At its core, Jupiter Ascending is a great idea. A true space opera hasn't been made in some time, and a return to classic science fiction is something that the film industry could desperately use. However, such films are expensive to make, and studios rarely want to go in on a movie that'll potentially cost them money - as a result, fewer and fewer of these types of films get made.
Enter the Wachowskis: directors who went from the top of the world with The Matrix, only to fall to the deepest depths with The Matrix: Revolutions. It's one of the most dramatic falls from grace the industry has ever seen, and it's been a long time since the Wachowskis have made anything worth watching.
Is Jupiter Ascending both a return to form for sci-fi and a grand re-debut for the Wachowskis? According to critics, no.
The story of Jupiter Ascending has a lot to do with inter-family politics and backstabbing - a trope that's become quite popular with the rise of Game of Thrones. As one of the last heirs to a long line of intergalactic royalty, Jupiter Jones must survive the bounty on her head and somehow take control of her destiny.
Or, as Eric Eisenberg of CinemaBlend puts it:
"It's dense, interesting, weird and at times funny, but what it's all wrapped around is another 'Chosen One' story that really feels drawn out and convoluted, eventually crumbling into something tiresome and tedious..."
Of course, every story boils down to the characters, and how they interact with the world and people around them - unfortunately for Jupiter Ascending, this aspect of the film flops as well:
"It's with the introduction of the trio of central villains that everything begins to fall apart - which is a sincere problem considering that they wind up completely driving the entire story."
Scott Mendelson of Forbes was a bit nicer, though that didn't stop the film from disappointing:
"...So the good news is that Jupiter Ascending is not truly a narrative disaster and it often is a visual wonder. But considering the amount of money (clearly onscreen) being spent, the film itself just isn't strong enough in terms of crowd pleasing spectacle or iconic characters to justify the film's budget.
"In terms of that whole "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" thing, I'm of two minds about the picture. On the other hand, I'm inclined to give it a token pass because it looks so good...And there is a part of me that admits that I looked at the film through the lens of its budget. Jupiter Ascending is an enjoyable Saturday afternoon matinee that needed to be much more than that because of its $175m production cost. On that scale it does not measure up."
The Hollywood Reporter's Todd McCarthy, on the other hand, was not so forgiving of the film's rich visuals and lackluster story:
"...Jupiter Ascending at least possesses familiar sci-fi genre elements that are promotable to its target audience and will thereby generate reasonable returns, especially overseas. But anyone hoping for the old Matrix magic to rematerialize (it's been 15 years) is due for more disappointment."
Finally, Peter Debruge of Variety summed it up as:
"It all comes down to a problem of world-building, a skill at which the Wachowskis excelled on "The Matrix." But their weaknesses were revealed soon after in the "Matrix" sequels, where the sheer scale of the project overwhelmed their ability to focus in on the core narrative...the Wachowskis really should have spent that extra six months on development, focusing on the script rather than the visuals. After this debacle, it will be a long time before the kind of recurrence where anyone trusts the duo with a budget anywhere near this scale again."
Currently, the film is sitting at a rating of only 36% on Rotten Tomatoes. Jupiter Ascending is faring a little better over at Metacritic, though not by much - the score is currently sitting at a rather mediocre 56%. Either way, it doesn't seem like Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum were enough to save the Wachowskis from another B-grade science fiction adventure.
Jupiter Ascending hits theaters this Friday, Feb. 6.
