jupiterascending movie poster image

New Jupiter Ascending movie got mostly mixed reviews from top critics. Warner Bros. Pictures released their new action/sci-fi flick, “Jupiter Ascending” into theaters this weekend, and all the top critics have submitted their reviews. It turns out that they were pretty mixed about it, giving it an overall 40 score out of a possible 100 across 38 reviews at Metacritic.com.

The movie stars: Sean Bean, James D’Arcy, Tim Pigott-Smith, Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth, Doona Bae and Tuppence Middleton. We’ve added blurbs from a couple of the critics,below.

Alonso Duralde at TheWrap, gave it a great 85 score, stating: “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 over at the San Francisco Chronicle, gave it a 75 grade, saying: “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 from Entertainment Weekly, gave it a 58 score. He said: “Jupiter Ascending’s early cleverness dries up quickly, especially when Kunis is offscreen, leaving us with just another incoherent sci-fi spectacle.”

Manohla Dargis at The New York Times, gave it a 50 grade, saying: “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 from the Los Angeles Times, gave it a 50 grade, stating: “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 over at the New York Post, gave it a 50 score. He stated: “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 from the Chicago Tribune, gave it a 50 score, saying: “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 from RogerEbert.com, gave it a 50 score, saying: “It’s blandly, often listlessly bad, check-the-blockbuster-boxes bad, just-out-of-film-school-and-shopping-a-tentpole-screenplay bad.”

Todd McCarthy from The Hollywood Reporter, gave it a 40,saying: “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 from Variety, gave it a 40 grade, stating: “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 at the Boston Globe, gave it a bad 38 score, stating: “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 at USA Today, gave it a 38 score. She said: “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 from Rolling Stone, gave it a very bad 25 score, claiming: ” 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 at the New York Daily News, gave it a 20 score, stating: ” 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 at the Wall Street Journal, gave it the dreaded 0 score, saying: “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.”

Richard Roeper over at the Chicago Sun-Times, gave it another dreaded zero grade, saying: “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.” Stay tuned. Follow us on Facebook by Clicking Here. Follow us on Google Plus by Clicking Here. Follow us on Twitter by Clicking Here.

Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Hollywood Hills on Facebook, Twitter, & Email