RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011)

There are far too few movies I go to, where in the end I actually walk out with a feeling that I'm better off for seeing it. Movies that come to mind more recently are Source Code, Limitless and The Adjustment Bureau. With the exception of Source Code, however, none has moved me quite like Rise of the Planet of the Apes just has. This is partially because I love movies - pure and simple. But any fan of any type of art will tell you that while you can love paintings, or music, or literature - that doesn't mean everything is spot on. The biggest reason though, comes from the fact that Rise is just really well done.

If you're familiar with the Planet of the Apes franchise, you know there's been six movies so far. The original Planet of the Apes was released in 1968 - an astonishing 43 years ago. After that came a weak sequel and then an intriguing transition film. The fourth film, titled Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, is the one this current film is a reboot of. While I liked Conquest, thankfully it can't hold a candle to the realism and power that lies within Rise. Don't get me wrong though, I know the influence the original series had and I respect that. For me, as a huge POTA fan nothing will ever beat the original and its comments on social acceptance and racism. It was a powerful film and will always be considered as such.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes takes all that was wrong with the old films and fixes it. What always bothered me about the originals was the lack of realism. This may be coming from the mind of someone who has come to both appreciate and hate CGI simultaneously, but Rise nails it. There wasn't one moment where I was worried the effects weren't carrying the story. The actors deliver the same. I felt James Franco and John Lithgow did brilliantly. Thought even they didn't bring their A-game nearly as much as Andy Serkis. Using the same technology they used in Avatar and King Kong, Serkis delivers a knockout performance as the lead revolutionary ape, Caesar. It's an odd thing to feel for a CG character as much as one does watching Rise. Rightfully deserved, though when your seeing such a powerfully emotional character arc unfold before your eyes.

To top it all off, you get a good few references to the old films as well as a few teasers for potential sequels (of which the second is already in talks). Some of the old references to watch for include seeing an old Charlton Heston movie on the TV in the background and the use of a few choice infamous phrases - more of a nod than a gimmick, thankfully. As for teasers, there's a scene in the midst of the credits not to miss as well as limited talk of a manned mission to Mars. The mission to Mars storyline seems insignificant at first, until a Newspaper article later on proclaims 'Lost in Space?'. It doesn't take too much to put together that those astronauts will likely face the same fate as Heston and his buddies did back in '68. Whether it's just a nod or not will be determined in years to come.

I've always felt that walking into a movie shouldn't require effort on the viewer's part. You shouldn't have to sit there and struggle to like a movie - the creative team behind a film is responsible for that. Few films are far from achieving this. They rely too heavily on special effects or action or big names to do the work (ie: The Smurfs). With Rise of the Planet of the Apes, they rely on the story. Shocking right? That a good story with heart can actually work every once in a while. Especially with this storyline as they could have easily resorted to a bad action movie. Not that it was awful, but Burton's remake ten years ago is an example of how this Rise could have gone from thoughtful to awful pretty damn quick.

I may be pleasantly optimistic at this point (coming off the high from Rise), but with talk of Andy Serkis getting an Oscar nod for his work in this Planet of the Apes adventure - perhaps we're not far off from a Best Picture nomination as well. There's still plenty of year left though, as we come into August with a bang, but this is one to definitely catch. Open door, all the way.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Finally, it arrives. After a small post-credits teaser following Iron Man three years ago, the last movie in the pre-Avengers line-up arrives. Other films in that line-up have included Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and the disappointing Thor. While The Avengers (scheduled to kick off Summer in May 2012) looks epic, is Captain America good enough to rally the troops and build up enough excitement to make The Avengers the success Marvel is hoping for? You bet it is, despite some of the imperfections.

A couple years back after Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk it was the hot topic to be speaking about 2011 in the series. People were wondering who was going to play Thor and Captain America and how the films would turn out. We all know the mess Thor was, but I have to say I'm pleased with the casting choices for Cap. I've always been a fan of Chris Evans (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The Losers) so I'm glad to see him in a roll that seems to fit well. For a while, there was talk of The Office's John Krasinski getting the roll of the red, white and blue hero. I won't lie, I sort of rooted for him to take the lead at first. He's a charming guy and seems to have that 'rah! rah! sis boom bah!' American spirit that's needed for a roll like this. It only takes one viewing of Captain America though to recognize the movie would have been just ... weird with Krasinski in it.

In the opposing roll to Evans' hero, Hugo Weaving (Transformers, The Matrix) takes on yet another villain role as Red Skull - the Yin to Steve Rogers' Yang. Red Skull is said to be Hitler's right hand man, that is until he grows tired of Hitler's antics and decides to get really serious with the supernatural interest originally put in place by old Adolf himself. Red Skull uses a force he states was left by the Gods for man to find, also known as the cosmic cube (teased about in the Thor post-credits). His plans for the cube's energy are nothing less than that of taking over the world. Skull uses the energy to build tanks and guns, nothing completely unlike the futuristic weapons we would see in Iron Man. However, it seems the army is at its wit's end and doesn't know how to stop him. So, why not use Tony Stark's father, Howard Stark's (Dominic Cooper) genius and combine it with an experimental serum created by German scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (played perfectly by Stanley Tucci). The result is Captain America.

While it seems a lot of comic book to movie translations fail (I really, really hated Thor), I don' t think anybody will be really disliking Captain America. While it lacks the certain finesse that made X-Men: First Class such a good film, it offers a lot to those who have experienced the older Captain America movies (via an awful Broadway costume) as well as those that dig the comics. You also get some great hints as to a potential plot for The Avengers movie (stay tuned post-credits as usual) as well as some wonderfully done action sequences (when they're piratically done) -despite a slight overdose of cheese. The only part that threw me off were some of the moments where it was clear there was too much CG to make anything look real. It was mostly purposeful, but I wanted the movie to have that nitty gritty forties feel we're used to seeing in movies from that era. Especially when Captain America is riding his bike out of a building as it explodes - reminded me a lot of Machete-type of effects, or something you would see in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Thankfully, we're not subjected to it over and over. I will have to say, however, I was super impressed by the CG look of Steve Rogers' pre-buff mode.

Ultimately, Captain America: The First Avenger gets an open door. Unfortunately, it was one of the summer blockbusters I was looking most forward too and it didn't fully live up to expectations. I think a movie that takes place in that era had an opportunity to be something really special (and not only because the forties is my favorite decade). It could have channeled a number of feelings from that decade including film noir, but it didn't. As a popcorn flick and something to get you excited about next year's Avengers, it doesn't disappoint. The performances are fine and the running time sufficient. There's also a decent amount of humour mixed in with a love story that make this a borderline date movie. But I triple dog dare you not to get the theme for Team America stuck in your head at least once during Captain America. It's almost damn near impossible. America, f**k yeah!

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (2011)

This is my first Transformers review for my website and I can't express to you all how glad I am about that. We all know just how plain awful Revenge of the Fallen was, but we also know the first film in the series showed some promise (and not enough Megan Fox, winkity wink). As much as I think Megan Fox is a, well - fox, I also recognized immediately the poor thing couldn't act her way out of a student film. The replacement of her by the slightly superior Rosie Huntington-Whitely was the first step in making Transformers 3 a fresher film.

You'll find the effects are well done (as always) and the 3-D is still whatever (as it is in any movie really). The action however is much, much better and this could be for a number of reasons. The first may be that there is simply just more of it, and less of a love story between Sam (Shia LaBeouf) and his girl of the hour. There's also less of Sam's very annoying parents. We get it, they're the comic relief - we also had enough of them in the first one. You not only end up with more, but better action here. I didn't care much for the pyramid scene in Revenge of the Fallen and it's certainly trumped in Dark of the Moon by the battle in downtown Chicago. There's something insanely cool about the scene where that highrise was tipping over (or it may have just been my subconscious telling me to watch Inception again). This brings me to second reason the action is better - which is really just because it's so much more epic. If you don't think you'll enjoy a movie about a mechanical alien race, then you're there to see the special effects and action and this is the first Transformers where I felt satisfied.

As far as the story goes, I can honestly say you won't care. You may like the fact that Patrick Dempsey is in it (if you're a girl), or you may like the fact that there's less of that Sector 7 douche, John Turturro (if you're anybody else). It's the same old stuff and it's predictable for the most part. There's bad robots and there's good robots and there's girls and cars and explosions. Director Michael Bay may not be the finest filmmaker, but he did really seem to put more effort into Dark of the Moon and it shows by the time the credits roll. He took all of what worked in the first two and left out what didn't.

What's new in Transformers 3 is the Forest Gump-like history tie-ins they use to explain why it's called Dark of the Moon. It's actually quite impressive and reminded me a lot of what we saw in X-Men: First Class. Expect to see more of it (for a third time this year) in September's Apollo 18. Perhaps Hollywood is sponsoring the next Moon trip and wants to make sure it's numbers are good?

I'm giving Transformers: Dark of the Moon an open door. I hope it's the last one (my Transformers fan friend insists it almost has to be - due to original story restrictions). Plus, with Reel Steel coming out this winter we may have already had it with robot movies by the time the end of the world mosies along next December. But this movie is enjoyable at the very least, and you're rarely left wondering why LaBouef seems to be doing a better job quitting the franchise on national TV than actually promoting this thing.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011)

After seeing the first four X-Men films over the past decade, I think the biggest surprise for me when watching First Class was that it was actually quite good. While the other films were always 'just okay', thankfully this fifth installment proves that this series is finally learning from it's mistakes and First Class is the first X-Men I've seen that has very little wrong with it - this includes the casting choices and the performances by almost every actor present.

Charles Xavior (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) become friends while on the hunt for the same enemy, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Shaw plays a man with the same goal Magneto will have in later movies - one bent on the idea of exterminating the human race. That is to say, all non-mutants of course. Amongst the two are several newly discovered mutants, including (but not limited to) Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult) and Emma Frost (January Jones). We also get two relatively surprising but hilarious cameos from Rebecca Romijn and Wolverine himself, Hugh Jackman.

First Class not only steps up in special effects and style, but we end up with a wonderful mixture of humour, action and drama. Even more surprising, is that in his younger days Professor X was a bit of a player - all the while Magneto was nothing but drama, drama, drama. As a person who never read the comic books, I can't comment on whether or not First Class takes the cake for being faithful to the source material. But I'll say it certainly had a nice amount of references to the previous films and I can only hope that any future X-Men films follows the pattern of this installment. Mainly, that story isn't sacrificed for action and effects.

The other really neat thing about this film is that it's not in 3D! Now I don't have a hate on for 3D, in fact it can be downright enjoyable at times. If anything I'm a bigger fan of the super HD digital picture quality. What I realized with First Class though, is that it really doesn't make a lick of difference either way as far as entertainment goes. That's occurred to me before, but this one sealed the deal on the fact that I won't be seeing 3D nearly as much as I used too. Not only that, the lack of 3D in this case only further enforces why First Class is so well done.

X-Men: First Class gets an open door, and is definitely the best X-Men of the bunch. This is not only the best of the rest, but gains a spot for me up there with the best superhero movies of all time, including Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight. I hope that along with Wolverine coming out next year, First Class gets a sequel - which I'm sure it will. I'm certainly not done seeing McAvoy and Fassbender in these rolls, and look forward to seeing how the rest of the story and characters tie in as well.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011)

A fountain of maggots? Hardly...

The day before Pirates 4 was released, I stumbled upon a review via a recommendation from Roger Ebert. The link on Ebert's Facebook page directed me to what Ebert calls "The most negative review of any movie [he has] ever read". It was a review by Ali Arikan titled 'A Fountain of Maggots: Rob Marshall's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides'. Although I had yet to see the movie at that point - I couldn't help but take a gander. That's not something I normally do by the way, for fear of an influence over my own opinion. Well, not that it spoils anything (as there are literally no details present in his review), but Arikan rips Jack Sparrow a new one. He goes on to say he walked out of the theatre because Pirates 4 was that bad. If anything, this only fueled my want to see the movie more. Was it going to be 'walk out' bad? Or was it going to be - as I would guess - disappointing? As it turns out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and when it came to Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, I actually liked it.

One argument Arikan brings up in his review is one I will definitely validate, much like Thor, Pirates 4 only exists to make money. Unlike Harry Potter, however, Pirates didn't necessarily need to have the sequel, either. So, why then did I like it? Because it was fun, less disappointing than something like Thor and I actually like the characters and the storyline based around the Fountain of Youth and eternal life - despite it being a tad tired by now.

The two most recognizable characters in Pirates 4 are (of course) Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Both do fine, as I would hope they've broken in these characters by now. In this chapter, they're joined by Angelica Malon (Penelope Cruz) and Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and as with Depp and Rush, both do just fine. The reason I bring the characters up here is because while watching this latest installment I finally realized why I hated the last two films - Dead Man's Chest and At World's End so much. There are a couple of reasons actually...

The first is because I realized I didn't really give two shits about the characters that the last two films seemed to center around - Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom). Both kind of annoyed me and Sparrow may have been the mascot of those movies but always played second fiddle to Liz and Will's romance. The second thing I realized is that the last two flicks seemed to lack that sense of wonder and romantic endeavor the first had. In the first, Curse of the Black Pearl, Barbossa and his thugs were seeking a new form of life - and their journey had a desperate magic about it that complimented the tale of Jack Sparrow. Aside from all the fun everybody seems to have on screen here we get the magic back, we get the banter between Barbossa and Sparrow and best of all - we get the adventure.

I am giving Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides an open door. It reminded me of the first film, which was a huge surprise to us all when it was released in 2003 (especially when Depp gained an Oscar nod for his performance). In fact, I am going to say the only good thing to happen between The Black Pearl and this film was the eradication of the Swann/Turner storyline and the introduction of the plot for Stranger Tides. While it seems most people may disagree with me on this review (namely Arikan), I'll end by saying I had a lot of fun with this one and was pleasantly surprised and I may have to Arikan for that, actually.

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

Read more...

THOR (2011)

Don't be Thor-ry, just don't let it happen again.

Although Fast Five claims to be the beginning of summer, I think this weekend counts way more - which is probably why it's starting off with one of the summer's biggest movies, Thor. However, much like Fast Five, I'm sad to say I'm pretty disappointed in this addition to the Marvel line-up, most recently preceded by the similarly disappointing Iron Man 2. The main difference between the two? I ultimately recommended Iron Man 2. Thor, however, does not get my recommendation - but you already know that from the big red door to the left. I know some people will like Thor and this decision was not the easiest for me to make - because I really wanted to like this film. In the end though, it fell short.

Thor (played well by Chris Hemsworth) is a cocky, arrogant God who only wants to fight, beat and destroy anybody and everybody who's willing to take on the challenge. He's kinda like the one guy outside the bar who wants to start a fight over nothing. After egging on his kingdom's (or realm, or planet - or whatever) number one enemy, his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) banishes him to Earth to teach him a lesson in humanity. There he meets Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster and develops a crush. It doesn't take long for Thor to start feeling that warmness inside and it takes even less time for his heart to grow three sizes - as well as you know, kick the shit out of a big, metal robot. Well done Thor, you attempted to not be such a dick. This all leads to another reason why I didn't like Thor, or why I've heard people mention Thor as their least favorite of the Marvel hero line-up.

If you look at nearly every other Marvel movie out there - the characters/superheroes all have one thing in common. They start off as a being a completely different person than that of their alter ego come the end of the movie. Thor on the other hand, is already a superhero - he just has an attitude problem. You can't make a movie out of someone learning to be less of a douchebag - well you can, but it has the same amount of impact as a 'no drugs' episode of Saved by the Bell. This causes there to be no character arc for Thor, so unlike Tony Stark let's say - you don't become interested in character and hence you care less about the story. Thor literally has less to fight for.

With a mystical being such as Thor, I would have preferred there to have been some mystery left to the guy and his story rather than spell it out as clear as day from the get go. If we could have perhaps left Thor's history more of a mystery - there may have been a bit more magic here. But now, the mystery is history and your left with something about as fun as a Wikipedia article on the subject. On that topic as well, I also enjoyed the scenes on Earth a lot more than on Thor's home planet (or whatever it is...) - so the more time on Earth the better.

Is Thor pretty at least? Hell yeah. Is the acting decent - sure. Does Thor fit all the criteria necessary to be a summer blockbuster? Definitely. But I feel my job as a film critic is to use my criticism in a way that will hopefully move the world of movies forward a little. In Thor's case, I'm attempting to make a statement about films and special effects. At which point do we stop admiring the pretty pictures on screen and focus on the story more? While Hollywood is slowly getting the point more and more as of late - sometimes you get a movie like Thor where it's drab, it's uninspiring, has no heart and is relentless in its effort to have you say 'that looks cool'.

On top of it all, with Avengers coming out next year - it's painfully obvious that Thor exists purely for the sake of lining up a few plot points necessary to further set up The Avengers. Overall, it may as well be considered a two hour long commercial for it. Even after the credits the movie proclaims 'Thor will return in The Avengers' (or something to that effect). So, if the story didn't lose interest for me, the fact it's a blatant marketing scheme and overall plot filler would have. For those of you wondering - you do get the fun stuff you'll be wanting to see and an inside joke here and there you'll enjoy. This includes an appearance by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, a mention or two of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner - and of course the obligatory bonus scene after the credits.

I'm giving Thor the closed door it deserves. Personally, I'm looking way more forward to Captain America and Green Lantern. Thor feels like a prequel that should have been released perhaps after The Avengers - once we've gotten a chance to become attached to the character for a bit. For those of you out there who will tell me 'Well, Thor was fun - couldn't you just enjoy it for what it was?' The answer is yes - and I don't think it's completely unenjoyable. But realistically, if you want to see the movie - you will. It's the same for any movie, really, but if you're reading this before you're going to the movie - you've probably already made up your mind about whether you'll be standing in line later today or not. All I'm trying to do is point out why it didn't really need to exist in the first place - or at the very least, exist in the fashion that it does.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

FAST FIVE (2011)

Vin Diesel? More like Vin Regular... Paul Walker? More like shoot me in the f**king face...

What do you get when you mix The Italian Job with Ocean's Eleven and throw in a little bit of Fast and the Furious? You get Fast Five, a movie that has almost nothing original to offer. Does that mean you won't have a good time? I guess it all depends on what you're looking for in film. If you're a fan of the first four films in the series, than yeah - you'll probably enjoy this fifth installment. Don't expect any racing though. The one time Fast Five even hints at an old school race akin to any previous films, it cuts it out completely - which is kinda bullshit. I think including a simple race for pinks in this film would have shown just how far the series and characters had come. Instead, Fast Five ignores that point as if to comment on how it's past all that juvenile shit and is now focusing on what the series has become - a heist thriller that we've seen a million times.

But I digress and for a brief second will focus on the plot of Fast Five so you know a little more about what I'm speaking of. Brian O' Conner (Paul Walker) and his now-preggo girlfriend Mia (Jordana Brewster) have ended up in Rio de Janeiro looking to lay low after their previous adventure. To be honest, while I saw Fast and Furious (the fourth one), I couldn't tell you what happened just because it was that forgettable. In Rio, the couple meet up with Vince (Matt Schulze) and the hero and brother of Mia, Dominic (Vin Diesel). Vince says he has a job for them and it's easy money - but when it's at the beginning of the film, you know it's anything but. Of course, it is and they end up getting into some big shit with the drug lord that runs Rio - Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida). Reyes isn't the only one trying to bust their nut either, enter Federal Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) who isn't taking his sweet time tracking down the fugitives.

In order to make it out of Rio alive and have enough cash to disappear from the Feds forever, Dominic, Brian and Mia must do one final job to land them enough cash to make sure they're never found again. But it won't be easy - they have to rob a ginormous state-of-the-art vault. How will they do it? With the help of all of their Facebook friends, played by several gust stars that have appeared throughout all four of the films. Just when you think it's getting exciting - they hatch a plan that's more lame and less enjoyable than both The Italian Job and Ocean's Eleven - and I do mean less enjoyable. Cue the exit of interest, and commence the remaining 100 minutes of running time.

Now, am I being hard on a movie that I did have had some fun in? No. As aforementioned, I think fans of the whole series may have a good time. My problems lie in the unoriginality, style and beats of the film that seem to be shameless when it comes to ripping off other movies - especially when none of the material seems to come from any of the previous four films in the franchise. Like, come on! You have fans there already - expecting nothing short of an equivalent to what you've already set up and they don't get one damn decent race? This is all outside of the fact that Paul Walker still can't act himself out of a cardboard box and The Rock's lines sound as if they were written by someone with ADD and an affinity for bad, cheesy movie lines. I don't know if The Rock knew they were bad and played them up, or if he thought his lines were a serious thing - all I know is that I've never rolled my eyes so much at a character. Talk about a movie that never ends - and I do mean that. Just when you think Fast Five is over, be prepared to spend another ten minutes in the theatre - this includes the additional 'bonus' scene that appears about five minutes into the credits. So fans of the franchise - stick around.

Obviously, Fast Five is getting its fingers slammed in a closed car door. I think when it comes down to it, while I had a semi-good time in this film, I'm disappointed it didn't end up better. The beginning gave me hope, the cumulative cast showed promise and it was a great opportunity to restart the franchise anew and give us confidence in the upcoming sequels. But it did none of those things. Instead you end up with cheesy lines, a ripoff premise and vault scene (which is partially in the trailer) that defies the laws of physics. Fast Five may be fast, but it didn't pull a fast one on me - I know a bad movie when I see one.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011)

I'm goin' to LA! Maybe not...

It's been said that in 2013 we'll be getting a sequel to 1996's awesome-tastic Independence Day. Until then, we're going to have to sit through movies like last year's dreadful Skyline, the anxiously awaited Paul (in theatres next weekend), and of course - Battle: LA. That stated, is Battle: LA really on par with the great alien-invasion movies of all time? Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly), no. While Battle: LA tries it's hardest to meet all the criteria of a good invasion flick, it falls short on a couple notes, and relies on a few too many clichés.

SSgt. Michael Nantz (played by the always decent Aaron Eckhart) is about to retire from the US Marine Corps as he feels like he's getting too old - which can be deduced from the fact that he runs like a little girl, apparently. But wouldn't you know it - he's called away from his retirement plans as LA gets hit with the a bad case of the ET-Invadies. What do these aliens want? One scientist assumes it must be our liquid water as the earth is covered with so much of it - a welcome change from the aquaphobic entities that attacked in Signs (2002).

In an effort to clear out the large area of Santa Monica in which the aliens are invading (not the first time in United States history, I've heard), the US decides to go and Hiroshima the place to eliminate the enemy threat. Before that can happen, though, they send in Nantz and his men to search for any remaining survivors in the area and get them back to FOB (Forward Operating Base). The clincher: they only have three hours to do it before they and any remaining survivors are vaporized. The big questions fill out the remainder of the plot: Do they make it? What do the aliens really want? Can mankind stop a technologically advanced species? What are the ramifications of such an interaction? Why the hell aren't people more in awe of the fact they aren't alone in the universe? Unfortunately, a lot of those questions aren't answered. As for the ones that are - you kinda don't really care by the end.

When it comes to alien movies (especially those that try and be realistic), I've always preferred the kind that try and involve some form of politics and a deeper lesson aside from the one that states "Let's kick some alien ass!". Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) did it, as did Contact (1997), Mission to Mars (2000) and District 9 (2009). With Battle: LA, you get less 'wonder' and more 'Who cares? What about the American peoples' right to fight?!'. I mean, it's good to be patriotic and all, but you know you've gone too far when it starts to feel like you're watching a recruitment video for the US Marine Corps.

Battle: Los Angeles gets a closed door. While the action is promising and the effects are extremely well done, the plot is grossly underdeveloped and director Johnathan Liebesman relies far too much on cheesy emotional cues to get us through the dragging story. It doesn't take more than the first half hour to know whats going on, and I feel the film is trying to be more about the journey of the human spirit than the destination. In the case of Battle: LA, the only destination I began to care about was one involving the end credits.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

THE GREEN HORNET (2011)

Kato, I think I love you.

Seth Rogen and Jay Chou star as Britt Reid and Kato in The Green Hornet, not to be confused with The Green Lantern - the Ryan Reynolds superhero flick coming out later this year. The Green Hornet, like Batman, has no superpowers per say. Reid is simply a wealthy man who's recently gone through a terrible ordeal and uses crime fighting as a means of dealing with his feelings.

After his unsupportive father passes away (due to a bee sting), party man Reid is left to run his father's newspaper (The Sentinel). After decapitating his father's memorial statue (out of love, no doubt - and maybe a small homage to The Simpsons), Reid runs into some hooligans bent on causing trouble. In this case - it's a couple out for a night (and a mugging) on the town. Reid tries his darnedest to help the victims but just doesn't have what it takes - that is, until Kato shows up and takes down the thugs seven at a time. While Reid insists it was his doing, the two decide that helping people is actually kinda fun and come up with a ploy. The idea is that if all the bad guys think The Green Hornet and Kato are one of them, then the crime-fighting duo can get closer to the villains and bring 'em down from the inside.

The main man they are trying to tackle? A Russian kingpin (sigh...) named Chudnofsky (Inglorious Basterds' Christoph Waltz), who likes to call himself Bloodnofsky (double sigh...). So the pair head out night after night in their specialized vehicle known as the Black Beauty, and leave calling cards while shutting down all of Chudnofsky's operations. Eventually ol' Chud-Blood notices the chaos and it's on like Donkey Kong.

Now down to the nitty gritty. Was Green Hornet good? Does it live up to it's heightened 'why wasn't this released in summer?' expectations. Yeah, it did a'ight. What you get here is a lot of Rogen's usual loser shtick mixed with some pretty decent action - compliments of Kato, of course. I've never read or seen any of the original Hornet material, so I can't comment on how close it comes or what they've changed. I know that the costumes and car are almost dead on and that Kato-vision also existed before. What I don't know, however, is if Reid was actually that lame a crime fighter and if his secretary, Lenore Case (played by the not-very-present Cameron Diaz) actually played a big role in his life. Either way, Rogen plays the role in a way that seems semi-realistic enough that you believe a person would act like he does in some of the situations Reid finds himself in.

I liked The Green Hornet enough to give it an open door. The acting was fine, the action was better and the overall premise was interesting enough to keep my attention. It had some moments that definitely made me smile, some that made my eyes roll and unfortunately there was never a moment I was super-blown away. While i can always appreciate director Michel Gondry's vision - his films have always been a little lackluster for me (eg: 2008's Be Kind Rewind). I was also left wondering just exactly why Reid and Kato even started crime fighting in the first place. Is the high from stopping a mugging really enough to put your ass on the line every night? Apparently so.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

RED (2010)

"Old man, my ass!" - Marvin Boggs

Alright. Time for some movie trivia. What do you get when you put Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman and John Malkovich in a movie? You get a very lazy intro for my movie review of Red. You also get something that is surprisingly really, really fun.

Bruce Willis plays Frank Moses, a retired Black Ops CIA agent who lives a mundane life in suburbia. Is it boring? Hell yes. Does he seem to mind? Yes and no. In an intro that is akin to American Beauty (1999) (minus the narration) we catch a darkly funny glimpse into Moses' life and how he spends his time. Whether it's destroying his mail as a reason to speak to somebody on the phone, or putting up Christmas decorations simply because his neighbours have done it as well - Moses goes through the same motions day in and day out. But there's always that look in his eye. A look that says he prays somebody will come crashing through his wall with a semi-automatic and try to take him out. Cut to scene two - it appears Moses gets his wish.

If you're a man in Moses' position, you may live alone - but you're wise enough to know you're not really alone. Enter Moses' Black Ops long time friends - Joe (Morgan Freeman), crazy 'they did experiments on me' Marvin (John Malkovich) and Victoria (Helen Mirren). They all happen to be on the hit list it seems, and I'm not talking about 80's pop. Also joining the group is Moses' very recently acquired girlfriend, Sarah (Weeds' Mary-Louise Parker). The group's main goal outside of staying alive is to find the person who put the hit out on them.

They seek help from a former Russian enemy, Ivan (Brian Cox), who says to Moses "Twenty years ago if you would have walked through my door I would have killed you. Now... now I'm just too old to care". Ivan's statement becomes the creed Red as a films seems to live by. Through all their shenanigans these guys get into, each characters represents a certain ideal of what it's like to be past your prime.

Moses seems to have the philosophy that life goes on and things change, and he has to suck it up. He treats his retirement much like he would have treated a mission - in stride without uttering a complaint. Joe has Cancer and has since realized and accepted his fate. Victoria, on the other hand, is dreadfully bored. She likes her quiet life but keeps a gun near her at all times should the opportunity arise to put a bullet into someone's torso. Ivan is just saddened that it had to end and leads a life filled with nostalgia. At one point he utters to Moses "I miss the old days, I haven't killed anyone in years." To which Moses replies, in a empathetic and serious tone "That's sad." It is sad, but it's also quite funny. In the end, that's what Red is about.

What do you do when your 'life' is over? Do you accept it, do you fight it, or do you start a new chapter? Outside of that, Red is also about the generational gap between those born in the first half of the century and those born in the latter half. Moses' generation was about people who would do their job as long as they were recognized and treated right because of it. Meanwhile, rookie CIA agent Will Cooper's (Star Trek's (2009) Karl Urban) generation expects recognition and special treatment without having to work for it. It's safe to say in the end Cooper may learn a thing or two from Moses.

Red gets an open door. It's not just an action movie or a comedy, but deals with life lessons both realized and unrealized. The cast in this film is very well put together and creates a great energy that radiates from the screen - mainly as a result of the fun these guys had making this movie. There's some insanely great action shots in this movie, snappy dialogue and costumes that were also quite good (something I don't normally notice in films). It reminds me a lot of how a retired James Bond movie might play out. John Malkovich is also a delight and delivers some of the best one-liners of this film and most others I've seen this year. If you get the chance, go see Red. It's s shame this will undoubtedly get lost amongst the Jackass's and other more anticipated films of the Fall. It surely deserves more.

*Stills courtesy of Summit Entertainment

Read more...

MACHETE (2010)

Machete? More like MACHETE!!!

A few years ago the Onion News Network came out with a clever little news story that the wildly popular Iron Man trailer would be made into a movie, with extensions of scenes and even "additional scenes that were not in the trailer" (you can watch the story here). It seems they may have predicted the future. That same summer a very well done 3-hour movie experience showed up in some theatres called Grindhouse (2007) - which featured 2 main attractions (Planet Terror and Death Proof). As part of that experience there were fake trailers that were shown before each film. One of which, was Machete (original trailer here).

Machete (played by the always entertaining [and scary] Danny Trejo) is an ex-Federale who has been on the run ever since crime runner Torrez (the perfectly placed Steven Seagal) killed Machete's family in front of his eyes and put a bullet in the back of his head.

Several years later and after accepting a job to assassinate Senator McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), Machete finds himself the pawn in a political game of chess set up by the Senator's adviser, Booth (Lost's Jeff Fahey - who is really good here). Now, it wouldn't be Machete if our 'hero' didn't want some revenge. It just so happens that this political web of lies leads Machete back to his original nemesis, Torrez. And boy is Machete pissed. The film is akin to a Spanish, more violent version of the Bride from Kill Bill (2003) (who just so happens to occasionally have relations with the wives and daughters of certain political advisers). Trust me, you don't want a badass like Machete (with a knack for MacGyver-ing his way down the side of a building with your intestines) on your bad side.

Those on Machete's good side, however, are glad to have him not only lead his own revenge killing spree, but one that coincides with the unfair treatment put upon Mexican immigrants entering the country (some of which are shot and killed crossing the border). Those on his team include government immigration agent, Sartana (Jessica Alba), taco stand owner and leader of the rebellion, Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) and Machete's Priest brother, Padr (the always welcome Cheech Marin). We also get some nice cameos from Lindsay Lohan (who bares it all) and Don Johnson - think of a B and C-list version of Ocean's Eleven (2001).

Even with the message of immigrants and the overzealous Texans who are pro-fenced border, Machete is not overly political. It makes an exaggerated statement, that's for sure, but really seems to be more concerned about the twenty ways Machete can use a scalpel, or a bone saw, or (and of course) a machete - which is fine, and the way it should be. Machete is as enjoyable as you would expect and occasionally, even more so. More remarkably (if you see the film and watch the original Grindhouse trailer) is how closely director Robert Rodriguez follows the original story and copies the shots frame per frame (unless they used some originals - which is possible). This just adds another level of cool to what is already a really fun film.

Machete is a good film. It does most things right and occasionally steps out of even it's comfort zone to do something unexpected - if for no other reason than because that's what the audience wants. Its fun, it's nasty, it's pointless and it works. Machete gets an open door because if I gave it a closed one, Machete himself would kick it down to make it an open door and slice my head off with a giant knife. Oh, Danny Trejo...

*Stills courtesy of Overnight Films

Read more...

PIRANHA 3D (2010)

Piranha bites – in a good way.

Elisabeth Shu stars as Julie Forester, a small town sheriff who’s busiest time of year is spring break - when all the youngins come to town to drink, skinny dip and give the middle finger to the Man. Her son, Jake (Steven R. Mcqueen) gets stuck in his usual good son role of babysitting his younger sister and brother, rather than going out and doing what kids his age should be doing. That is until Jake gets offered a job by the eccentirc producer of WildWildGirls.com, Derrick Jones (Jerry O’Connell). You see, Derrick needs a local to show him the hot spots in order to shoot his new spring break vid, and before Jake can even accept the job, he is on Derrick’s party yacht and they’re heading out to their first location. What they don’t know is something lurks below and around the town, unearthed by tremors that until now, have kept an underwater, prehistoric lake out of reach of the hands of time.

So what is it that lurks? Well, it’s not the tranny from Sleepaway Camp (1983) – although how fun would that be?! No, it’s the vicious, cannibalistic, 2 million year old ‘thought to be extinct’ original boss of the water – the piranha! And boy, do they know how to throw an ass-munching party. With all the naked and scantilly clad partiers in the water due to spring break, this is nothing short of an all you can eat for them – and the piranha are hungry!

Now, I liked this movie. I actually really enjoyed it. I compare it to Snakes on a Plane (2006) in the sense that Snakes on a Plane knew it was a bad movie, and it did it right. That’s what you get with Piranha, a really well done B movie that takes a note from the original – which is even represented in it’s posters. We even get a cameo from Richard Dreyfus who isn’t in it long, but (according to IMDB) is playing the same character he played in the basis for this and all ‘don’t go into the water’ movies – Jaws (1975). But he doesn’t steal the thunder here. By far the highlight of the movie is seeing ol’ Doc Brown himself, Christopher Lloyd, as the movie’s fish expert, Mr. Goodman. It took me straight back to the Back to the Future trilogy (which conincidentally also stars Elisabeth Shu). I would like to see this guy in movies more. It’s like seeing a favorite uncle you haven’t seen forever. Nothing but fond memories and grinning. I should mention Jerry O’Connell also takes over every scene he’s in. He knows the ridiculousness of this film, and O’Connell plays it to a tee. The rest of characters seem to fall into the shadows and when something does happen to them eventually, you just don’t care.

The only real problem I had with Piranha was its ending. Now, the ending itself isn’t the worst finish in the history of cinema, it just feels...unsatisfying. Throughout the movie you are building up to the climax where the piranha attack the folks visiting on spring break. Once you get to that scene (where the majority of budget was certainly spent), you unsurprisgingly have a huge smile on your face for the whole time its on screen (roughly 5-10 minutes). After that, it cuts to the end scene (which I won’t mention here), for a good 15-20 minutes. In the end, you have this huge buildup over the first hour and some and then it’s sorta like...nothing happens (or nothing you really care about anyways). So boourns to that.

Now, in the theatre I went too I was shocked and entertained when a set of parents walked in with their son and daughter who couldn’t have been more than ten. I assume they didn’t know what Piranha was exactly, but wanted to treat their kids to a 3-D movie. Which is cool, and I don’t blame them - Step Up 3D was the only other 3-D movie playing, and no matter what Piranha wasn’t going to be as damaging as that. However, this movie is still not for kids – at all. Not only is there your usual course language, but there’s also extreme gratuitous nudity and (because this film is produced by Hostel (2005) director Eli Roth) extremely shocking (and awesome) violence. Needless to say, I wasn’t shocked to see those same kids were missing from their seats immediately after the nude underwater ballet scene (which I’ll admit - as pointless as it is, is actually kinda pretty). So note to parents, go see something a little less damaging to your kids that they’ll like more – like Scott Pilgrim.

What I also want to share with all ye who look upon this review is that I too have experienced the wrath of the vicious, terrifying piranha. That is, I have three of my own red-bellied piranhas and although they have never attacked me personally, the feeder golddish I put into their tank every day or so certainly know how truly frightening these creatures can be. This may have been the initial thing that perked my interest in this film the first time I saw the trailer. At the time I thought nothing more of it than another peice of trash heading our way, courtesy of the Hollywood fat cats in order to capitalize on the popularity of 3-D.

Then I started to hear things. Be it in person or on the interweb, this film picked up some speed and it seemed more likeley we’d see another Snakes on a Plane rather than another bad Jaws ripoff. That’s when I knew I’d be seeing this movie before the drone of Oscar-driven movies werre released and pushed this thing into the cheap theatres, never to be seen again in 3-D or on the big screen.

I give Piranha 3D an open door, because it’s rare that you go see a bad movie that was supposed to be awful on purpose. It’s fun, and the actors have fun, and the violence is epic. The nudity is whatever, but exxxpected. This movie is a direct and accurate shoutback to the 70’s and 80’s cheesy horror movies that made me love the genre in the first place. I recomend you go see this before it leaves theatres, because it definitely won’t be as good at home.

*Stills courtesy of Atmosphere Entertainment MM

Read more...

SALT (2010)

Coming soon - 'Salt 2: Salt and Pepper' (seriously, give it a couple years)

Angelina Jolie is “Russian” to kick some ass in Salt, an action upon action fun time that in the end just doesn’t deliver.

Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is your everyday woman who just happens to work for the CIA. She has a husband who collects and studies spiders, and a dog to fill in for the children they probably don’t have because they are too busy. All is glorious and dandy with Salt until one day a Russian man walks into the CIA and outs our lovely heroine as being a secret Soviet spy out to kill the Russian president who is in the US attending the US Vice President’s funeral because he… yeah, I didn’t really follow it. When it comes to an action movie like Salt though, the modus operandi behind the kill apparently doesn’t mean as much as how death defying Salt can be or how big an explosion she can cause.

To stop Salt and her inexplicable gain of Spider-Man like powers (due to perhaps a spider bite from one of her hubby’s subjects?) her boss and long time friend Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) steps up and takes an abrasive approach to trying to understand why Salt is running from them. After all, they just want to ‘talk’ to her, right?

Beyond that you get a lot of explosions and death-defying stunts and chases followed by running followed by a little Russian speak to authenticate things. Don’t get me wrong though, all of this was really fun to watch and you kind of sit back in awe of a lot of it. Could any of it happen in real life? Undoubtedly - but that’s not what causes my dislike for this movie.

What I didn’t like about Salt is at the end (and not because of the twist ending alone) I kind of felt like “So what?” Salt felt like a movie I had seen before. It went through the same usual formula that revealed a little about the character and their inexplicable ways of seeing into the future and knowing that no matter what, they will find the resources they need to MacGyver themselves out of a sticky situation. Neat, yeah – clever, no. By the time the credits roll you’re left with room for a sequel of course, but does it really matter? With Salt I wanted something more tangible and mysterious like The Bourne Identity, where you could really feel the action, no need for wire work and whatnot there. Salt felt more like a video game I would play than a movie I would watch.

With so many clever and well-made movies out there this summer, this felt like a summer blockbuster yes, but just fell short of being acceptable. This could be a good thing though. It seems people at the top that make the movies we watch are starting to realize that your everyday movies that thrived in the 90’s just won’t do anymore. Remakes with flashier CG and updated scenery just won’t do anymore. Movies themselves have gotten better and more and more popular and it seems that, huh, maybe a well thought out story is actually an important thing we need more of. Salt gets a closed door. Not because it’s not entertaining, but because it’s a mash-up of a lot of stuff we’ve seen before. I’m actually a little in’salt’ed (you knew it was coming).

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

INCEPTION (2010)

Let’s hope they don’t make a sequel...

Christopher Nolan has made some of the best movies in the past ten years. I first noticed him with Memento (2000), and more recently he made the more than awesome The Dark Knight (2008). In that ten years he’s made five other movies, and somehow found the time to slowly chip away at a masterpiece about the invasion of dreams and the inner workings of the human psyche.

When I first saw the trailer for Inception I wasn’t sure what to think. It had some interesting visuals, to say the least, but you were left feeling both intrigued and … whatever. I knew I wanted to see it but I also wanted more details first. Even when I did finally go to the theatre to see the film I really had no idea what to expect.

In a nutshell (and I promise I’m not ruining anything) Inception is about a man named Dom Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) who is the best at one thing – stealing secret information from the mind of someone who is sleeping. He enters your dreams and gets information you would never be willing to discuss with yourself, all without you knowing. He does this with the help of his associate Arthur (the always amazing Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his dream-designing architect Ariadne (Ellen Page). After being hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) the team goes after a rich playboy named Robert Fischer (Cilian Murphy). They don’t just want to get information though, their job is to put an idea in Fischer’s mind and make it think it’s his idea. This technique is called ‘inception’, and is rumoured to be impossible. That’s all I’m going to say about the plot, because that’s all you need to know.

What I found most amazing about Inception is the fact that no matter how hard I think – it seems to be a relatively flawless movie. After ten years of writing I would hope Nolan would have fixed any bugs or donut holes in what is seemingly his defining film. But the fact I find Inception flawless is only the tip of the iceberg of why this is a great film.

Some people will run out and tell you this movie is as confusing as Donnie Darko and way too long. Personally, I had no problems following the storyline and keeping up, nor did I mind the length. In films like this, as I usually do, I was constantly thinking of theories to explain things, doing math in my head and continually trying to skip ahead and predict any possible surprises and twist endings that might show up. I was doing all that and still kept pace with Mr. Nolan’s creation so it’s beyond me why people leave Inception not knowing what the hell happened – aside from the ending, which I will get to right away.

One of the top Googled searches this past week was “Inception theories”. Now, I know what you’re thinking. The answer is NO, I am not going to theorize about what exactly happened in this movie. I, like most people, take the story at face value and don’t believe Nolan has created something that requires hours of online searching to know exactly what happened (I’m looking at you Mulholland Dr.). Until he comes out and says “this is what happened”, I will stick by my own beliefs as most people who enjoy any movie should.

As for the performances, I think Inception was really well cast, and there may be a couple of Oscar nominations here. Leondardo DiCaprio will definitely be a front runner for Best Actor this year, if not for this film, than for Shutter Island (or maybe both?). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming one of my new favourite actors. He’s a likeable guy, does really well in this film and has a certain old school Hollywood feeling to him. If you haven’t seen 500 Days of Summer, please do. It’s really well done.

Now for the most talked about ending since The Sixth Sense. I don’t want to spoil anything for those of you that haven’t seen it, so I can’t go into too much detail. As aforementioned, I take the movie at face value which means I take the ending for what it is. Now, I’m talking about the ending scene, not the last shot. The last shot could mean something, or it means nothing (you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it). I heard one guy in the theatre when we were leaving say “Why did they have to ruin the movie by doing that?”; another said “So what the hell happened then?”. I laughed at the ending as I would with someone who just made an extremely clever joke – because the ending is nothing more than Nolan winking at the audience and telling us you either get what the movie is about or you don’t. If you don’t, you’ll hate the ending and want to punch something. If you do, you will laugh like I did because you know exactly what Nolan is doing.

In the end, I obviously give Inception a wide open door and believe it will be a long time before I see anything that I ultimately loved as much as this movie. It’s like reading a great book and finishing and you’re left saying “Now what?”. This is without a doubt the best movie of the year, and maybe the best movie you're likely to see in a while.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Read more...

THE KARATE KID (2010)

Little one, did I ever tell you about the time

I fought off bad guys for a good couple of hours while drunk?

Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan contribute to the ongoing remake, sequel and “reimagining” fad with their version of The Karate Kid.

I know for sure at some point in my life I saw the original, and maybe a couple of the sequels (Hilary Swank was in one apparently?). Mr. Miyagi (played by the great, late Pat Morita) was just too cool a guy to not pay attention to and we all of course remember “wax on, wax off” which was replaced in this film with a more applicable “jacket on, jacket off”. Yes, I’m aware what the latter part of that phrase sounds like, but I didn’t notice that until now so I don’t see it as an issue.

Smith’s character Dre moves with his mother to Beijing, China for some unknown reason. Maybe the recession is so bad in the US they moved to a country where kids get paid a penny an hour to make Walmart merchandise? Hard to say. Either way, they end up there and Dre finds himself slowly building an accidental relationship with his and his mother’s maintence man, Mr. Han (Chan).

It seems bullies don’t just exist in North America, they exist in China too – except there they know Kung-fu. Turns out that’s a bad thing when you’re a smart-ass. After getting rescued from one of these kung-frontations by Mr. Han who shows off his mad skills and serves the group of unruly teens, Dre is put in a position where he must learn the art of Kung-fu to respectfully take on his foes one at a time in a tournament that’s just around the corner. Start the 80’s montage seqence…

Ultimately, The Karate Kid is a reimaginging (guess The NEW Karate Kid didn’t have the same ring to it) that’s about your typical ‘retired master finds himself through the new student who in turn finds his own way due to the retired master who finds himself through the new student who – well, you get the point. Do they learn lessons in the end? Yes. Is it predictable? Yes. Does Jayden Smith borrow every acting nuance from his famed father Will Smith? Yup.

But dammit all I liked it anyways. The movie has a more authentic feel to it than the original, and Jackie Chan outdoes himself to the point where if this movie wasn’t, well, this movie – he may have even been considered for an Oscar next year. Chan hasn’t looked this comfortable in a role since The Tuxedo, and that’s saying a LOT.

The Karate Kid was still really fun and waaay better than I thought it would be. Not many remakes do the original justice and the mistake is that they usually don’t try often enough to be their own movie (otherwise what’s the point?). This film is a great example of that, another would be Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight (2008) – they do something different and don’t try and reshoot the original with different actors and CG (I site 1998’s Psycho).

For those reasons and definitely a few more I’m giving The Karate Kid an open door. Not because it’s the best movie of the year, but because it did right by the material and a resonating fan base and came out on top regardless of the pre-release negative expectations. There’s nothing here we haven’t seen before, but it’s not a half bad way to kill a couple of hours, either.

*Stills courtesy Columbia Pictures

Read more...

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME (2010)

Someone please use the sands of time to get this thing un-made…

I’ll say it straight up - I’ve never played the video game this movie is based off of. In this case it probably doesn’t matter though. First of all, I am a firm believer that a movie should stand alone from the material it is based off of. Exempli gratia, a Harry Potter movie should not be enhanced any further because I’ve read the books, outside of a few Easter eggs here and there for the die-hards. I wonder though, if Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time would have been a better movie for me if I had played the game? From what I’ve heard – the game is quite enjoyable (if not a bit easy).

Movies based on video games have always had a curse looming above their heads almost as if the video game gypsies made the decision long ago that no movie would be more than moderately successful when based on a video game. I site Bloodrayne, Super Mario Brothers and Doom all as evidence. Speaking of Super Mario Brothers, will someone get Tim Burton on an adaptation already? Clearly he won’t be doing any original work in the near future with remakes of Frankenweenie and The Addams Family on his plate. His style of directing and love of the weird could definitely make a Mario movie work. But I digress…

Jake Gyllenhaal (who I’m confident has about as much acting range as Ben Affleck) does his best to lose the gay cowboy typecast he set up in Brokeback Mountain by taking on an Indiana Jones-esque role as Dastan. Dastan is the charming, side-smirking adopted Prince of Persia who finds a magical dagger that lets him turn back time for about a minute. However, the knifey-knife needs to be refilled with the sands of time after it’s used every two or three times making it about as fuel efficient as a Hummer towing the Statue of Liberty - making the movie relatively lame. Ben Kingsley plays the bad guy Nizam once again proving we need a Ghandi sequel or he needs to fire his agent (see Sound of Thunder for further proof). Even Alfred Molina as ostrich racer Sheik Amar is completely awful and his performance the best out of all of them.

The fact of the matter is that Prince of Persia’s action sequences (which is all we’re really looking for) are unoriginal and a retread of a lot of other action movies we’ve all seen before. This includes slow motion Matrix-flips and death-defying acts that are about as realistic as the bus in Speed jumping that 50 foot gap. And yes, I do have the ability to hold off some harsh criticism when it comes to special effects in a supposed eye-candy movie about a magical time-warping dagger, but when nothing else holds its ground (the dialogue, the acting, the plot) then really it drags everything else down with it.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time gets a closed door. It may not be the worst movie of the year, but it’s awfulness is further multiplied due to the large budget and existing fan base that should have put a bit more pressure on writers and studio execs. The only plus here is that Disney showed some restraint when not releasing this in 3-D. Summer 2010, meet your version of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

Read more...