787 Jellyfish Eyes

Message

ianungstad · #1 Post by **ianungstad** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:06 pm

Takashi Murakami, one of the most popular artists in the world, made his directorial debut with Jellyfish Eyes, taking his boundless imagination to the screen in a tale that is about friendship and loyalty at the same time as it addresses humanity's penchant for destruction. After moving to a country town with his mother following his father's death, a young boy befriends a charming, flying, jellyfish-like sprite—only to discover that his schoolmates have similar friends, and that neither they nor the town itself are what they seem to be. Pointedly set in a post-Fukushima world, Murakami's modest-budgeted special effects extravaganza boasts unforgettable creature designs and carries a message of cooperation and hope for all ages.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED EDITION:

• New, high-definition digital master, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New interview with director Takashi Murakami
• Two new behind-the-scenes documentaries on the making of the film
• Trailer for Jellyfish Eyes 2
• New English subtitle translation
• PLUS: An essay by critic Glen Helfand

keef · #2 Post by **keef** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:37 pm

ianungstad wrote:That trailer for Jellyfish Eyes is pretty weird. Doesn't seem like the kind of film Criterion usually goes after at all. Maybe it's just the bombastic nature of that trailer but it comes across as "House if it was made for 6 year olds." Am I missing something?

Criterion posted a picture of Takashi Murakami visiting the offices today on Facebook. Compare the eye on the end of the fishing line to the artwork for this poster of his film Jellyfish Eyes:

StevenJ0001 · #3 Post by **StevenJ0001** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:38 am

ianungstad wrote:That trailer for Jellyfish Eyes is pretty weird. Doesn't seem like the kind of film Criterion usually goes after at all. Maybe it's just the bombastic nature of that trailer but it comes across as "House if it was made for 6 year olds." Am I missing something?

Your description isn't actually that far off the mark, to be honest, but i think the film is pretty wonderful. It helps if you are a fan of anime, Godzilla movies, and Japaese pop culture in general. It does have some added resonance via its echoes of the Fukushima disaster. Then there's the Murakami element itself, which may have attracted Criterion.

R0lf · #4 Post by **R0lf** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:24 am

ianungstad wrote:That trailer for Jellyfish Eyes is pretty weird. Doesn't seem like the kind of film Criterion usually goes after at all. Maybe it's just the bombastic nature of that trailer but it comes across as "House if it was made for 6 year olds." Am I missing something?

Murakami is a huge figurehead in modern art; this release would be the same as releasing the Warhol films or anything by Matthew Barney.

jindianajonz · #5 Post by **jindianajonz** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:17 pm

His IMDB page doesn't leave many options for other projects, and the eyeballs on that poster are certainly similar, though not identical to the New Years drawing. However, a quick glimpse through the synopsis and reviews make me question whether Criterion would really release this. Unless there's some hidden merit that most reviewers have missed, it sounds like a run of the mill pokemon rip off. Then again, why else would Murakami be at the office? Could he be working on cover art for another title?

DeprongMori · #6 Post by **DeprongMori** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:29 pm

keef, excellent catch. Given those two pieces of information, that would certainly seem to indicate your conclusion. The director as a noted artist making his directorial debut (like David Lynch or Matthew Barney or Julian Schnabel) might be an excellent hook for Criterion, but from the reviews it seems the execution falls flat. Baffling. Maybe they are looking at it as another "House"?

http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/fi ... 201269020/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

keef · #7 Post by **keef** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:49 pm

DeprongMori wrote:keef, excellent catch. Given those two pieces of information, that would certainly seem to indicate your conclusion. The director as a noted artist making his directorial debut (like David Lynch or Matthew Barney or Julian Schnabel) might be an excellent hook for Criterion, but from the reviews it seems the execution falls flat. Baffling. Maybe they are looking at it as another "House"?

Thanks. Credit to octagon at the blu-ray.com forums for finding that image when I suggested the possibility of the film being released. Meanwhile, at "...Random Speculation vol. 6" over here user StevenJ0001 had posted this link: http://otakon.tumblr.com/post/931310706 ... s-if-youve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which contains the quote "Big thanks to Criterion for allowing us to screen the film, which is not scheduled for American release until mid-2015." I'm pretty well convinced Criterion is putting it out. House comes to mind for me as well.

#8 Post by **zedz** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:01 pm

R0lf wrote:
ianungstad wrote:That trailer for Jellyfish Eyes is pretty weird. Doesn't seem like the kind of film Criterion usually goes after at all. Maybe it's just the bombastic nature of that trailer but it comes across as "House if it was made for 6 year olds." Am I missing something?
Murakami is a huge figurehead in modern art; this release would be the same as releasing the Warhol films or anything by Matthew Barney.

I'm not going to start arguing the relative merits of their fine art, but there isn't a valid comparison between the first film by an established artist and, in the case of Warhol, an artist who was a filmmaker practically from the outset and who revolutionized cinema. Schnabel would be a much more appropriate, much less hyperbolic and rather more dubious precedent.

ptatler · #9 Post by **ptatler** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:04 pm

keef wrote:Compare the eye on the end of the fishing line to the artwork for this poster of his film Jellyfish Eyes

Damn. I guess I'm eating my shoe. (Was really hoping for ONE-EYED JACKS, too.)

#10 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:04 pm

To be fair, after viewing the trailer for Jellyfish Eyes, for the first time I now believe there may be worse films than those made by Matthew Barney

ianungstad · #11 Post by **ianungstad** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:18 pm

I don't see why it couldn't be a clue for One Eyed-Jacks and Jellyfish Eyes.

The eye is not exclusive to Jellyfish Eyes but seems to be his trademark. Using Google Images; you can see that he's used that eye in multiple artworks and even stamped it on a gaudy looking Luis Vuitton bag.

Cinephrenic · #12 Post by **Cinephrenic** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:15 pm

I don't know....I certainly didn't like the what I saw in the trailer. Looked really weird and childish. Has anyone seen it?

ianungstad · #13 Post by **ianungstad** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:48 pm

What baffles me: Is this even a standalone movie? Apparently it's envisioned as a trilogy and he's already completed production on Jellyfish Eyes 2.

Here's a music video he did for Kanye West. (Possible Extra?) Certainly it's creative but I can't say it appeals to me at all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHs4x2uqcQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

R0lf · #14 Post by **R0lf** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:08 am

ianungstad wrote:I don't see why it couldn't be a clue for One Eyed-Jacks and Jellyfish Eyes.

The eye is not exclusive to Jellyfish Eyes but seems to be his trademark. Using Google Images; you can see that he's used that eye in multiple artworks and even stamped it on a gaudy looking Luis Vuitton bag.

He is fishing in the clue as well = JellyFISH Eyes.

zedz wrote:I'm not going to start arguing the relative merits of their fine art, but there isn't a valid comparison between the first film by an established artist and, in the case of Warhol, an artist who was a filmmaker practically from the outset and who revolutionized cinema. Schnabel would be a much more appropriate, much less hyperbolic and rather more dubious precedent.

In context to the reply of someone who (I presume?) had not heard of Murakami my instinct was to use an example that may be better known...

ptatler · #15 Post by **ptatler** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:13 am

ianungstad wrote:I don't see why it couldn't be a clue for One Eyed-Jacks and Jellyfish Eyes.

There is no Easter Bunny, no Santa Claus, no Atlantis, and NO Double Wacky Clue.

Self · #16 Post by **Self** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:27 am

ptatler wrote:
ianungstad wrote:I don't see why it couldn't be a clue for One Eyed-Jacks and Jellyfish Eyes.
There is no Easter Bunny, no Santa Claus, no Atlantis, and NO Double Wacky Clue.

Except with the moon for Moonrise Kingdom and Two Days, One Night/Before Trilogy

Raymond Marble · #17 Post by **Raymond Marble** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:04 am

Jellyfish Eyes was just announced as part of the lineup for late February / early March's New York Children's Film Festival. Not that that is either confirmation nor negative proof for an upcoming Criterion release, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Ashirg · #18 Post by **Ashirg** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:02 am

Does it say who is releasing it stateside? GKids?

Raymond Marble · #19 Post by **Raymond Marble** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:23 pm

The press release I saw didn't specify, but isn't the NYCFF a GKids-sponsored event? Though even if it is, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're handling the U.S. release of Jellyfish Eyes; like half of the NYCFF lineup is Aardman Animation stuff, which GKids certainly doesn't have.

McNulty · #20 Post by **McNulty** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:18 pm

Takashi Murakami's Jellyfish Eyes has been acquired by Janus.

joshua · #21 Post by **joshua** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:26 pm

Vudu has a pre-order up for Jellyfish Eyes with what looks to be the Criterion cover pictured.

#22 Post by **cdnchris** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:49 pm

I'm sure many will be horrified that this has now been confirmed, but I do like that cover.

#23 Post by **swo17** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:57 pm

All those years of people complaining about there being no animated films in the collection have finally paid off!

tenia · #24 Post by **tenia** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:35 pm

swo17 wrote:All those years of people complaining about there being no animated films in the collection have finally paid off!

To be fair, there has been Fantastic Mr Fox and Watership Down. Sure, more animated movies can be nice, but I'm quite sure nobody had this in mind.

Michael Kerpan · #25 Post by **Michael Kerpan** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:13 pm

Reading up on this (not having heard of it previously) -- wow, this sounds pretty awful.

I still think they should have cut a deal to get the rights to Takahata's (still languishing with Disney) Only Yesterday.

Site Menu