Jurassic World review

 

I honestly do not expect all that much from movies. If it's entertaining on the most basic level, then I'm pretty much on board. But "Jurassic World" had a lot going against it, for me, right from the get-go. Watching the film play out, my fears were confirmed: "Jurassic World" is an unnecessary film. Does it have a few fun action sequences? Yes. Some of it is pretty terrifying too. "Jurassic World" hits all the most basic spots that's required in a blockbuster film, but it's basically a re-molding and a re-telling of the events that took place in "Jurassic Park" only not nearly as memorable or as thrilling. And the thing is, you can't pretend "Jurassic Park" doesn't exist while watching the movie because "World" constantly reminds you about the superior film that came out 22 years ago.

Twenty years after the events of "Jurassic Park," the island has been reopened to the public. Now it's rebranded and is meant to be more exciting, and most importantly, safer than last time around. But, surprisingly interest in these dinosaurs have started to wane amongst kids so the CEO of J World (Irrfan Khan) and the manager Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) have allowed the implementation of an even bigger, scarier, smarter, more intelligent dinosaur to be created. That would be the Indominitable Rex. 

Everything about this movie is just completely irrational. Every character, especially. Except for maybe Owen (Chris Pratt), an expert on velociraptors who has been training said dinosaurs to obey him. They're like wild dogs. Except they're totally not, but that's basically what they're supposed to be. Owen is sent to inspect this new I-Rex because Claire and the CEO have just now realized that the creation of this super-intelligent beast of a dinosaur may not be the smartest idea. Owen can't even confirm their fears when he reaches the I-Rex's cage, as the beast has escaped. Or has it? 

As you may suspect, insanity ensues.

Maybe if Jurassic World was created 100-200 years after Jurassic Park, this may all seem plausible, but we're talking a little over two decades here. This is a park ran by the dumbest people imaginable and they should all ultimately die a spectacular death. This is just a lesser film than "Jurassic Park" in every way imaginable. Does it have some of the goods? Sure. Is it a lot better than it could've been? Maybe? But nothing about this movie justifies the idea that it should exist. Kinda like how nothing could possibly justify the I-Rex's existence.

"Jurassic World" tries to covers its ass by adding in meta-commentary. The comparison of I-Rex to "Jurassic World" was a calculated move on the filmmakers' part, but there's not really a payoff there either. This is just a movie, that should've never been made, apologizing for its existence. But it still exists. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys. 

The plot I described above doesn't even do it justice. There are so many shitty characters in this film that have absolutely no arc. Even Chris Pratt is basically just in "generic charismatic hero" mode all the time. It's hard to get invested in a movie where there's no characters worth the investment. There are no thrills to a movie when you can see all the calculations happening right from the beginning. The only truly suspenseful sequence involves dino-birds creating havoc amongs the park guests. That was pretty fun. But too often while watching "Jurassic World," I had the all too distinct feeling that I had seen all this before. It's the exact same set-up and payoff just with lesser characters and a director who isn't Steven Spielberg. 

Take your impressionable kids who never got the chance to experience "Jurassic Park" on the big screen. This is for them. And maybe it's for you too, if you just want to see dinosaurs create havoc for 120 minutes and that's all you care about. Clearly, that's the case as the film has just had the biggest worldwide opening weekend of all-time. And that's fine. So people got what they wanted. Universal Studios got what they wanted. What else is there to say? Nostalgia is one hell of a drug when it's the right movie at the right time. 

Don't get me wrong, I had some fun while watching this movie, but it just felt hollow. At no point did this feel like a film that deserved to exist in its own right. And for me, that's a problem, even if the film is fairly decent. It's passable, but I'm not going to reward the film too much for exceeding my very low expectations.

Grade: C

I rent, I watch, I review: Blackhat

Blackhat

When you're a filmmaker as revered as Michael Mann, the more films you make, the more your reputation proceeds you. Watching "Blackhat," it really doesn't feel like anything more than just a pure genre film. No big, sweeping statement. This isn't a grand epic. It's just a really solid, well-made cyber action/thriller. Is it perfect? No. Chris Hemsworth was miscast as the lead, an MIT-grad turned computer hacker who's also incredibly buff. He's also pretty cocky about his intelligence, which shouldn't be a surprise. If you look like Chris Hemsworth and you happen to be an MIT-level genius, then, uh... yeah, you pretty much have it all.

There's a lot of hardcore "suspension of disbelief" going on with this movie and many of the film's critics just weren't having any of it. Hemsworth's character is in prison when the movie starts and he's hired by the FBI to track down a hacker known as a "blackhat." This hacker's main goal seems to involve just creating a shit ton of destruction around the world while also stealing millions of dollars. The only man who can stop him is Nicholas Hathaway (Hemsworth). And he will. Of course.

But the difference between this film and your average crime/thriller? Michael Mann. He can do this type of film in his sleep, and yes, there are times when he appears to be on autopilot. But, I must say, with the striking digital photography, the camerawork, the typical stoic Mann-esque characters, the seemingly doomed, inevitable romance... all the elements are there for an enjoyable film. I enjoyed "Blackhat" a lot more than I thought I would. Am I just a Mann fanboy? Well, I didn't love "Public Enemies." So, I don't know. But I do think this is a lot better than people give it credit for. It may not have anything particularly new to say about this hyper-tech world, but it's still entertaining to see Mann dive knee-deep into it. And the last 30 minutes is nearly silent, featuring Hemsworth and his love interest (Tang Wei) taking careful steps on planning the big climactic showdown. I loved those last 30 minutes.

Definitely worth a rent, I'd say. Despite flaws in the casting (Viola Davis, usually great, isn't given much to do here), "Blackhat" is a solidly made, occasionally superb thriller.

Grade: B+

I rent, I watch, I review: Hot Tub Time Machine 2

Hot Tub Time Machine 2

Ah, Hot Tub Time Machine, you got greedy. You went ahead and made a movie that had a concept so silly and so simple that it just worked. Hot Tub Time Machine is gleefully goofy and it ends on a really weird, fun note. I got a huge kick out of the first film, but what I realized while watching the sequel is that, there was a base reality in the first Hot Tub that made the wackiness more digestible and enjoyable. By contrast, Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is just completely bonkers and not particularly funny. It starts off with the concept that Lou (Rob Corddry) invented Google (and changed the name to Lougle) and things get crazier from there. Nick (Craig Robinson) is a hugely successful recording artist, thanks to ripping off songs that came out during his original reality. Jacob (Clark Duke) has pretty much gotten the raw deal by being Lou's son. Nothing else fun is happening to him. John Cusack's character? Not in the movie. Cusack's not in the movie. Instead, it's Adam Scott, who I love, but... whatever.

Point is, the movie starts with crazy then gets crazier. The jokes, however, are lazy and then proceed to get lazier. It really just seemed like the screenwriter took the crazy ideas and thought the ideas would just be funny in themselves. But, really, Craig Robinson singing "Stay" by Lisa Loeb isn't THAT funny by itself. It's kinda amusing, but too often you're supposed to accept all of these ridiculous things as they are without any added humor or cleverness to them.

I can get more into it, but there's no need in completely tearing the movie down. HTTM2 is just not funny. It has a few good moments, mostly to do with Adam Scott, but I just can't accept this new crazy alternate universe. They just didn't do anything clever with it. They had these ideas and took the laziest route with them. This makes HTTM2 wind up feeling flat. For shame.

Grade: D

SET FIRE TO THE STARS review

My 2nd Playlist review:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-dylan-thomas-pic-set-fire-to-the-stars-with-elijah-wood-20150611

Oh yeah, my Pound of Flesh review

Published on May 14th. You know, I should keep a better database of the articles I write for The Playlist. One day. Here's my D-grade review of "Pound of Flesh," a Jean-Claude Van Damme actioner.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-jean-claude-van-damme-thriller-pound-of-flesh-20150514

HEAVEN KNOWS WHAT review

"I don't like repetition!" shouts Harley, our main character, who's desperately trying to escape a guy, named Skully, who won't leave her alone. She wants to escape a guy who seems to care about her well-being but comes across as a little too aggressive and judgmental when it comes to her daily routines/habits/addictions. Once she finally leaves Skully behind he's gone. We never see him in the movie again and we're only about 15 minutes in. Once a person's out of Harley's life, they're out for good. Or, until she needs them again. For Harley, her only relationships revolve around fellow heroin addicts and enablers although, mainly, it revolves around Ilya. The irony of her distaste for repetition comes into play when she keeps letting Ilya back into her life; Ilya is almost essentially the personification of heroin. Something Harley knows might not be good for her, but she just cannot stay away. So, she keeps coming back to him/it again and again with zero signs of letting up, and if there's ever a point where she feels she can't have him/it, disaster strikes.

Phew. That opening paragraph was a load off. It's so easy to get lost in this film because this is a film whose characters are hopelessly lost. Because "Heaven Knows What" is shot with such intense fervor, with the manic techno music being the cherry on top, you're almost immediately sucked in this world right with them. Or, you're completely repulsed. It depends. Depends on whether or not you can have empathy for people like this, whether or not you care to learn about the life of a heroin junkie. If this type of subject matter is something you're not interested in or if these are people you have absolutely zero compassion for, then everything about this movie will repulse you. I even heard someone in my audience say to his date, "I wanted to walk out after the first 15 minutes." I don't blame him.

Once the opening credits started to roll and the music played, however, I was completely sucked in. I was still repulsed at times. There were still moments where I felt compelled to turn away. But there were something about these characters that I was drawn to. I saw the humanity in their eyes. These people are my age or younger. I know I went to high school with people who talked like this or acted like this. If you're currently living in my hometown, you've probably seen people my age who are like this. To shut yourself off from the lives of characters like these is to make pretend that this isn't happening around you. I grew up in Ocean County, New Jersey, which is a pretty affluent area and yet I keep hearing about heroin overdoses left and right. I was once at a Target in Toms River and overheard two employees talk about someone shooting up in the bathroom. It's completely fucked up my town. I'm lucky enough to not know anybody personally who's been affected by heroin, but there have been 2 very notable people in the last two years to die way too young of an overdose.

Those two people: actor Philip Seymour Hoffman in February 2014, who died at the age of 46. Someone who had kicked nasty drug habits when he was in his early 20s, yet somehow found his way back into the stronghold of addiction. This past February, it was writer/comedian Harris Wittels, who died at age 30. He was a naturally hilarious and gifted performer who especially excelled at podcasts. He went to rehab a couple of times, months before his death, and had so much going for him at the time of his death. When these deaths happen to famous people like that, we're left to wonder, "these people had everything and they threw it away for drugs." It's a dismissive attitude. Yet, watching "Heaven Knows What" can easily explain what that lifestyle entails. When you're hooked on heroin, the only thing that matters is the next high. That's the ONLY thing that matters. No matter what your status is, when you're in between heroin highs, your behavior will not be too far from the characters in this film.

And it's especially surreal because when I see Harley's face, I swear I've seen her before. Maybe not exactly her, but I know someone who looked exactly like her. Someone who had similar problems, someone I used to hang out with when we were kids. Something about Harley made this movie personal for me even though I actually did not know her. And I think I felt that way because the movie has a palpable sense of realism. Arielle Holmes, who plays Harley, these events are actually based on her life. She is, in effect, playing herself. She was 21 when she filmed the movie and was 19 when these events happened to her. The film moves in a way that almost feels hypnotic. You see a character (maybe) die on screen, then moments later you read "In memory of *character's name* 1989-2015." All of a sudden, it snaps you back out and it's reinforced that it's mostly real people that are being depicted. And the deceased person, who the fictionalized character is based on, was actually alive when they finished filming the movie. The world depicted in the film is still there. If you were to walk down the streets of Manhattan long enough, you just might find these characters. They're out there. They really are.

Josh and Ben Safdie directed this film and what they have crafted feels so immediate, it's as if you can really hear the time running out on these people. These characters live in a world where someone that seemed fine two scenes ago could be overdosing in a McDonald's bathroom just minutes/hours/days later. Death lurks around these characters as every dose they take can wind up being their last. At any moment, they can find themselves in a hospital, in prison, or six feet under ground. This sense of uneasy vitality creates a nagging dread. It's like a horror film, but not the kind with jump scares. That feeling you get in a horror movie when you're afraid someone's about to die? That's what "Heaven Knows What" feels like for 90 minutes.

But let's talk about Harley again. Her story is pretty clear. She's intensely in love with Ilya, a young man who repeatedly demonstrates that he has no deep interest in her. Or maybe he once did and that changed when he discovered her with someone else. But that lingering feeling of intense love that she has with Ilya is the only consistent, overarching feeling she has with anyone. You get the sense that she really does care about him, despite what she may say or do 5-10 minutes later. At the end of the day, she still thinks the world of him, yet when we see Ilya, we are at a loss as to how this could possibly be. It's a love that seems irrational, but then of course, her addiction to heroin seems irrational too. The epiphany that occurs, early on when watching the film, is that Ilya and heroin are literally the only things she has. That's all her world revolves around. Even though most of her time is spent her following around a guy named Mike. The only reason she's constantly around him? He's her dealer.

Harley, Mike, and Ilya live in a world that's depressing. It especially feels insular. If you're not involved with heroin, there'd be absolutely no reason to be involved with any of these characters. They seem to live on a completely different planet. So when someone like Skully gets cast aside early on in the film and then we never see him again, it's because he's left that planet. When you're trying to help someone whose life completely revolves around heroin, it can be very easy to just give up because they're giving you every reason to. Why else do so many heroin users immediately find their dealer after a stint in rehab? Even if they think they feel clean, in the back of their mind, it's always about that one last hit. And if that's a thought that NEVER leaves your mind, no matter what you do, it can be very easy to give in. It's just seems hopeless, which is why it's important for those of us who are completely out of that world to realize and understand just how hopeless their situation is.

The only way we can start to help is to have empathy which is why a movie like "Heaven Knows What" is so vital. It may not say anything particularly new about addiction or heroin abuse, it just simply shows a world where heroin is the only thing that matters to these people. It's shocking, it's baffling, it's frustrating, and in many ways it's terrifying because it's happening around us and it really seems like there's no possible way to break the cycle. But the Safdie brothers at least present a necessary first step and that step involves understanding and empathy. This is why "Heaven Knows What" is one of the most important films of the year.

Grade: A-

TOMORROWLAND review

When the end credits for "Tomorrowland" started to roll, a kid sitting in the row in front of me was cheering enthusiastically. As I walked from the theater to my car, I was thinking about all the little problems I had with the film: the forced didactic speech given by Hugh Laurie in the final act, the shameless Disney self-promotion, the weird/creepy relationship between George Clooney and a robot that has the body of a pre-teen girl. But, before these thoughts started to take control over my brain, I remembered that kid that sat in front of me and I realized that he was more correct than I was. "Tomorrowland," in the purest sense, is top-notch entertainment. For a large portion of its runtime, I was totally along for the ride. I was hooked. And while it definitely had all those aforementioned problems I listed, none of those issues could completely get in the way of the fact that "Tomorrowland" is kind of a blast.

An incredibly bright, yet mischievous teenage girl named Casey (Britt Robertson) gets caught messing with wires at a NASA launch pad that's on the verge of being shut down. After her release from the police, she gets all of her stuff back. But there is one tiny item included, which appears to be a pin, that she thinks does not belong to her. Before she can get an officer's attention, she touches the pin and gets transported into another dimension. A dimension where Tomorrowland exists.

This sets off a series of events that eventually leads her to Frank Walker (George Clooney), who was also very bright and precocious when he was younger. But now he's bitter, grizzled, and has way too much knowledge about the world we live in to have any sense of optimism in his heart. Very reluctant to help Casey at first, he soon realizes that she may be the key to stopping the planet's inevitable doom. But stopping that doom means visiting Tomorrowland and getting through Governor Nix (Hugh Laurie) who controls this otherworldly city.

Those are the basic facts about the film that you need. In lesser hands and with lesser actors, this movie could wind up either being too cheesy or it could take itself way too seriously. Luckily, with Brad Bird at the helm along with strong performances from George Clooney and a talented up-and-comer in Britt Robertson, "Tomorrowland" manages to find a sweet spot that kind of gave me a "Back to the Future" vibe though with a story that's a little bit messier and less focused than the 1985 classic.

"Tomorrowland" is far from entering classic status, which can be explained by its decidedly mixed critical reviews. And sure, it's easy to get hung up on the film's problems. Despite how fun it can be, the movie often fails to give its audience the benefit of the doubt. Too often, there are shots and lines of dialogue that give away information that we can easily infer by ourselves. The beginning of the film, we see George Clooney's character as a kid as he first encounters Tomorrowland at the 1964 World's Fair (with an older Clooney, who you see in the movie's opening minutes, narrating). Later on, we meet up with a much older Frank Walker. And despite the fact that we have already seen present-day Frank in the beginning of the film, we still see a shot of young Frank Walker that's meant to clue us in that it's the same character. That is just one example, of many, where the movie feels it needs to hold our hand as it tells its "complicated" story (which really isn't complicated at all, of course).

The movie also threatens to go completely off rails during its final act when we catch up with Governor Nix. Hugh Laurie, who most adults know as Dr. House, unfortunately isn't given much to work with playing this mildly villainous character, who really appears to be more misguided than legitimately evil. It's Nix's idea to plant negative thoughts into everyone's heads on Earth so that they can destroy themselves. He feels that people have become less and less enthused and more afraid of the future and so he's decided to feed into their fear instead of finding a way to implant hope into their heads, which promises to lead to Earth's extinction.

The whole crux of the movie, the plot point which is meant to solve all the problems, is simply to get people to think in a more optimistic light. It takes the whole course of the movie for the main character to realize, to use a metaphor, that if they just unplug the cord and plug it back in, they can save the world. That's pretty much what their bright idea consists of and yet it takes them way too long to figure this out.

Really, the movie's plot is really goofy and is based on a false notion that, one day, we all thought the future was filled with promise. This is patently untrue and can be proven in several different ways. George Orwell wasn't just having a laugh when he wrote 1984, after all. This all stems from the fact that "Tomorrowland" is based off a section of Disneyland/Magic Kingdom theme park. I'm not one to judge where writers get their inspiration from, but like Disney often does, the movie amounts to a very weird sugar-coating of the past and its incredibly simplistic solution to fix the future just feels... well, simplistic. "Tomorrowland" is basically a 130-minute version of the Carousel of Progress ride that can be found at Magic Kingdom. It's a very Disney-fied version of our past, present, and future. Take that as you will.

The preceding couple of paragraphs, however, is my present 27-year-old self letting all the problems of "Tomorrowland" creep into my brain. If I was 12, I probably would've loved this film because its energy is infectious, it's not afraid of getting silly, and there is genuine wonder and awe to some of its ideas, set-pieces, and effects. I knew I couldn't hate on this film once Keegan Michael-Key appeared and got himself stuck while walking through a door. And then when he turned into a robot? Hell yeah, I can get with that.

There are many genuinely humorous moments in the film as Brad Bird allowed (most of) these actors to have fun with their characters. Despite George Clooney anchoring this film, a good portion of this film centers around Britt Robertson and Raffey Cassidy's characters. Raffey Cassidy plays the droid, Athena, I mentioned her character early in this review when I was referring to her relationship with Frank Walker. Yes, the droid is built inside an adolescent girl's frame and has an English accent. Cassidy, who was only 12 when this was shot, does a terrific job balancing those two different aspects to her character. It's a very tricky part to pull off as, in many respects, she comes off as this cute pre-teen girl, but she also manages to look like a badass when necessary. And she plays her badassness with such nonchalance, I was definitely charmed.

Britt Robertson, who's been around for awhile (in fact, I said her character was a teenager, but that's never made 100% clear, she could be a little older than that), but this is really her breakout role. Robertson has a very expressive face which really adds a lot of texture to her performance. She was given the thankless task of acting opposite George Clooney and yet she is with him word for word.

Clooney, meanwhile, well... he's George Clooney. And we simply do not see Clooney take on big mainstream roles like this anymore, even though he instantly adds credibility to almost every movie he's in. He'd actually be a vital addition to pretty much any blockbuster film, as evidenced by his brief, but memorable supporting role in "Gravity." And lest we forget his recurring role as Danny Ocean in Soderbergh's "Ocean's" trilogy. He's never high or low. He's just solid and reliable. He's got an abundance of charisma, which makes him so easy to watch no matter what he does. This is true even when he's in a bad movie (like "Monuments Men"). The combination of supremely talented young actresses and George Clooney is just a winning formula and that's the main reason why I came away from "Tomorrowland" with a very positive feeling.

So, yes, the plot doesn't exactly live up to the promising premise. The movie is a little too heavy on unnecessary exposition. The third act, or really the scenes featuring Hugh Laurie, are pretty much a bust. The relationship explored between Athena and Frank Walker, despite having some surprisingly  touching moments, is not explored enough to be emotionally satisfactory. But when you got a master craftsman like Brad Bird at the helm with three incredibly charismatic actors who are equally fun to watch, it's very easy to forgive its shortcomings. Again, I know I would've loved this movie as a kid, and if you can find the kid inside you, I bet you'll find much to enjoy about this film as well.

Grade: B