The first 15 minutes (the stuff with Ben Kingsley) has the characteristics of a Tarsem movie, with the magical realism and the dreamlike pacing, but after the body switch it feels like a completely different director. The cinematography becomes flat and conventional, the acting rushed, and the pacing bouncy and awkward. No way Tarsem shot the basketball montage, for instance.Anybody know the real story?

The film interested me because I was correct in thinking that it would be a remake of an old John Frankenheimer film called "Seconds" The original starred Rock Hudson in a much darker premise where a salesman wants to change his life (rather than is dying) - I won't reveal any more in case you want to check it out for yourself. Self/less otherwise stands up in its own right and is reasonably entertaining which is my main yardstick for a film. There are mixed reviews around the normally excellent Ben Kingsley's contribution - personally I couldn't get past his accent. Ryan Reynolds played the part well but not as an "ex military" type so possibly miscast here. Apart from trying too hard to tie up the loose ends it was otherwise a good story.

This weird concoction is now showing on HBO (Feb. 2017), and I guess it's technically not free if you divide $15 by the number of movies, TV programs, and specials watched in one month. OK, let's say I paid 50 cents.Sadly, this mess still isn't worth it. And that's too bad because Ben Kingsley always gives a good performance; Ryan Reynolds is quite capable and Tarsem Singh is one of the most visionary directors working today (see his movie, The Fall and his TV show, Emerald City). But as some reviewers have already noted: this sci-fi thriller is not good enough in either department to warrant a recommendation. In fact, it lacks sorely in both so much that it becomes a chore to watch. The science part is silly, which is OK. Good premise fiction is based on some breakthrough with all follow on action required to observe that new reality. But the secretiveness of this bio technology is never explained, especially when anyone can Google it and go right to video explanations and even the creator's house. Plus, what bio-tech firm hires heavily armed henchmen? And why? This is one of many head-scratching details that is never explained.Of course, the ruthless henchmen help propel the action. But as noted above, the thriller part is woefully lacking in excitement. Despite Singh's directorial talents, these all-too familiar shoot and chase, ad nausea scenes inspire yawns instead of tension. In short, there's nothing here to think about, be excited about or care about.

I have to completely echo what has been said, just what on earth do so called "professional" or "expert" reviewers expect from a film like this to rate it so bad and moan how it could be so much better etc?. This is a classic and possibly the best example I've seen to say and indicate that we should ignore and disregard the so called "professional" or "expert" reviewers and put more weight onto what the general public movie fans say instead.For me this is probably the best film I've sen in the last year and I've seen loads. And certainly the biggest difference between what so called "experts" have said and felt myself.Not to sure on the genre though as it has a bit of everything, action, thriller, drama & even a hint of sci-fi as well as being quite emotional in parts. And either way you see the film going it at least has an ending you cant really find anything to complain about which is a rare thing to see in films these days.The cast and acting is top notch and with the story pretty much of award winning standard I thought. Story is good, flows well and is easy to follow and get into. Though the sci-fi element is slightly unrealistic in today's world, but maybe more realistic in the next 20 years or so.For me, a great film, certainly not less than an 8/10 and came close to giving it a 9. So do yourself a favour, ignore the so called "professionals" & "experts" for once and watch what is actually a great film.