Point of interest: Just as Russians are referred to as cosmonauts, the proper designation for the Chinese is taikonaut. This isn’t meant as a correction to the review, but I thought some might find it interesting.

I haven't seen the movie, but the trailer's line about "Jupiter's gravity spike" did not make me hopeful. If Roger thinks that was a "scientifically credible dilemma" which was "vetted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences" then my guess is that Roger doesn't remember much of his Junior High School science classes.

Go watch the movie then you'll understand what's going on. Base your comment on a movie trailer doesn't deserve you any credit.

"my guess is that Roger doesn't remember much of his Junior High School science classes"

@Dave: If that's the only thing Roger doesn't remember by now given where he is, I'm gobsmacked!

Dave, is this your first time here? Have you never heard of Roger Ebert? Do you know who he is? Do you know he's dead?

I've seen neither the film or the trailer, but given the source material (a novel by Liu Cixin) and the fact that the author is also one of the screenwriters, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Liu Cixin won the best novel Hugo a few years ago for the decidedly hard SF "The Three Body Problem". The plot details I've read are lurid and pulpy, but is "Earth as a spaceship" any more ridiculous than a Ringworld or a Dyson Sphere?

Sometimes Roger forgets.

It's not like what your Junior High School science class taught you is "the truth". Science never claims to be the truth. Science is knowledge based on observation, which is limited by our ability to observe and can one day prove to be false or inaccurate and needs amendment. That's the case for Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, and countless of other real scientists.
In the case of this film, we don't know Jupiter's internals 100%. Or we think we know, but it can turn out that we are wrong. It could easily be that our Jupiter model differs a lot from the real planet and an astronomical object of Earth's matter passing by causing Jupiter to show a gravitational spike doesn't call for much imagination to rationalize.
Sci-Fi is anything that's scientifically possible. So your assumption and opinion doesn't really make the movie not scientifically credible, but are more like a lack of appreciation for science fiction as what it is.

Thank you for this, please explain to us what a "gravity spike" is. Go ahead, Google it if you have to. What does it mean that Jupiter's "gravity spike" all of a sudden reaches out and grabs a passing Earth...without Jupiter pulling in it's own moons first? There is no such thing as a planetary "gravity spike." I was at first going to assign this as a misunderstanding due to bad translation, but I can't think of how "gravity spike" could be translated into understandable English.
"Gravity spike" isn't something that exists, it isn't scientifically understandable, and it doesn't have a place in a film that sets itself up to have a rational, scientific response to a "what if" question. It's just goobiltygook, psuedo-scientific goop regurgitated to fill huge plot holes in a film that isn't worth watching.

It's a movie for gods sake, not a science lecture room..use your imagination And enjoy the impossible

The book does not have the "gravity spike". It's only in the movie.
In the book the earth's orbit has become so elliptical, that it's crosses path's with Jupiter's orbit.
The earth engines are just that to help steer the planet. Not break free from it's original orbit.
Also in the book, the safely exit the solar system by way of gravity sling shot around Jupiter

lol, let them think this movie is 3,5* , maybe Solaris was 0,5 for them... :)

Another review mentions, "Humans live in underground cities, having survived by lottery." Did everyone just go along with the lottery results like sheep, or did it result in mass violence?

That would be the movie I'd like to watch!

This movie took place 17 years after the earth left its original orbit, there are a lot more happened before and after in the novel, for sure there will be prequel about that, and certainly many sequels will follow.

"Years after its leaders turned it into a planet-sized spaceship."
So I'm guessing this takes place in an era when our leaders aren't obsessed with border walls and tweeting?

Proving yet again how the President lives in your head rent free. It literally does not matter what a film is about. Underwater super heroes, space ships - you will find a way to make it about Trump.

I guess you didn't take my advice on taking that much-needed vacation from politics. What ever will you do in a year or 4 when he's no longer there for you to endlessly obsess over?

Sooo... you obsess over those obsessed with Trump? Which makes you obsessed with Trump by proxy?

No. It makes me tired of watching the same guy trying desperately to turn every movie discussion on this board into an argument over Trump.

This movie was not about Trump. If you and him want to fuss about the President all day there are better places to do it.

Well, two things are true, Jeremy:
1. This movie is about earth, which some would argue is under attack
by virtue of the President boh denying climate change and pulling
out of the Paris Agreement, which is meant to counter-act the
damaging effects of climate change.

2. Trump's attacks on the entertainment industry makes this forum as
appropriate as any for these discussions, especially one about a
movie in which earth is in peril (for whatever reason.)

So, arguing that this movie review forum is inappropriate for attacks on Trump is disingenuous, considering his own attacks on actors and actresses in the entertainment industry. That's just my gut feeling. Make sense?

In Jeremy's world, every discussion should be about Alita: Battle Angel. Hypocrisy?

Why do you hate free speech, Jeremy?

I know what I will do -- I will hope for and revel in the US eventually returning to world leadership from these dark days of corruption and lies. Movies like this, even if they are silly, are optimistic and show us what is possible when we don't turn our backs on reality and doing what is right. And, I could use a little bit of hope right now as measles returns and our US taxpayer dollars are being spent on establishing a commission designed to combat climate science.

Probably wonder how America will regain its world-standing and laws protecting its air, water, and safety-net for the working-class and poor after letting a business fraud, corporate whore, mobster, Russian asset and xenophobe tarnish it with his infantile prattling and running it into the ground. Thanks for asking :)

Ugh--- go argue about politics on Reddit or Facebook.

Yes, let's stay sealed off in a bubble; movies and politics never intertwine LMAO

Well one thing is for sure, when you are in the comment section they do. You will find a way to make any film about Donald Trump. It could literally be a movie about anything. The TDS is strong with you.

You should really take other's advice on here and go find another forum to obsess over the President. You would likely find a more receptive audience there. Because watching you desperately try to link every movie on here to the President so you can go on your usual name-calling rants about him has gotten pretty old.

Wow, sorry bringing him up has you practically in tears, Jeremy. Did Fox News send you over as his personal PR guy or something?

The sad thing is - you probably actually do believe your lame diatribes about the President has me in tears.

TDS

It's a real disease. It's time they added it to the medical books.

See my response to your Baldwin post. Always passive enablers of wannabe-authoritarians through history in every country, you're part of a proud tradition :)

You mean the post where you accused me of trying to "smear" Baldwin to protect Trump's "crimes" because I suggested the actor has anger issues which he tapped into to effectively portray villains back in the 1990's? lol...

I don't know which is more insane. Your obsession for the President or the endless psychobabble you use to describe anyone who doesn't share in your obsession.

So let me get this straight: I believe Alec Baldwin uses his natural reserve of anger to play effective villains. That somehow makes me an enabler of authoritarianism? I don't think I could come up with something more stupid if I tried.

Believe me, your completely passive, asleep-at-the-wheel attitude as a citizen to the worst threat to our democracy ever is stupid enough. Enjoy your bread and circuses :)

Don't mind him, Jeremy. I feel the guy is just professionally unpleasant, and the Orange Raccoon you have for president is just a convenient reason for him to shovel bile into our throats 7/7 while being "on the right side"! That's no big deal...

You may be right.

It will be interesting to see who becomes the new object of his obsession in 1 to 4 years. I don't mind a political rant now and then. But when it's over and over and over again and in any context imaginable no matter how absurd it does get tiring.

The irony here is that China emits roughly 30% of GHGs, while the U.S. emits 13% GHGs or about half that, according to the IPCC (though the U.S. still emits more per capita but that gap is steadily shrinking). The premise of the film is that China saves the Earth, but there's no discussion of how China's coal plants contributed to it. Does it make sense to blame Trump and only Trump for pulling out of a largely symbolic agreement that climate scientists said at the time was insufficient to mitigate climate change enough to avoid the proverbial 2 degree C tipping point, in order to save American jobs? That does not mean I agree with his decision (as an environmentalist, I didn't), but I didn't demonize him for it. I tried to understand the context, which is this: American jobs were lost to China because of free trade initiated by Bill Clinton in 1995 and every president until Trump, who stood up to China and promoted American exceptionalism. The nationalist attitude was: if China is not cutting back why should we?

As for Hollywood, it's known for kowtowing to the CCP and acting in complicity with it (e.g., Disney's Mulan). Mainstream media complicity with the CCP is also a large part of why so many Americans were fed a steady diet of propaganda against Trump for four years. The CCP is engaged in a ultra-nationalist imperial expansion at this time; The Wandering Earth is a good example of that ultra-nationalist spirit. It also illustrated the idea of technological solutions over behavioral solutions, which Trump and many Democrats have advocated. Climate scientists say we need both. Lastly, there is now a burgeoning environmental movement in China, in response to mass industrialization there, as illustrated by the excellent film Animal Rescue Squad (2019).

Thats like saying California makes more carbon than Rhode Island, which is true but misleading considering the population of California is like 39x that of Rhode Island
you need to calculate by "per capita"
Even then the emission is really just been offset to China, cause it's being made by American factories that moved there for the cheaper costs of production.
https://www.worldometers.in...

Normally, I trust the reviews at rogerebert.com. This 3.5 star review got me to throw down for two tickets to this steaming pile. The film was really just a sillier, louder, more relentless and more nonsensical version of a Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich 90's era disaster film. Whatever new ideas or cultural/political perspective it brings to the genre is overshadowed by the same old shallow characters, crusty tropes, hack editing and insanely goofy plot. The only place this film shines is in the production design; the space suits, trucks, space station sets and computer hardware are top shelf or close to it. More like two stars-- AT BEST.

No way, the animal crackers scene in Armageddon is far worse than anything in The Wandering Earth, and I’d throw The Day After Tomorrow’s action scene in which the characters run away from the freezing cold (with the cold’s POV) in there as well.
I do think this review and other ones, positive or negative, give one a pretty good idea that this movie is following in the path of other big, loud Hollywood blockbuster spectacles (despite the source material author’s celebrated status as a sci-fi author). If you shift focus to Chinese filmmaking outside the blockbuster mold or even just genre fare on a smaller scale, I think there’s certainly some bold, justifiably acclaimed work out there, although there’s always going to be that uphill battle against the restrictions in place (especially for independent filmmakers).

I come to RogerEbert.com for the stars and stay for the comments

I look forward to reading your review!

Not to sound too cheeky, but what you read is about all I care to write about this film. I was expecting something very unique and unexpected, and what I saw was a loud, dumb, shallow, absurd blockbuster slightly refracted through the Chinese social/political lens. I don't get what you saw in it, but hey-- that's what makes us individuals. Just wish it hadn't cost me $32 to learn the old "caveat emptor" lesson yet again.

Good review. But one factual mistake in paragraph 3: Duoduo Han is not Qi Liu's girlfriend, but little sister. Duoduo is adopted by Qi's maternal grandfather Zi'ang Han.

Duoduo Han is a plot device, created to...ummm....give us someone for the main character...that young guy...to talk to. She has no character, no purpose in existing. Interestingly, her adoptive father, that guy on the space station, does know who she is. When she calls him at the end to report...something... he knows who she is. But apparently he hasn't talked to his son in years, even though he is on a space station who's JOB it is to communicate with Earth. It's all just meaningless, and my fifth graders could have written a better screenplay.

Maybe just a poor choice of words, he could have meant partner in the sense of, "person he is working with" on his mission.

We fixed the error and changed it to "partner" soon after I saw Helen's note. The review was written about a week after I saw the film and I couldn't readily find an English language review that made the characters' relationship clear. There also weren't any press notes, so that slowed things down a little. Still: thanks to Helen for pointing out the error.

Kind of like that old joke about the original Hawaii 5-0: "Tonight Hang-Fong played by Lin-Fang."

HAHAHAHAHAHA it's probably the worst movie i have seens this past decade ! ! ! What make it very fun to watch ! I trully recomand it with friends and under alcohool !

But good lord, last time i come to this website for a mobie review

Let's talk about something. Who said that movies with live-action elements HAVE to be scientifically credible?

Here are random examples of certifiably fresh movies rated 97% - 100% on Rotten Tomatoes: Who Framed Roger Rabbit; Aliens; The Terminator; Mary Poppins. These are fictional movies with live-action premises, but no one seems to have any bones to pick about whether or not they are "scientifically credible." The Wandering Earth never advertised or disguised itself as a non-fiction film. Anything futuristic is automatically in the ranks of the fiction category because it is an imagining of what has not yet come to be. The Wandering Earth has moments of scientific impossibility...but it seems like some viewers are holding the film to a standard of 100% plausbility just because it deals with the cosmos and has flesh and blood actors.

If only there was a movie that can cure a Summer depression.

There ain't no cure for the summertime blues!