Upside Down

I liked "Upside Down" but it required a lot from me to do so.  I never even heard of this movie until I looked at an upcoming DVD calendar.  When I looked into it, I found I had overlooked a film starring Kirsten Dunst and a dude you'll recognize from a couple of other movies. 

 

"Upside Down" had a budget of $50 million and only saw an extremely limited theatrical release.  I wondered why it was not released all over the U.S.  The trailer is incredible!  I really wanted to see this movie.  And even if it sucked, I'm sure that Hollywood has spent more on a worse movie and still put it out there to recoup some money.  After watching "Upside Down," I am still confused as to why it never saw a proper release.  But not as confused as I was trying to figure out what the hell was happening on my TV while watching it.

 

To put it mildly, "Upside Down" makes no sense at all.  The premise is that there are two planets that are practically touching.  Each planet has its own gravity.  One planet is very poor.  One is very rich.  The rich planet exploits the poor one.  It is against the law for one planet's citizens to go to the other planet.  A young man from "Down" climbs a huge mountain, the peak of which is mirrored by an "Up" peak.  He meets an "Up" girl.  They fall in love.  They cannot be together.  The rest is standard star-crossed lover stuff.  All this exposition is delivered in an excruciatingly slow voice-over by lead actor Jim Sturgess.  Sturgess is a British actor, and I have long suspected that he can't do an American accent very well.  He always ends up sounding like he's poorly imitating someone from New York City.  It's painful.

 

Now, there are rules for this odd planetary setup:

1. All matter is pulled by the gravity of the world that it comes from, and not the other.
2. An object's weight can be offset by matter from the opposite world (inverse matter).
3. After some time in contact, matter in contact with inverse matter burns.

 

These rules sound like they would make for interesting scenarios throughout the movie.  Beyond the legal boundaries to the love story, they literally can't be together.  So, how will the filmmakers get our lovebirds together?  By completely discarding the rules, of course!  This was endlessly frustrating for me.  I have an extremely strong suspension of disbelief.  I will accept whatever premise a movie throws at me.  I will accept the rules of that cinematic world.  But I need the premise and rules to stay constant. 

 

Rule #3 was the worst.  If matter from "Down" burns after a few hours on "Up" (and vice versa), then people themselves burn too.  People are matter.  People's clothes are matter.  Everything is matter.  There comes a point where I thought that the rule should've been metal from the other planet burns.  Because that's seems to be the only thing burning in the movie.  I was willing to just accept that the script should have said "metal" instead of "matter."  But then one planet's metal starts being stable on the other planet and the lead character's shoes catch on fire (not metal shoes!).  It's just bad writing.

 

If you can overlook the awful screenplay that this movie is based on, then you'll find yourself watching one of the coolest looking movies you're liable to see in awhile.  The visuals are astounding.  This was made as a 3D movie, and I'm sad I didn't get to be endlessly frustrated with it in theaters. 

 

Dunst and Sturgess are pretty good.  They don't have much to work with but they make the romance convincing.  "Upside Down" is essentially a fairy tale, sci-fi, Romeo & Juliet story.  Because it is so heavily rooted in the fantastical, it's hard to get angry about its problems.  It turned out to be an ultimately enjoyable ride.

 

Note: If you're one of those people who see any inconsistency in a movie and freak out about "plot holes" (whether they are or not), "Upside Down" may give you a stroke.

 

6 out of 10