classic novel from 1862. In the 1980s a musical theater version of the novel opened and became a worldwide success and remains so to this day. Now Hooper, the Oscar winning director of “The King’s Speech”, tackles the ambitious task of bringing the stage version to the big screen. Now when I call this a musical I mean it in the fullest. There may be five or six short spoken lines in the entire film. The bulk of the story is told through song and the emotional performances from the cast. It concerned me going in but after a brief mental adjustment I was connected to the flow of the narrative.

The story begins in 1815 and follows Jean Valijean (Hugh Jackman) who we see released from prison after serving a 19 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread. After being moved by the compassion of a priest, Valijean breaks parole and heads off to start an honest life serving God under a new identity. This infuriates Officer Javert (Russell Crowe) who becomes obsessed with tracking him down. The movie jumps ahead, making stops at different time periods in early 19th century France. Valijean becomes a mayor and businessman, Javert a promoted inspector, and we are introduced to several other people who cross their paths.

There’s no need in going further into the story. I’ll save that for the movie but I will say that its an interesting look at everything from poverty to patriotism, from redemption to devastation. It takes place during a tumultuous time in French history and it translates very well on screen. The story navigates through the many hardships, tragedies, and inequalities of that era with an amazing sense of authenticity. Much of that is thanks to the sharp collaborative screenplay but a lot is due to the incredible period detail that we see throughout the entire film. There’s a real sense of place throughout the movie which was essential to my experience.

But enough of that right? This is after all a musical so I’ve got to get into the singing. Hugh Jackman was quite good in my eyes. I know some have felt that the part overpowered him but I didn’t see it. I thought some songs were better than others but his physical performance complemented his voice perfectly and I loved what he was doing on screen. Russell Crowe has received the brunt of the criticism when it comes to the singing but I’m going to defend him…well, kinda. I don’t think he’s as bad as many are saying. In fact, some of the songs nicely fit both him and his character. But I have to say there are moments where his voice clashes with the scene. For example, a few of the one-on-one singing conversations between him and Jackman just sound odd. A lot has to do with the songs themselves but some of it is that Crowe simply sounds off. But Crowe does have some good moments and his physical performance is fantastic.

I also have to mention Ann Hathaway as a poor unemployed mother who has to resort to prostitution in order to send money back to care for her sick young daughter. Hathaway is brilliant and no doubt she was the star of the show for me. While she doesn’t have a big role, every scene she’s in is emotionally charged and heartbreaking. And her voice is simply beautiful. The best scene in the entire movie is her singing of “I Dreamed a Dream”. I usually get tired of Hooper’s insistence on putting the camera right in the face of his actors. But in this scene he knows he’s capturing something special. Hathaway’s brokenness, her tears, her anguish are all vividly captured as she sings this heart-wrenching song. This is an Oscar worthy performance.

There are also fun performances from Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as a crooked, pick pocketing husband and wife. And I was surprised at the singing chops of Eddie Redmayne. He has a pretty meaty role and never flinches. I was also very impressed with Samantha Barks and Amanda Seyfried. Both young ladies have lovely voices and I appreciated the way they poured everything into their characters. There were several other small but great cast members particularly some really strong child performances. It’s hard not to like this ensemble Hooper was able to put together.

“Les Miserables” does bog down during the buildup to its finale. For most of the film I was completely involved and for the movie to do that to a non-musical kind of guy like me is quite an accomplishment. But as Redmayne and company prepare their rebellion I felt myself drifting. Things start to feel repetitious and monotonous. But then in a snap of a finger the movie picks back up and rolls right through to its powerful and completely satisfying finale. In fact, I think “powerful” and “completely satisfying” are good descriptions of this movie as a whole. Sure it’s Oscar bait and I know it has disappointed some people, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this picture. This isn’t normally my cup of tea, but when a film is well made, well acted, and tells a good story I’m all in whether they’re singing the lines or not.

“MY WEEK WITH MARILYN” – 2 STARS

March 20, 2012 by Keith Garlington

One thing that can be said for “My Week with Marilyn” is that it’s not your run-of-the-mill biopic. The movie is based on Colin Clark’s book about the making of “The Prince and the Showgirl”, a 1957 comedy starring Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. Said to have been a troubled set, “My Week with Marilyn” gives us an interesting glimpse at what it must have been like. But the movie mainly focuses on Colin Clark’s week-long relationship with Marilyn Monroe during the shoot. We spend a lot of time seeing the different sides of Marilyn through Adrian Hodges screenplay and the Oscar nominated performance of Michelle Williams. But while the film and especially Williams has received high praise, I found the movie lacking and in many ways missing the energy you would expect it to have.

The film starts with Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) leaving home in hopes of landing a job in the film industry. He ends up getting on with Laurence Olivier’s (Kenneth Branagh) new movie “The Prince and the Showgirl”. Marilyn Monroe (Williams) will be arriving to work on the picture and Colin’s first job is to find a home for her to stay in while she’s in London. Marilyn and Laurence get off on the wrong foot after she is late to the first script reading. This is a trend that continues throughout the filming of the movie and soon Laurence (who is also directing the picture) reaches his breaking point. Branagh is very good here and it’s quite obvious that he’s having a lot of fun with the role. He’s a likable character but very by-the-books when it’s time to work, something even his lovely but insecure wife Vivien Leigh (Julia Ormand) points out.

It’s during the stressful filming that we see Marilyn as extremely nervous and lacking any confidence in her acting abilities. In fact, she is almost always seen with her acting coach Paula Strasberg (Zoe Wanamaker) who actually serves more as a stabilizing mechanism to keep Marilyn from flying off the rails. Judi Dench plays Sybil Thorndike, a calm and soothing co-star who has sympathy for Marilyn and helps her build her confidence. But Marilyn doesn’t show up to the set one day and Colin is sent to check on her. A few days later Marilyn calls Colin to come over and see her. Colin is warned of Marilyn’s ways but his infatuation with her grows and grows. The relationship between the two is supposed to be unusual but I had a hard time finding any spark between them. Redmayne has the naive puppy dog thing working well but it was almost impossible to buy into their relationship.

I also thought the story, much like Colin and Marilyn’s fling, lacked any energy or vitality. I found my mind wandering during several scenes particularly when Marilyn is mumbling to Colin after taking to many pills. The movie just seems to hit an emotional flatline and I had a hard time staying interested. There were also times when Marilyn comes across as too childlike. I understand that the movie was trying to convey a type of childlike dependency in Marilyn but there were a couple of scenes where the script takes it too far.

But everything in this film comes back to the performance from Michelle Williams. She won a Golden Globe for the role but I have to say that I wasn’t as enamored with her work as most others have been. She certainly gives it everything she’s got and to be fair her biggest problem is that she’s let down by the material. But I never really felt like I was watching Marilyn Monroe. I always felt like I was watching someone play her. Now that may be expecting too much from Williams and it may be unfair. But this film hinges on the audience buying into Williams as Monroe and I only partially could.

When it comes down to it, “My Week with Marilyn” is pretty lightweight. It starts off strong but hits a rut at the midway point and spins its wheels for most of the second half of the film. Williams certainly isn’t bad here but she also isn’t Marilyn Monroe. I can see where if you buy into her performance completely, you’ll probably enjoy this film more than I did. But even with that, I would still have a hard time buying into this week-long lifeless fling. As I said at the beginning, this isn’t your run-of-the-mill biopic. But unfortunately it doesn’t use its uniqueness to create something special.