The End of the Page

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Magically Likeable

One of these guys already saw wardrobe that morning, the other just showed up to set. Guess which is which.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Summertime is a wonderful season for hiding from the baking, burning heat inside a cool, dark theater and being transported to endless imaginative worlds. Sometimes these worlds can be overwhelmingly complex and force you to think deeply about everything going on, and those create a very particular kind of enjoyment, but the season of the sun seems to lean more towards movies that allow you to put your brain on cruise control, sit back, sip your Coke and try not to smile. This recent cinematic offering is definitely one of those.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice follows the story of a young man, Dave, who finds out at too young an age that he is chosen by destiny to become an all-powerful sorcerer for the side of good in a millennia-long battle for the safety of the world. His mentor, Balthazar, does his best to prepare him for the upcoming battles, while also keeping Dave’s focus off the one thing impossible to resist, love.

This popcorn presentation is brought to us from the minds at Disney who seem hell-bent on plunging the depths of the Mouse House catalog for anything and everything that could be transformed into a full-length feature film. The title of the film is taken from the famous scene in Fantasia where Mickey Mouse enchants all the mops, brooms and assorted cleaning products to do his chores for him. That moment is directly lifted up and dropped into this live-action semi-adaptation, and actually fits surprisingly well, but the rest of the story is completely fresh, at least where previous Disney stories are concerned. I can’t blame Disney for their addiction to recycling, it certainly worked well with their multi-million dollar Pirates franchise, but I don’t see this one landing as well with audiences and certainly very little in terms of continuing sequels.

Now, before I get into where the movie takes its many missteps, let me engage you on why I still gave it a fairly high ranking. Jay Baruchel is truly riding the roller-coaster of success right now and while some may complain that he is typecast and plays virtually the same person in each film, the same can be said of Steve Carell and many others. If they play the part well, let them play on. Baruchel epitomizes the adorably awkward geek who never sees himself as cool as the people around him do. The rest of the story notwithstanding, it is always enjoyable for me to watch characters like these grow and step into their confidence and full potential. It’s a classic and well-used storyline for sure, but that’s because people respond to it consistently. He holds the heart of the film tenderly in his charmingly goofy expressions and timing. On the other hand, Nicholas Cage delivers what we’ve come to expect from him, a quirky, oddity of a person, yet performed with the commitment and dedication that can almost only come from someone equally quirky and odd in real life. Cage has made a long and prolific career from taking roles almost no one saw as playable and inserting a real person where only a caricature was found before. That being said, if you weren’t a fan of him before, he doesn’t add anything here that will sweep you to the other side.

With the good stuff resting comfortably above, here are some of the downsides to this spellbound selection. Numerous plot holes are completely ignored as the movie races to keep up with a fairly energetic pace. This actually pales in comparison to the story points and moments of character development that could’ve been easily achieved if the writing was just that much tighter. In scene after scene I felt there were set-ups that were not paid off and you just feel the air slip out of scenes that had real potential. The ending makes painfully little sense when weighed against all the information given throughout the film and you once again feel things really needed to play out a different way to achieve full redemption. I’m not going to say the version playing out in my head would’ve worked better, you never really know, but it certainly made more sense to me.

The End of the Page Recommendation: If you are a real fan of either of the two main cast members, this should give you a smile somewhere along the way, but keep some change in your pocket and catch the matinee (or even wait until DVD).

What did you think? Feel any comparison’s to National Treasure? Where does it rank on you Cage scale?

Prince of Persia: Pouring Sand from Times Before

Trilogy? No one said anything to me about a trilogy?
Rating: 5 out of 10

There is a certain extra effort that has to be put in when adapting video games to the screen. You can’t just grab the plot from the original video game, because a large part of your audience will be completely bored. On top of that, you run the risk of them beating the game in a much more efficient way than the movie plays out. Yet, you have to keep certain elements, mainly the origin story of your main character, which then creates particular boundaries on where the story can unravel. As I mentioned recently, this can go very bad (ala Super Mario Brothers), but the original Mortal Kombat proved delightfully entertaining, even with the odd novelty of Christopher Lambert as Raiden (Really? Who cast that?). The adaptations have been getting increasingly high concept and high budget as the games themselves break new ground for imagination and technology, which leads us to this weekend’s entrant into the genre, straight from the gates of the fabled Mouse House, Disney.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time grabs the main character from the original game and sets him on a quest to not only clear his name for a murder he did not commit, but also uncover the magic behind a mystical dagger which can reverse time for those lucky enough to possess it. Enemies surround our hero, some lusting for the power of the dagger, while others are more honed to collect the large ransom on his head and he finds himself with the  most unlikely of allies, a beautiful princess of the kingdom he just helped overthrow.

Prince of Persia is entering a void left open by the downfall of the Mummy franchise, the critically abysmal last chapter of Indiana Jones and the mostly forgotten (or consciously blocked out) attempt to begin the Dirk Pitt domination of summertime adventure with Sahara. A good desert-filled action movie always has a dollar to be earned in the blockbuster summertime season. Maybe it’s the abundance of bright, hot sunshine in the locations, or possibly the presence of sweaty, well-toned actors and actresses in every other shot. Whatever the reasons may be, historical or present day action films set in the outlands of the desert have a genre all to themselves and Prince of Persia is looking to take control of it. There is rumor another Indiana Jones could be in the works (and why not since it made a ridiculous amount of money, who cares that it was terribly painful to watch), but Disney could most likely churn out one, maybe even two more chapters in this series before Indy crawls back to the screens. This summer there is nothing else being offered in this particular arena of actioneers, so the timing is quite well done.

Another big move inside this sand-blown story is the introduction of Jake Gyllenhaal as a viable action hero. While he has shown the ability to buff up his physical presence, in films like Jarhead and Brothers, and handle leading a film with major studio money behind it, like The Day After Tomorrow, all of those had him more focused on his intelligence and humanity than his stuntwork or bravado. Prince of Persia shows off a new side to Gyllenhaal, one audiences once had a chance of seeing years back when rumors floated around about him being cast over Tobey Maguire in Spider-Man (looking back at Spider-Man 3, maybe it was a good thing Gyllenhaal missed being caught up in that web). He very much holds his own here and continues to display his boyish charms, which won him such approval all the way back in October Sky, but now adds this new element of mischievous muscle. When not declaring his purity of character on screen, he spends his time flirting, either with danger or with his coquettish co-star, Gemma Arterton. That combination makes him interesting enough to hold audience attention in between the various action scenes.

But that is where things end in the positive realm of Prince of Persia. While slow motion can be used to exciting effect in some films, this one was wildly addicted to stopping time, not only in the fictional world, but also on screen, mostly whenever Gyllenhaal’s feet left the ground in any type of flip or diving motion. There were also areas where the CGI was incredibly poor and stuck out painfully from the rest of the physical set. This in particular was a disappointment coming from Disney, which knows all too well how to mix CGI and reality (just go back and watch the original Pirates of the Caribbean). Yet, beyond all those things, the one thing which left me more saddened than all the others while I walked back to my car was the weak and unimaginative writing. I will always give credit to any writer for getting something through the system and onto the screen and there is always the possibility that the finished product relates very little to their original script, but Prince of Persia felt older than the desert temples they were filming. There is a fine line between using a previous piece of work as a structure or even in terms of an homage, but this film was a blatant rip-off in my mind of Shakespeare’s King Lear and Hamlet, with a touch of Disney’s own Aladdin thrown in (the opening sequence in Prince of Persia is a near live action remake of the beginning of the animated Aladdin, which means Disney ripped themselves off.) Everything here was too obvious from scene one and that dragged down much of the excitement brought about by the action sequences.

The End of the Page Recommendation: In worldwide gross, Prince of Persia is currently just squeaking by its production budget, so in the end this will be a success, so you can expect another one down the road, but you might see a slightly smaller one, and if that means no Gyllenhaal, it will probably mean direct to DVD. As for this one, a decent summertime afternoon show, but save it for the couch instead of the theater.

9: A Beautiful Picture Can Still Tell Less Than a Thousand Words

I know you’re the new guy and all, but seriously, do you have any idea what’s going on in this story?

Rating: 6 out of 10

Animation for many years in this country has been relegated to the realm of children’s movies and that fact has happily and successfully been pushed forward by Disney, Dreamworks and the reigning king of cartoons, Pixar. I have nothing against any of these companies in terms of the style of animated movies they create; many of them are personal favorites of mine (I’m looking at you, Finding Nemo), but it’s very rare to find an animated film created solely for the more mature audience. Japan has been doing this for decades with their Anime industry (although they admittedly push this fact beyond my point by stretching into the actual adult or porn industry). These movies tell more dramatic stories, harbor a darker tone and don’t always end up filled with shiny, happy people (or fish, aliens, ogres, whatever the case may be). There are stories that can be told in truly amazing fashion through the art of animation and I yearn for the time when the American market opens itself up to those opportunities. Loading all that responsibility onto the shoulders of one film is surely too much, but I believe each one that lands on the streets of Hollywood helps pave the way for the next one, so let’s take a look at the next brick in that road.

9 is a post-apocalyptic tale about man versus machine. Artificial intelligence has once again turned against its creator and gone rogue, forcing an all out war between humans and machines, except this time humans got the short end of the stick. The only chance the human race has left rests in the cloth-made hands of nine small dolls, created by an inventor with skills in dark magics and then infused with pieces of his own soul. Each one has its own personality and the whole group must find a way to work together to rid this dead world of the mechanical scourge.

Directed and written by Shane Acker, 9 is a beautiful example of the power of animation. Sprawling landscapes mixed with devastating futuristic imagery makes for an impressive visual delight. Unfortunately, to live up to the dramatic power of the animation, it needed to be backed up by the strength and coherence of the story and that is where Shane fell quite short. Post-apocalyptic stories are nothing new, stretching from Mad Max to Wall-E (yes, it actually qualifies), but 9 brought a new twist to the “world left behind” because it was now seen and acted upon only through the eyes of small living puppets. The initial idea showed great promise, but the execution failed to live up to it.

Right from the beginning, the main character, who is named 9 for the number on his back, runs an illogically rapid pace from waking up in a completely new world to full understanding of his surroundings and making wild decisions affecting the entire group he finds himself with. He stumbles around nearly blind to the consequences of his actions, but he does it earnestly and with conviction so we are supposed to root for him. Unfortunately, you just end up feeling like he is chaos in a small cloth sack. Other characters, such as 1 (the power hungry leader) and 8 (the oafish brute), are also somewhat hard to get behind, even when they try to mean well. On the up side, 3 and 4 (twin catalogers) and 7 (the female rogue adventurer) are quite interesting and come along just at the right time to pick the movie up from the doldrums. As for the remaining puppets, 2 (the curious inventor), 5 (the one-eyed underling) and 6 (the partially crazy artist), they were all done well, but not given enough to do in order to fully draw in the audience.

One obvious way to notice the particular failings in this film is how long it feels despite being so incredibly short (it only clocks in at 72 minutes). Some of that feeling comes from the twisting, jumping and seemingly unconnected leaps of faith the logic makes throughout the film. If the road of understanding breaks underneath the feet of the viewer, they have to spend all the more time finding their way across.

The End of the Page recommendation: If you’re a fan of animation, try to see this in the theater, since it really does deserve to be viewed in the best fashion, but for those not in tune with the world of more adult-themed animated films, I’m sure there is a new episode of CSI: Anytown USA on somewhere.

Bolt: Some Sizzle, Yet No Spark

Do you know how close that place is to the ocean? Do you realize how much water that is?!

Rating: 6 out of 10

We sometimes cast a wistful gaze back into history and remember all the purely magical moments of our childhoods: learning to ride a bike, dumping out the first bag of Halloween candy after a monster haul, or playing with the first new family pet. All of these things hold a special place in our hearts and right alongside those for most of us is the memory of watching our first Disney film. Whether it was Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Steamboat Wille or Aladdin (had to mention it since it is still my reigning favorite from ‘The House of Mouse’), those magical cartoons had a profound effect on several generations and for that, Disney deserves a certain amount of credit. Yet, today things are slightly different. In the world of animated cinema Disney is scratching for third place on the totem pole, underneath the powerhouse studios of Pixar and Dreamworks Animation. It’s true, it can be argued Disney is on top of the pole since they own Pixar, but Pixar operates very much as a separate company and they gained their early success and prestige before Disney made the purchase. Disney is merely the distribution chain for the wonderment emanating from the minds and dreams of the Pixar creative staff. So the question becomes, does Disney still have the chops to compete in the animation circuit?

Yes, they do, as long as they are satisfied with coming in third.

Disney’s latest contribution is Bolt, the story of a dog who doesn’t know he’s an actor on a television show and ends up lost in the real world trying to find his owner, who was fake-kidnapped on the show. Along the way Bolt captures an alley cat in an effort to force her to lead him to the Green-eyed Man (his TV arch-nemesis) and also picks up a hamster that happens to be a fanatical fan named Rhino. Their cross country journey is full of adventures and mishaps, all in an effort to lead Bolt home and back to his owner. The journey is also an internal one for Bolt as he struggles with the realization that he is a normal, non-superhero type dog.

Bolt is a charming movie and should be enjoyable to most young kids out there, but the modern day marker for true success in this genre is how many adults can you attract without their children in tow? For that crowd, Bolt doesn’t offer a whole lot. The trailer was incredibly well-designed and caught a good deal of the highlights in the film, mainly showcasing the role of Rhino the hamster, who stole most of his scenes and felt light in the overall scope of the film. Boosting up his role might not have fit in the structure of the story, but it certainly would have brought up the laughs. Another point in which I think the movie fared really well was the depiction of the pigeons, both in New York and in Los Angeles. The movements and seemingly spastic thought processes in those birds were amusing no matter what they were talking about. Those animators really captured a brilliant idea of what it could be like to listen to their thoughts. The Los Angeles based pigeons…well, those were hilarious for a whole different reason, which I won’t go into for the sake of not ruining the scene. (The only pitfall here is it might only be funny to people who live out here and work in the entertainment industry. Even so, I’m lucky because I do live here and I did think they were the high point of the flick.) As for the main characters, Bolt made sense throughout the film and always stayed on a strong motivated course, but I just wasn’t endeared to him. I can’t put my finger on exactly what it was, but something lacked in making Bolt stand out amongst the cadre of side characters and he ended up being only a lynch pin instead of driving force for the story. The alley cat, Mittens, played well off Bolt and acted more like the Chorus in Greek and Roman theatre, providing the reactions of the common audience member, since Bolt’s own worldview was so skewed. Mittens continually reminded us that what was happening was more-or-less insane, but in the end also showed us what was most important. Surprising to me, Mittens felt more like the heart or emotional center of the film over Bolt.

With animated features another big hurdle is to find a cast of voices that not only fits the characters, but also doesn’t overshadow the movie itself. John Travolta provided the voice of Bolt and admittedly when the movie began I felt his voice was too old for the character and too aware of himself, but as it went on I felt Travolta settled into it more and became more attuned with the character. On the other hand, Miley Cyrus was not a terribly good choice as the voice of Penny, Bolt’s real life and on-screen owner. She was certainly picked for star power and to further connect the movie to the teen-and-under audience, but Miley’s voice is raspy, bordering on smoky at times and while that might work for her pop star image, it didn’t play coming from the mouth of a young, innocent looking girl.

One last interesting tidbit is Bolt was actually executive produced by John Lasseter, one of Pixar’s creators who now works for both companies. He was brought onto Disney Animation to help bring them back into the forefront of the animation world, but I can’t say I really felt that Pixar spark inside this movie. I have no doubt Disney will continue to move forward and fight their way onwards and upwards, but so far it has been a slow crawl for them.

Recommendation: If you have young children, jump on in, but if you’re heading out on your own, you better be a die-hard fan of children’s movies. Also, this is being offered in 3-D at some theaters, but feel free to skip that option. I saw the 3-D version and there wasn’t anything really worth the hassle of wearing those glasses and possibly fighting off the resulting headache.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::