Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Jupiter Ascending (2015)
A modern-day "Flash Gordon"
I have to give credit to "Jupiter Ascending" for being a big budget film that is not a sequel, a remake, or an adaptation. Still, for an "original" film, it is not very... original. Which, however, is not necessarily a bad thing.
"Jupiter Ascending" is a classic space adventure, and offers everything you could expect from such a movie. I would not compare it to epics like "Star Wars" and "Star Trek", or even "The Matrix", despite some common themes, but rather to "Flash Gordon" and "John Carter".
Considering that "John Carter" was, in my opinion, a poor film, but was still relatively well received, I would expect the superior "Jupiter Ascending" to get a better score.
Prior to seeing the movie, I was a bit concerned with the cast. Channing Tatum might not have been my first choice, but he is pretty decent as Caine Wise, and Mila Kunis is decently pretty as Jupiter Jones. (I apologize for that comment, I just couldn't resist the pun.) Sean Bean is a nice addition, as always, and Eddie Redmayne is a good bad guy (OK, enough puns for today), and his acting was a lot better than people say.
Visually, the film is beautiful. There are certain Transformers-like action sequences with a lot of close-ups of CGI metal flying around, when it is difficult to understand what is going on, but other than that I really liked the effects and the cinematography. The musical score is nothing outstanding, but it is still good and fitting for the movie.
Overall, "Jupiter Ascending" is a solid space adventure film, and I would recommend to the fans of the genre to see it in cinemas, both to make the most of the viewing experience and to support original films.
Cold Creek Manor (2003)
Could have been a decent film
I was actually pleased with the film in the beginning. Because of the low rating and poor reviews I was expecting something quite bad, but I hoped that it might be entertaining nonetheless. Well, I was wrong with both my assumptions.
The acting is nothing remarkable, but it isn't irritating either. The directing is not bad. One could expect at least that, after all the film's director is Mike Figgis, who also directed Leaving Las Vegas. On the other hand, so far Figgis has not managed to achieve the success of Leaving Las Vegas with any of his other films and Cold Creek Manor is no exception. It is actually worse than most of his other attempts. On the good side - I thought the film was going to be quite cheesy and/or over the top, but the storytelling and photography are decent and unostentatious.
However, the film has one major flaw: while it is not told in such a bad way, the story itself is simply stupid. It actually manages to avoid some clichés, though all themes and models are well known and have been told hundreds of times already. The real problem is that it is just plain boring. I don't mind slow paced films, as long as there is something to be told. But that's not the case with Cold Creek Manor. It is neither thrilling, nor frightening and is absolutely unengaging. And the ending (the "geronimo" moment in particular) is ridiculous.
I wouldn't recommend that film, it is simply boring (or at least unremarkable) on all levels.