Too much of everything

Absolutely the worst movie.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

::SPOILER FREE section:: The problem with gravity is that it is everywhere, so it's hard to fake it in movies. Okey, let's say I would accept the "laws of gravity" stated at the beginning of this movie as some thing that I will believe in this movie (although it is utterly bullshit). But even then, the movie fails to deliver scenes that work according to these laws. Their own laws! Why do you make up some laws of physics and then ignore them 50% of the time??::SPOILER in this section:: The story is totally flat and fails everything. Why did he not tell her who he was? He did not know she had amnesia, so telling her who he was would have been most natural. Then he would learn she has amnesia, and he would explain it to her, or tell her something to help remember... Noooo, that would "ruin" the plot, right? Wrong! It would make the plot more realistic, if you want some twist, make something different than "random stupid decisions and not telling who I am" stuff. Also, how did they manage to get pregnant? Why does she love him? They have nothing to build their relationship upon...::SPOILER FREE section:: The imagery was quite interesting, although not always logical, and some scenes were obviously CG'd - I mean, it was too obvious, that there is some CG in some scenes - like the jump to the cable car...The only decent character in this movie was Timothy Spall's Bob

Upside Down is an attempt at a novel twist of a story of two planets and opposite gravity intertwined with a "forbidden love" love-story arising out of typical prejudices imposed by one of the two "sides" on the other. I.e. Other than the setting, the rest is a pretty generic "Romeo & Juliet" bit.I had heard of this movie before and was interested in seeing it but never put much effort into doing so. But when I saw the 3D Blu for $8 in a grocery store bargain bin, how could I refuse? So how does it do?First off let's get to the "science complaints". The movie does not hold any scientific water. However it's not just that "some people are too picky" or that the science is merely "incorrect", it's instead absolute nonsense. It's one thing to have some minor flaw in an explanation or something that could only be plausible in the most strict/rare cases, but to have something that even a 3rd grader could (and should) see is downright preposterous is another story. Unfortunately, that's what this is.Still despite this annoyance being clear in the first sequence of the film, I watched the rest without thinking about it (suspension of disbelief and all that).Let's think of it as a *fantasy* romance movie instead of a sci-fi one, shall we? Even if we forget about the "science" they have going on completely, it's unfortunately still not a very good movie. The visuals are nice at times but really, the movie just isn't good. The story is a bit flat, the narration by the lead seems to have an odd over-enthusiastic tone, and it's just nothing that special. It's a bit hard to rant or rave about anything. With bad movies you can go on about just how bad it is; with good movies you can give a lot of praise; with this one you're just left with not much to say.The 3D (again I purchased the 3D Blu-ray version of it) is pretty good but for all the reviews I'd read about it, I was kind of expecting *spectacular* 3D and didn't really get it. It's has some very good 3D at times, but it's not the best 3D Blu out there either.As for the content, I ended up thinking of it as a "poor man's Gattaca," with a more silly premise, a very bland/shallow story, and worse acting. Sturgess certainly ain't no Hawke, and the rest of the cast doesn't hold up too well in comparison either. Granted Dunst is not a bad actress but she didn't do anything special here. I hate to say it but, overall, In Time was a better and more enjoyable film than this (and I can't even stand Timberlake) as it had a much better premise. In Time, I can watch that again and again and still like it for the story; this film, I watched it once and don't really have much desire to pop it in ever again.I gave this a 5/10. I thought I was being generous due to the visuals, the work put into the opposite gravity concept (and showing it on-screen), and the 3D. Otherwise I might have given it less. It's not a terrible movie and the 3D disc is probably worth the $8.00 I paid, but certainly no more than that. It's worth a watch, but don't be disappointed when you find out it's really just a mediocre film.

Almost a mundane 5-star movie... but the exposition of the first ten minutes was so bad and so unnecessary. Not one word of it was needed, and the movie would have succeeded by showing instead. The introduction left a bad taste that lingered the whole way.But damn, some of the CG and was just so striking. The dual office, the plunge from one world to the other, and most of all, the celestial cloud scene. Even when they didn't make sense, they were amazing visually, and I'd happily put some on my wall. It's better visual art than a movie.Aside from that, the plot fell down the cliché tree and hit every branch on the way down. It constantly struggled to figure out if it wanted to be a star-crossed romance or a sci-fi thriller in the vein of Dark City, leading to whiplash from the mood shifts, and neither the writers nor the acting could carry either. Even the leads have the depth (and chemistry) of a kiddie pool, let alone the rest of the cast. Practically everything interesting is just handwaved away to move the plot, even the sappy ending. You constantly drift away and asking yourself why you're still watching.It's too bad, because so much more could be done with the premise, even with some romance, as shown by the much better Patema Inverted. I think there's still plenty of room for a real thriller here too, it's just not this movie. At all.

You can't leave a decent review without discussing some details. People expect a lot from movies these days and one wrong thing will make the film awful.Thing is, there was more than one thing.We were told there are twin worlds. They share a sun, but each one has the opposite gravity. Didn't they sit around the table while working the details out thinking "Well, won't viewers get really annoyed after seeing people and furniture upside down constantly?"The answer is an emphatic YES. Still trying to get rid of the headache.Secondly, these are twin worlds.....not Earth.Yeah, NOT Earth, yet they all managed to speak English (Earths universal language) and managed to play music with a singer singing in Italian I believe. That would mean these completely different planets have Italy?Then, they also had people, on two completely different planets then Earth, invent the suit and tie, bicycles, alcoholic drinks with the same martini glasses we use, make-up for women, electricity and on and on and on.All that has been invented yet the freaking BEES were different. Lol Buzz!Horrible movie.