Upside nwoq

[wkhanna]

I had mentioned a while back in some other thread about my interest in seeing this film.

I am a huge fan of sci-fi, & of course The Wife detests it preferring the ubiquitous ‘chick-flic’, which I absolutely abhor.

Well, I was hoping we might have in this film a compromise that would allow us a chance to enjoy our preferred genre at the same time while still being able to appreciate some aspect of the other’s preference. To this end ‘Upside Down’ was modestly successful. For me the sci-fi aspects were well conceived, interesting & most importantly, believable. As for the romantic side, The Wife’s interest was mildly peaked, though this love story whose plot seems more than coincidently base on the classic Shakespearian, ‘R&J’, it never quite got her (or me) totally hooked. The story gets somewhat bogged down in the middle, & the concluding scenes almost feel like a mad scramble to tie up loose ends haphazardly before time runs out. Based on the story & acting alone, I would not feel comfortable recommending this film.

Ahh, but there is more. The cinematic aspect of sci-fi is one which allows for the creative imagination to thrive up on the big screen. I still vividly remember the awe & excitement as though it was yesterday when in 1968 at only 10 years of age seeing the haunting, breathtaking scenes from 2001: A Space Odyssey. The best sci-fi movies are the ones that take advantage of the infinite possibilities for creating & conveying hard emotions via visual depiction. Here, in a universe where half the population lives on the ceiling of the other half, so to speak, the flood gates of imagination & creativity have opened a torrential Tsunami in which Argentinian born director Juan Diego Solanas immerses us. Amazingly enough, The Wife was totally captivated, repeatedly asking if Tim Burtton was affiliated with the film. I found myself continually being surprised, enthralled & delighted while anticipating each new scene. The visual impact of this cinematic work is masterful.

This is not about CGG in the way Avatar or others have applied such technology. This is more of a theatrical presentation that is so visceral & believable as to be able to do what only great entertainment can, it transports you effortlessly into another universe, one full of delight, amazement, fear of the new & strange, & it does it in a way only a V talented artist & film maker could.

See this if only to gain an understanding of how visually powerful a medium film can be when put in hands of an artist with true creative vision.

[George Bellefontaine]

Sounds interesting, Bill.

[Chris D]

Huh... yeah, does sound interesting. I'll check it out. Is your thread title a typo, or is really nwod as a play on words?

[wkhanna]

Huh... is really nwod as a play on words?

Yep, but there is no font that will match the one used on the cover art for the actual movie.

[aud19]

Interesting concept and after watching the trailer, the visuals do indeed look stunning. But I've already got a back log of evidently better films to watch...this one will have to go on the back burner I think.

[Chris D]

Just rented this one. Arrrrrgh... frustrating/disappointing. I give MEGA credit to the filmmaker (who I was actually surprised in the extras to discover is French) having a totally fresh and exciting idea and actually undertaking putting it on film. IMHO, some of the best writers and stories out there are rooted in a completely innovatively constructed sci-fi or fantasy universe. (e.g. Tolkein, Heinlein, Asimov, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, 2001, THX 1138 which led to SW Episode IV, Stephen King's Dark Tower series, etc, etc) I totally love the idea of two inverse worlds, and that each world's inhabitants are not only set apart in ancestry, culture, and class level, but are also totally distinct in what direction gravity pulls them. Very cool idea that gravity pulls matter from each world in opposite directions.

Now, whenever you create a new universe in a story, you either need to by default use rules, physics, and cultures of our own universe, or establish for the audience what the rules are in the story world, so they can understand the construct. The way it's done in this film as direct exposition in the opening credits is rather gratuitous, but in this case, I think necessary. The problem is, the writer then goes on to repeatedly violate his own rules that he establishes. I tried to suspend my technical brain for the sake a fictional story, but not only kept having technical discrepancies pop up in my own mind, but the film kept showing discrepancies as being fundamental to its own story. For starters, in sci-fi, you always run into the issue of "If anti-matter (of any type) exists, and matter and anti-matter have some sort of explosive effect when they contact other (i.e. gradually heat up to fire in this story), then how do you store anti-matter?" Anything you store it in is matter, and the anti-matter touches the matter of the storage material. It should explode/burst into flames. Note that Star Trek usually shows anti-matter contained by a gravitational field.

Now, as I said, I put aside this contradiction for the sake of the film. But then the filmmaker relies on these contraditions. He says and shows, for example, that the lower world people grab a scrap bolt from the high world people, storing it in a metal-topped glass jar, then putting it on the roof of a cast iron stove, where it suddenly heats up to flames, to warm the room. Why didn't it burst in flames while touching the jar? The director relies on this important point, where matter from the two worlds heat to flames when they touch. But then we're supposed to not care when they don't? The main character is burned when he put bars of matter from the other planet on his clothes. But why does he walk around on the other planet, drink the other planet's water (which would presumably burn up his stomach, from the inside out), and even sleep overnight on the underside of the other world's bridge, all without any effect?

If you want me to suspend belief on technical things for the sake of the story, then don't violate your own rules and rely on your own contradictions to tell it!

There's so much more--what is the entire building made of that connects the two worlds? (another cool sci-fi idea, BTW, other than how it's used in the film) If it's all made of matter from the high world, how do people and things from the low world exist inside it, without bursting into flame, and vice versa? Or if it's made of matter from both worlds, how do those matters touch without exploding? Then the two worlds are shown to be round, but are portrayed to be flat and roughly parallel to each other. For example, the cities are parallel to each other, close enough to each other to build the tower between the two, and so close, that in one scene the main character falls from the ocean of one world to the ocean of the other, without killing himself. But then way far away, out in the country, the worlds are still equidistant, and even get closer with mountains rising from each world, so close that they get only a few yards apart! This says nothing beyond other sci-fi issues I had to suspend for the sake of fiction (which again I can do to an extent) like that for the worlds to be connected, they would not be able to rotate on their axes. This would, however, then put them in the sci-fi situation where one side of the world(s) is constantly in light, the other in ice cold darkness, which this movie shows is not the case. Or if it were the kind of thing where both planets rotated together about a central axis located in the the middle of the tower between the two, they would only have daylight for a minute in at the tower as the sun passed through the narrow band between the two where you could see sky. (this is not central to the plot like other elements, though)

The love story is decent, and I found their romance to be compelling and believable, which is more than I can say about several actor pairings in films as of late. I would say this would be in spite of Dunst's acting, as I don't think she's a top-tier actress. The lead actor did a very good job in the film, although I don't know his name.

As Bill said, there are some beautiful scenes, and this incredible universe with two worlds so close to each other is visually depicted on film very well. Even if someone else has come up with this fresh idea before in literature, like I said I give mega props to the filmmaker for putting this on screen. I was torn between this, and the big mis-steps of the movie. In the end, I have to fall on the side of overall disliking it more than I liked it, but even still, it was worth a rental to see the very innovative construct. I give :25: out of :5:

[George Bellefontaine]

Oh, dear...

[Chris D]

I always try to be fair... Lots of commentors on IMDB are saying that they TOTALLY suspended belief and overlooked plot holes, and enjoyed the movie as a love story that happens to be set in a sci-fi world. I'd say the majority of posters, though, thought along my lines, something about the filmmaker violating his own rules he establishes for the universe.

[wkhanna]

As I stated in my first post:

Based on the story & acting alone, I would not feel comfortable recommending this film........

.....See this if only to gain an understanding of how visually powerful a medium film can be when put in hands of an artist with true creative vision.

I am glad that feel you did not waste your time viewing this film.

I agree there were times that required you to look beyond the sometimes illogical physics between the two worlds. But I took the view of the film being as much fantasy as it was science fiction. I was able to just let my imagination go & let the story unfold. During our viewing The Wife several times made the comment that the film reminded her somewhat of 'Edward Scissorhands'.

But plot aside, my reason for mentioning the film at all is the cinematic creativity used put images of such a world on the screen.

[bigburner]

I'm looking forward to watching it Bill.

Nigel.

[Chris D]

Wow... raise your hand if you're hot.