“Self/less”

Imagine living for forever. Imagine being invincible and doing whatever you wanted whenever you wanted. You wouldn’t have to rely on anyone or anything. Yeah, I can’t either and, apparently, neither can anyone in the film industry. One after another, the movies fail to really capture what it might be like in the future once they’ve perfected…well, everything. As “Selfless” proves, it’s humanly impossible to successfully play God and His angels too; there’s a lot more cons to the dream than we realize.

The film, starring ever-rising star Ryan Reynolds and the well-rounded Ben Kingsley flops in the eyes of critics, including Rotten Tomatoes and RogerEbert.com, but I gave it a solid “A for effort.” I could see them struggling to make it work, given that the rich vs. the poor, science vs. spirituality, order vs. chaos sub-plots have all been done before. Both aforementioned movie critics both agree that “Selfless” fails to deliver in the midst of plenty of build-up. Managing Editor of RogerEbert.com, Brian Tallerico unfairly describes Reynolds’ acting as “bland” and “not his strong suit.” I actually prefer this more subdued version of Reynolds than the sarcastic whiny characters we’re so used to seeing him play. Reynolds plays Edward, a once military-man who had a family of his own until he dies and we learn that a dying and aging Damian, played by Ben Kingsley takes over Edward’s body in a short-winded effort to have another chance at life.

Visually, the film is decent and keeps you interested if you’re not one to try to guess an ending. If you’re one to spoil a movie for yourself by sitting there, thinking to yourself “I bet this happens” and “I bet she/he will die in the end,” then you probably should sit this one out — you’re going to ruin it for yourself. The ending does, however, fall short of expectations and isn’t worth re-visiting. Unfortunately, we’re all left with questions and no answers as we hope for the next futuristic movie to be more thrilling.

The theme of the whole film – we can have everything we’ve ever wanted and it’s still not enough/when we give up everything for someone else, it’s more inherently rewarding than having everything – is what makes the movie entertaining and earns a spot on your movie shelf…or, at least, a spot in your Netflix queue.

“Jurassic World”

Steven Spielberg stole our hearts 22 years ago in the original Jurassic Park series, and thus creating the franchise that it still is today within just about any demographic you can think of. Fourteen years later since Jurassic Park III was released [and is still not taken seriously even now], Spielberg produces the new and renovated (possibly start to another sequel) Jurassic World. The film is good – not as great as the original – and not expectantly bad either.

The pros: the proud, but non-disruptive nods to the original series makes you reminisce right there in your seat, yet still be engulfed; many scenes “borrowed” moments from the first movie. I believe that this helped the plot along for the newbies and for the die-hard fans already familiar with the story. For example, the bond between siblings displayed in the first movie and then reiterated again in this movie – something about dinosaurs attacking brings families closer together. There were other moments of throwback when the brothers stumble upon the old “set”/the original compound headquarters, uncovering “the Old World,” so to speak. Director, Colin Trevorrow pays homage to Spielberg by introducing the brothers to how things once were – the “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth” banner, the rubble of bones from the dinosaurs that fought there, and a couple of 1993 Jeeps sitting in a section of the facility. (Ironically, the boys “remember” when they helped their grandfather fix up his car and are able to get the old Jeep running so that they can escape through the woods. What are the odds?) More shout-outs to the original are listed here.

Another pro: the acting – Chris Pratt plays Owen Grady, a handsome and mysterious former military soldier and now velociraptor trainer. Though the only expressions Pratt makes are grimaces and scowls, his character was funny and brave and was just the right amount of awesome; Bryce Dallas Howard plays park administrator, Claire Daring who is constantly getting reprimanded for being “too in control” all of the time, which kicks her in the butt once people start dying at the theme park. Claire manages to play the clichéd part of Owen’s beautiful side-kick, running through two hours of chaos in high-heels, but proves herself useful when she shoots a pterodactyl that is attacking Owen and finally, when she is given the heroic task to unleash the king of the dinosaurs, the Tyrannosaurus Rex to defeat this “killing machine,” the Indominous Rex that had escaped and brought destruction to the whole park. And, this brings us to our final pro: the finale.

This hybrid of a dinosaur, the Indominous Rex, is introduced in the very beginning of course, but unfortunately, the most you learn about her is that her DNA has been spliced from some amphibious animals and the rest is “classified.” But, really? We wait this long to unveil this supposedly epic creation and all we get are more teasers? Sure, she can do some cool tricks that you gradually find out about as the movie goes on, but other than a few characteristics you go home still not knowing much more about her. (This is my first and biggest disappointing con.) Supposedly, she’s smarter and bigger and faster than the T-Rex and everything else. The dinos now have a queen. You get good glimpses of her and you’re forced to hate her, but she symbolizes man’s chaotic and poorly thought-out creation as we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. She’s finally taken down by the T-Rex at the very end, a Godzilla-esque style of a scene where T-Rex is the underdog, hidden away from everyone and unleashed only to save the day – just like in the first Jurassic Park. How many times do we have to see the T-Rex treated as an outcast until things get so messed up that we are forced to let him come out and play? Poor T-Rex. The graphics are great and the build-up is amazing; kudos to Trevorrow on this. If it wasn’t for the final battle-scene between the T-Rex and the Indominous Rex I would’ve left dissatisfied.

Jurassic World received good reviews from both RogerEbert.com and Rotten Tomatoes, but still did not reach “Certified Fresh” status.

Con: I wished there weren’t nearly as many sub-plots that were involved; the story within a story seemed mushed together and dragged out longer than necessary. One of which was my least favorite – the-military-slash-government-trying-way-too-hard-to-take-control-and-use-the-dinosaurs-as-weapons sub-plot. Been there, done that and so over it. I get it, I do, but it wasn’t necessary for us to see so much of Vincent D’Onofrio’s character, Hoskins whom is actually inherently bad? Good and trying to look out for everyone else? I couldn’t really tell – I was too busy trying to figure out why he had a Southern accent only part of the time. Even the story behind the disintegration of the brothers’ family was a little much. However, the relationship between Claire and Owen is not shoved down your throat and you’re given only a little bit of information into their backstory – a commonality with the original series. Evidently, relationships matter only after everything is destroyed and you have to start all over again. Who cares about the past?

There’s a theme hidden in every other scene too. Matt Zoller Seitz, Editor-in-Chief of RogerEbert.com said it best in his review:

“Park staffers talk about how they introduce new dinosaurs every few years to goose ticket sales. Jaded park visitors are compared to Americans who lost interest in moon missions after the first one, and require ‘bigger, louder’ dinosaurs with ‘more teeth’ if they are to feel anything they visit. Of course, the film is really talking about movie audiences in the age of computer-generated imagery, technology that the first two ‘Jurassic Park’ films made fashionable. It’s also talking about the steady escalation of scale in the blockbuster…and made superhero films so inflated that on those rare occasions when the good guys save the human race instead of the universe, critics congratulate the filmmakers for daring to be intimate.”

Perhaps this is a start to a new franchise? Judging by how the premier went, I think that the park should and probably will stay open.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

We come together – seven years later – into a packed-in theatre, stained with years of buttered popcorn and memories to uphold our tradition of seeing another superhero movie, but this one is a little different. The Avengers franchise holds a special place in our hearts – with some of us, since childhood from reading the comics and if you’re like me, since it first debuted in theatres and after the rest of the world discovered it’s “cool” to be nerdy – so it’s become a tradition.

According to Ben Child, contributor for The Guardian, the sequel “scored the highest opening of all time at the US box office…with takings of $187.7m.” Even with those numbers, it looks like the film could rake in more money (more than $1bn) and surpass the original Avengers film, which “stands as the third highest-grossing film of all time,” Child states.

The movie begins with a bang and never slows down, and is actually kind of dark and creepy. (I’m always shocked when I see a Disney film that’s more eerie than their last, yet it’s not unusual for Disney these days, especially now that they’ve joined hands with Marvel.) The film isn’t short of any explosions or [slightly, but not distracting] cheesy dialogue, but if you’re expecting to be genuinely surprised, you may have raised the bar a little too high; its demographic is the nerdy – the guys and girls who know the ins and outs of the comics and the unexplained character development – so, if you’re like me, try to muddle through it to be entertained, not awed.

It would be silly to position Marvel or Whedon or their fan army as underdogs. Once a niche genre, superhero films are now practically the official culture of the United States, and this entry will make a fortune no matter what anyone says about it. Still, I hope that even as people buy tickets out of habit, they’ll see that there is, in fact, art happening on the screen, maybe for the first time since Marvel’s march through American cinema started. “Age of Ultron” proves that a movie with stealth fighter jets, levitating cities and Hulk-on-robot fisticuffs can be as freewheeling as a no-budget indie. It’s a shame to think that this film will be dog-piled for its imperfections rather than applauded for trying to prove that a seemingly inflexible genre can bend into strange and surprising shapes.

– Matt Zoller Seitz, Editor-in-Chief of RogerEbert.com

The Avengers sequel is more than just superheroes battling each other and their enemies. To deem it unworthy of cinematic prowess would be unnecessary – the franchise is much more personal than that. Director, Joss Whedon does a marvelous (heh, see what I did there?) job with making the characters not just characters from a story; they have relatable personality struggles and issues. They too deal with internal struggles between chaos and control, what’s right for us may not be right for the rest of the world or the ones we love. Though clearly evil, Ultron likened a fallen angel, sent to warn us of what was to come if we don’t clean up our act or heed his warnings. Or, does Ultron represent man? Think about it: “Ultron can’t tell the difference between saving the world and destroying it,” Scarlet Witch said at one point. Told you. Pretty deep.

I’ll let the nerds, critics, and kids battle that debate out, but I’m looking forward to the next Marvel Universe we’re thrown into, even if I know what’s going to happen next.

“Foxcatcher”

It’s been a stream of wonderful movie rentals for me lately. Up next on your to-do list, the film Foxcatcher. If you thought Jake Gyllenhaal was creepy in “Nightcrawler,” then you’re going to want to run for the hills from Steve Carell as infamous multi-millionaire John du Pont.

For those of us who hadn’t been around in the 80’s or hadn’t heard of John du Pont, Foxcatcher was new to us and just a really good, jaw-dropping drama.

Foxcatcher was rated “Certified Fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes too, hailing the stars of the film for a unique and outstanding performance: Steve Carell, Mark Ruffalo, Channing Tatum, Vanessa Redgrave, and Sienna Miller. “FOXCATCHER is a gripping and profoundly American story of fragile men who pinned their hopes for love and redemption on a desperate obsession for greatness that was to end in tragedy.” – Rotten Tomatoes Movie Info

According to History vs. Hollywood, the movie wasn’t a complete and truthful telling of the story that the movie is based on. Apparently, Mark and Dave Schultz lived on John du Pont’s Foxcatcher Farm at two different times, which makes a considerable difference with how certain events played out. From what it looks like, there weren’t huge differences between the movie and the real story, however, so I don’t think the viewer who knows the true story will be completely disappointed. Just as long as this version leaves you feeling as uncomfortable as the real thing, then mission accomplished.

It’s exciting to see heartthrob Channing Tatum take on more serious roles, such as this, and he should keep going; he dove into a role more complex and more disturbed than ever. Mark Ruffalo has been doing a great job broadening his horizons as well, and I anticipate that it will pay off soon. I was a tad disappointed that Steve Carell did not receive an award for his role, as he really stepped out of his comfort zone and I was still thinking about his character and the movie long after I ejected the DVD and went to bed for the night.

“I am a tumbleweed…the thing that I want to do in movies can’t be done every year, or every two years. Maybe I’m wasting a lot of time, but I’m also learning. I feel like what I’m after is not easy for me to find, and to want it to be easy … it would be absurd for me to have that ambition.” – Director Bennett Midler in his interview with Vulture New York Magazine

“Boyhood”

Who in here related to every aspect of the award-winning “Boyhood?” Sure, there’s probably a select few out there that said, “Watching ‘Boyhood’ was like watching my life on the big screen,” but I think most people could only pick-a-part bits and pieces that they could really personally relate to.

Over a span of 12 years, we see Mason (played by Ellar Coltrane) grow up and adjust to the milestones that many of us remember going through. He and his parents, played brilliantly by Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette, move across Texas, throw birthday parties, adjust to life after divorce, peer pressure, find love, etc. And, the whole time we are seeing everything through Mason’s eyes.

I have a new respect for Ethan Hawke; it takes some real patience and determination to stick around with the same script and same cast for 12 years, I would imagine. I hadn’t ever seen him in anything this “indie” before, but I would like to see more from him like this. To me, his character as the dad was the easiest to relate to and was definitely more interesting, as opposed to Mason’s character who seemed to go through the mysterious/thinking/emo phase for most of his childhood.

For me, rather than reminiscing on the good ol’ times of childhood, Boyhood reminded me more of the the awkwardness and the harshness of growing up more-so than anything, but that’s the great part about movies like these, right? They take you back and force you to relive experiences you thought you forgot so you can think, “Wow. I made it through that and look how far we’ve come.”

I wouldn’t say that Boyhood was the best and I wouldn’t say that it encompasses everything an indie film should be, but if you’re looking for a nice reminder that though life may be rough at times, we all end up where we belong and that life will get better eventually then definitely make a trip to the rental store for this one.