Upside Down 2012

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: Absent any emotional grounding, the film is a gorgeous, sterile construction, like a dream city unoccupied by humans. Read more

Stephen Holden, New York Times: The novelty of the idea, which suggests a less elegant offshoot of M. C. Escher drawings, quickly wears thin. The production design is too busy, and the film's desaturated palette is forbiddingly austere. Read more

Rex Reed, New York Observer: True originality is so rare that it's a treat to welcome a movie as completely different and provocative as Upside Down. It's unlike anything you have ever seen. Read more

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: At a time when so many movies look alike, and studio productions sometimes look aggressively ugly, here's a quirky vision at the intersection of sci-fi and romance. Read more

Tasha Robinson, AV Club: Moment for moment, Upside Down is the most embarrassing, hilarious, obliviously stupid movie since M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, and its constant pursuit of a striking image over any other consideration undermines it at every turn. Read more

Mark Feeney, Boston Globe: "Upside Down" gives you four movies for the price of one. Read more

J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader: Timothy Spall enlivens this as a crafty engineer in the corporation where Dunst and Sturgess work, but they're all just props in a dream whose logic hasn't been quite worked out. Read more

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: Is the film something to look at? Yes. "Upside Down" is something to look at. But that's not enough for a full-length, full-bodied, romance. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Upside Down is a very fancy piece of junk. Read more

Frank Scheck, Hollywood Reporter: Despite its undeniably clever conceit and visuals, this love story set in twin worlds remains earthbound. Read more

Gary Goldstein, Los Angeles Times: Just enjoy its dazzling visuals, dream-like inventiveness and lush romanticism. Read more

Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger: It doesn't really develop its story, or its themes. It doesn't truly draw out its characters. It evokes no serious emotions. It has - in the end - no gravity. Read more

Elizabeth Weitzman, New York Daily News: Though "Upside Down" starts with a strong idea, its compelling conceit is immediately weighed down by leaden execution. Read more

Kyle Smith, New York Post: "Upside Down" is such a gorgeous wreck that I could almost sense Terry Gilliam somewhere muttering, "Wait a minute, I should have been the one to screw up this idea." Read more

Peter Sobczynski, Chicago Sun-Times: Simply put, this is one of the craziest films to come along in a while and I can confidently say that anyone who sees it will either hail it is some kind of crackpot masterpiece or dismiss it as one of the silliest damn things they've ever seen. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: The only problem is that, after creating the most wonderful fantastic frame, "Upside Down" doesn't devise a picture worthy of it. Read more

James Adams, Globe and Mail: Soon enough the worlds of Up Top and Down Below feel like distractions, CGI Potemkin villages. Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: A Romeo and Juliet story for the age of CGI overkill, Upside Down zigs where it should zag and dulls where it should dazzle. Read more

Keith Uhlich, Time Out: To his credit, Solanas unabashedly believes in this heartstring-plucking hooey, and he certainly has a knack for striking images. Read more

Stephanie Zacharek, Village Voice: Dunst is radiant, as always, though it's radiance with depth: She's not just your average dream girl; she's gravity's rainbow. But there just isn't enough of her. Read more

Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: "Upside Down" paints a pretty picture, as long as you don't think about it too much. Read more