The End of the Page

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.

Quantum of Solace: Big Bang, Little Else

Why did I park so far away on opening night. I’m gonna miss the previews!

Rating: 5 out of 10

There are characters out there so iconic, so ingrained into the hearts and minds of the viewing public, that when a new chapter in the series emerges we rush out opening weekend, our hands clutching popcorn and our eyes pasted wide. Only a chosen few have made it into this cherished realm of public trust, but none as long and as stylishly as James Bond. This weekend brought his newest episode, Quantum of Solace, and it marked the second in the reign of current Bond persona, Daniel Craig. He broke out the gates with extreme critical and public appeal in the remake of Casino Royale, but now it was time to see if he could keep up the excitement and appeal.

Excitement, yes. Appeal, less so.

Besides being incredibly well dressed at almost all times, Bond is known for action and this chapter goes for the gusto from the moment the cameras roll. The movie opens with an impressive car chase, which inevitably leads our hero from overcrowded roadways into a wonderfully photographed rock quarry. It was a bold choice to jump right into the action without any set up whatsoever, but for those out there who somehow avoided seeing Casino Royale, it definitely helps to understand where this scene fits in (approximately twenty minutes from the ending of the last film). Lots of gunplay, screeching tires and near misses bring the curtain up nicely, but having a strong opening does not guarantee audience support for the rest of the film. We need to be taken on a journey, not just shown an amazingly expensive episode of Fear Factor. There needs to be plot and story behind the action to raise it up, but Quantum had very little in the area of foundation.

The story jumps around incredibly fast, not enough to lose sense of what is going on, but just enough to not give us time to invest. The Bond movies seem almost addicted to making every scene take place in a different foreign country, which makes for some great camera shots, but terrible continuity of scenes. Also, much of this movie was sub-textually about James Bond mourning the loss of his love from the last film and barely controlling his rage while seeking revenge. We fully got the revenge motif, but the mourning was shown only in the thinnest of manners. A nicked photograph and an old necklace were the only links to his emotional center, but they were rarely used in the brief moments between gunfire and roof jumping.

On the adrenalin front, Bond delivers as usual. One of the nice changes I feel to the modern day Bond is the older films used to show him skillfully sliding from one place to another, jumping and landing perfectly on any surface and so forth, but Craig makes every leap seem based solely on guts and gusto, not tact and talent. Throughout the movie, he lands on balconies and terraces by crashing into some random piece of furniture. The only reason the bad guys don’t get away from him is the dogged determination which forms the core of who the Bond character is. I think the rougher, tougher Bond is an obvious reflection on society today and what we want to see in a hero. Not so much a person who can dodge a bullet, but one who can take two shots to the leg, one to the arm and an uppercut, yet still win the fight.

Surrounding Bond as always are a bevy of beautiful women and a cabal of agents, both on his side and against. Gemma Arterton was mentioned a while back, by myself and others, as a “Bond Girl”, yet in this episode she is actually not the top of that food chain. Olga Kurylenko is the alpha female here and is a much more complex character. In the beginning her and Bond are on completely different tracks, but over the course of ninety minutes of insanity their paths intertwine, both strategically and emotionally. While not being a complete knock out performance, she is steadily improving over her turns in the unfortunate back-to-back duo of Hitman and Max Payne. Gemma, definitely worth mentioning, does finally bring a little taste of the classic Bond, just enough for an homage to the old days of Connery and Moore. Her sultry style hearkens back to the female characters of the early films and makes us remember why we love to visit the world of Bond so much. Also, without revealing a blatant spoiler, her role brings up the most direct recall from one of the most well known Bond moments. Feel free to let me know if you see it (it’s hard to miss). Now Bond would be nothing without a dastardly villain to track down and capture and this time it’s provided to us by Mathieu Amalric. A very popular and well rewarded star in the French cinema, this marked the American debut of Mathieu, who played the corrupt CEO with the world’s creepiest stare, Dominic Greene. While I do understand not every Bond villain has to be one who can last a round with him in a fist fight, in fact many of them don’t fit that category, but something about the final confrontation between these two didn’t sit right. So much had to be stacked against Bond to make this even halfway feasible and even then I found myself wondering why it was lasting so long. In cases like this, I find it’s better to give the villain a skilled right hand man, who endures the final fight, and let the boss deliver a final speech before giving up or blowing up.

Orbiting around Bond are some other side characters, but the only ones worth mentioning are Judi Dench who returns to continue her role as M, Jeffery Wright as the CIA agent with a working conscience and Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis, the convict turned trusted friend of Bond. All of these actors did a fine job in their limited screen time, but even they couldn’t hold up the lack of plot or story connectivity.

Recommendation: Quantum of Solace is good for some action, but a lackluster follow-up to Casino Royale, the relaunch of the Bond franchise. The execs are going to have to wipe the drawing board clean once again and see if they can’t relight the spark they just had, because one more like this and the fickle crowd will start murmuring to fix the problem with yet another new actor as Bond, which is not the answer. Plus, in my humble opinion, Daniel Craig was born to play this part. So, catch the afternoon matinee if you are drawn to the tradition, but if not, try re-watching Casino Royale. Homemade popcorn is better anyway.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

RocknRolla: Ritchie Gives Tarantino the Ole’ One-Two

[ Click above to buy the poster]

2 out of 3 people in the poster are looking off to the left. The girl would be looking there too, but she’s playing coy.

Are you looking to step into a bit of the ole’ underground? Yearning for a taste of the underbelly of London? Maybe you’re just missing the sounds of those thick British accents as the words stumble into your ears and confuse more than inform you. Whatever the case may be, there is only one man who truly provides the cure for those ills…Guy Ritchie.

The man behind Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch is back once again with another chapter is his series of old school mob movies. RocknRolla follows along a certain tradition for Ritchie, fast talking and fast reacting characters keep the audience tense, because they have absolutely no clue what will happen next. Keep the characters unpredictable and keep the audience involved, that’s the key. Now, if you noticed the title of this review, you might be wondering where the connection to Quentin Tarantino comes in (and that is a most perceptive and valid question. Well done, reader). After the movie ended I turned to my friend and said, “One sentence review: The British Pulp Fiction.” He sat back, processed the comparison and smiled. “Yep, you’re totally right.” I’ll show you what I mean while giving a brief overview of the story.

RocknRolla follows a small gang of low level criminals known as The Wild Bunch, who get hired by a sexy accountant to rip off some big money from an even bigger mobster. What she didn’t know is our little hooligans were already in debt to the local crime lord, who was doing business with the “bigger mobster”. So money is stolen, circulated, recycled and everyone ends up chasing each others tails. Also, there is a painting that gets stolen and becomes the MacGuffin of the film, which is a cinematic term for an object that is central to the plot, but no one ever really sees it. People philosophize, people die and people are nearly sodomized.

If the specifics of the comparison aren’t gelling for you yet, here’s a breakdown:

- MacGuffins: Pulp Fiction has the briefcase which we never see inside. RocknRolla has the painting which we never see the front of.

- Crooks in way over their head: Gerard Butler and Idris Elba play the heads of The Wild Bunch and are constantly trying to keep one step ahead of being killed by the very person they are working for, just like John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson (more Travolta though, in this case).

- The Girl is the Problem: Thandie Newton is the instigator of the troubles which put Gerard into play, just like Uma Thurman goes after Travolta, thereby putting him in a situation of life or death.

- Multiple storylines: RocknRolla is not set up in the vignette fashion of Pulp Fiction, but both deal with a number of plot lines that all converge in the end to tie things up.

- Sodomy Interruption: Both films have a scene where a guy is about to be raped by a pair of leather clothed dudes, when someone comes in and makes the snap judgment on who to kill.

It can be argued that some of these things are common to all movies of the crime/mob genre, but so many together in one film makes the case a little stronger. I’m not saying RocknRolla is bad, not in the least, but I left feeling like I’d seen it before.

RocknRolla is not going to be remembered in history for iconic performances, like Travolta and Jackson, but there was some good work being done. Butler hams it up nicely as a crook-cum-swashbuckler with no dancing feet. His inherent suaveness comes to bear in his scenes with Thandie, but he also gets to show his willingness to play that in the direction of a different gender. Which brings up one big difference between this and Pulp Fiction, and this could be easily attributed to the time periods, but RocknRolla was doused in homoerotic overtones. From the sodomy to the gay side characters to the subplot of Butler and his best friend in the gang, it never gets too far away from it. This provided for some really amusing humor and grinningly awkward scenes. Idris gets to play the straight man, no pun intended, to Butler’s machismo and he achieves it well. There is a certain calm to Idris on screen which makes me certain he’s going to be around for a long time to come. Tom Wilkinson also gets to walk a little on the more wacky side as the crime boss of London, trying to prove he’s still the big fish in town and time isn’t passing him by. Thandie, who I’ve enjoyed on screen in the past, doesn’t travel much farther beyond eye candy on this occasion. Jeremy Piven and Ludacris drop by as music producers, but get paltry little screen time. The one person who will leave the biggest visual impression is Toby Kebbell, as Johnny Quid. He spends most of the film shirtless and brings back frighteningly skinny images of Chistian Bale from The Machinist. Bale still wins the freakish battle, but Kebbell kept enough muscle tone to still look dangerous as well, which gives him an edge. Lastly, blink and you’ll miss Gemma Arterton, who will be seeing much more of in the upcoming Bond film, Quantum of Solace.

Ritchie on the other hand delivers once again in more traditional style. As I mentioned before, fans of those two early films of his will certainly enjoy this. The attitude is there, the raw edge is there and the camerawork is rife with quick cuts and whip pans, just like we’re used to from him. He also wrote the film again, which helps even more keep the style intact. I think many people will be glad to see the old Guy Ritchie back on the silver screen. Yet, all his past successes could be wiped out by the possibility of greatness with his upcoming film, Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr. as the questioning crusader, Jude Law as the encyclopedic Dr. Watson and Rachel McAdams as lady love interest. I’m containing my excitement for this, but just barely.

Recommendation: A good flick, bordering on great, far from amazing. If you’re a fan of Ritchie from the past, you won’t be disappointed. If you’ve never seen a film of his before, feel free to check this out, but don’t stop here, see Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels as well. As for the theater experience, after the initial whip panning frenzy in the first ten minutes, it settles down and becomes quite enjoyable. I also recommend Rasinettes over Goobers (take that, peanut lovers!).

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::