Category Archives: Sci-Fi

I often review films of wholly unknown quality, but I was perhaps most skeptical about this one: there’s just not that much “superheroic” about a character with a suit that lets him shrink to insect-size, even if he gains super strength (hence the “Ant” moniker) in the process. As often happens, however, I was pleasantly surprised.

Master thief Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is enlisted by the aging Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) to help in their war against wicked industrialist Darren Cross (Corey Stoll, of “House of Cards”). The stakes? Dr. Pym’s stolen atomic-shrinking technology, on the cusp of militarization, with the potential to change the face of warfare forever. At some point, Dr. Pym has also ascertained how to mentally control insects (it’s never quite clear how this is happening) that a micro-soldier can call upon for assistance.

A priori, it bears note that this concept is ludicrous, even for the genre (we’re talking about an incredible shrinking protagonist who triggers an electrical surge by leading an army of EMP-equipped ants into a computer server room). The Chekhov’s-guns in this plot are exceedingly overt, particularly after the past ten years of superhero films. Moreover, at times “Ant-Man” struggles to maintain a consistent tone (a la the sly humor of last summer’s “Guardians of the Galaxy”). The stakes here never feel quite massive enough to justify the onscreen hand-wringing, and the movie’s emotional moments feel out-of-place alongside the absolute bonkers-ness of the main plot arc.

But despite all that, “Ant-Man” is supremely charming. Rudd is an immensely likable lead, and Douglas, cast in a clear stroke of genius, is fantastic – it’s a shame it’s taken this long to bring him into the genre. Not only that, but the sheer absurdity of the premise leads to frequent laugh-out-loud moments (there’s a micro-sized battle on a Thomas the Tank Engine toy train set, for instance). Perhaps most commendably, “Ant-Man” doesn’t rely on constant skull-splittingly-loud combat scenes to propel its plot forward. The film’s fisticuffs are few and far between, with much more attention being paid to the pure quirkiness of the man/insect dynamic (reminiscent of Michael Crichton’s final novel “Micro”). I’ve never seen any movie quite like this; if nothing else, it’s a supremely original concept executed with panache.

Finally, “Ant-Man” is solid precisely because it doesn’t try to establish dozens of tie-ins and callbacks to other Marvel Studios film properties. Rather than feeling like an extended teaser for the next slate of Avengers blockbusters, “Ant-Man” is enjoyable as a standalone flick and doesn’t get knotted up in its own mythology. While that does mean that there’s virtually nothing of philosophical substance on offer, this isn’t the sort of movie that asks its viewers for complex analysis.

In short, as a dose of midsummer exuberance, “Ant-Man” delivers. It isn’t transformative, but it’s very fun – and that’s decidedly enough.

VERDICT: 7/10
Though not without a few misfires, “Ant-Man” is creative, entertaining, and lighthearted summer froth.

Normalized Score: 3.4

You can keep your “Avengers” sequels: aside from the forthcoming “Star Wars” reboot, this was far-and-away my most anticipated film of the year. (For reference, I watch the original “Jurassic Park” at least twice a year and saw it in 3D during the 20th anniversary rerelease). That said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that “The Lost World” was a bit of a letdown and that “Jurassic Park III” was an outright debacle.

So does “Jurassic World” – installment #4, directed by Colin Trevorrow and centered on a recreated and thriving Jurassic Park facility – deliver?

Jurassic World, built on Isla Nublar atop the ruins of John Hammond’s failed project, is a major resort and tourist attraction. Featured activities include kayaking trips amid herds of herbivores, mosasaur shows in a gargantuan aquatic arena, and T-rex feedings, to say nothing of a midway packed with upscale shops and restaurants. But twenty years have passed since Jurassic World opened its doors, and audiences crave novelty.

Faced with flatlining ROI and declining global media attention, lead scientist Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) pursues a risky option: growing a gigantic hybrid dinosaur combining tyrannosaur DNA with genes from a mix of other species. The result? Indominus Rex (presented by Verizon Wireless), an apex predator engineered for the sole purpose of…attracting corporate sponsorship. Indeed, like its predecessor, “Jurassic World” plays with themes uniquely germane to its cultural context. Whereas the 1993 film skewered the scientific hubris of then-unexplored genetic engineering technology, the 2015 update takes aim at the fetishization of corporate bottom-lines and a widespread blasé attitude towards ethics. The pending launch of Indominus Rex, for one thing, is discussed with a reverence commonly reserved for Apple product unveilings.

Of course the I-rex breaks out of containment, and of course the park’s security personnel fail to stop it.

Make no mistake – the heart of “Jurassic World” is its dinosaur carnage. If your goal is to watch the I-rex shred everything in its path, you will not leave disappointed. The I-rex fights with an insane animal ferocity unlike anything seen previously in this franchise: while the 1993 movie’s T-rex was magnificent in its own natural way, the I-rex is first and foremost a monstrous aberration. Trevorrow, commendably, resists the temptation to anthropomorphize his monster (a la the Velociraptors of the series) – the I-rex behaves like a maniacal animal, not a Lake Placid-type serial man-eater.

Enter Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), an animal handler who trains the park’s Velociraptors. (He’s basically playing Star-Lord in safari wear, but remains one of the most charismatic presences working onscreen). When Claire’s two nephews go missing after the I-rex’s breakout, it’s up to Owen and Claire to rescue them.

A brief note on this, because it’s sparked some controversy: the gender politics of “Jurassic World” really are glaringly retrograde (of the “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” sort, although there’s an effort to course-correct near the end). Claire comes off as an ignorant, skirt-suited bureaucrat desperately needing Owen to tell her what to do (though they do have some very funny exchanges). If the diminution of female characters isn’t immediately apparent, compare Claire to Laura Dern’s Ellie Sattler or Julianne Moore’s Sarah Harding…the difference is stark. I’m usually not one to get hung up on tropes and stereotypes, but “Jurassic World” seems to suffer from an oddly aggressive “run along, this is men’s work here” attitude.

“Jurassic World” leans very, very hard on the nostalgia factor (to the point where it hits almost the same plot beats as the original “Park”). The film is jam-packed with callbacks to iconic scenes and environs, only bigger and rowdier (instead of a T-rex attacking an overturned jeep, for instance, here the I-rex goes after an overturned Plexiglas gyrosphere). In light of this, the storyline is pretty predictable, though there are a few great twists toward the end that had my whole theater cheering.

Where “Jurassic World” falls short is in the ambiance department. The original movie was slow-burning, taking time to develop an aura of menace alongside a coherent vision of the park (the T-rex only goes on its rampage halfway into the movie). In “Jurassic World,” things start going haywire within the first 20-30 minutes, yanking audience attention away from the theme park’s marvels and into the blood-soaked jungle. This is a real shame: there are plenty of movies about giant toothy behemoths tearing people apart, but far fewer films that depict the beauty and grandeur of prehistoric life. (It’s also a shame that John Williams’ iconic theme is only used once or twice throughout).

Criticisms aside, “Jurassic World” is a viscerally satisfying experience, and one that avoids the lumbering stodginess of past “Jurassic Park” sequels. This series is at its very best when it’s stressing its high-concept premise (man and dinosaur pushed together by man’s pride and avarice), a premise abandoned by #2 and #3 in favor of garden-variety adventuring. The effects, as one might expect, are stellar, and Pratt continues to be a fantastic lead actor. In short, “Jurassic World” is not Oscar bait, nor is it a brutal adrenaline rush like “Mad Max.” It’s a big-budget summer tentpole – no more, no less – crammed with chaotic action and propelled by a forever-intriguing concept.

Ever since I was a child, many of my finals-induced fever dreams have involved rampaging tyrannosaurs: after “Jurassic World,” that doesn’t seem likely to change. And I wouldn’t have it any other way – except maybe the next batch will involve Indominus Rexes.

VERDICT: 7/10
A bigger, louder, dumber, and more energetic remake of the 1993 classic. Recommended.

Normalized Score: 3.4