Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - Movie Review

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a film about a dagger that holds the 'sands of the gods' and can turn back time. By thirty minutes in I wish I had my own magical dagger that could have turned back time so I wouldn't be sitting through this film. The plot is simple, so simple that it's dreadfully boring. The Persian Army invades the mystical city of Alamut in which a dagger that can turn back time resides. Street urchin, Dastan (Jaky Gyllenhaal), who was adopted by the King of Persia when he was a young boy, becomes the holder of the dagger and also the key suspect when his father is murdered. On the run from his brothers and uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), Dastan and the beautiful princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) find out that the entire attack on Alamut and assassination of the King was all a conspiracy set up by Nizam. Nizam wished to obtain the dagger, turn back time and have his brother killed so that he would become King and rule over the Kingdom of Persia instead. The movie's originality died within the first 30 seconds as it's opening sequence was almost mirrored to Disney's Aladdin, the rest of the film played off like Hamlet.  And then, of course, there is the screaming parallels to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The film is 2 hours long; yet the plot is so simple and predictable that the two hours stretch and feel like forever. The action sequences were cool, at first, but very quickly became very repetitive and were filled with slow-motion and stop-action camera shots that even bastardized the sell-point of the film. The scenes are over the top and ridiculous to the point where I actually found myself moaning out loud as every cliche in the book was played out. In one scene a character has had 5 metal spikes stabbed through his chest; when the camera pans over him, he is obviously dead as blood bubbles out of his mouth. Five minutes later when Dastan is in a fight that he cannot win this 'dead man' suddenly has the strength to grab a giant spike and stab it all the way through the man fighting Dastan.  In another scene Nizam is about to commit an act that could destroy the world and instead of rushing and stopping him Dastan and Princess Tamina decide to share the kiss that they kept trying to throughout the entire film. Don't get me started on the last 15 minutes as the end was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in a film. By principal I cannot like a film that ends the same way that this film did... making everything that we have watched over the last two hours pointless... it almost made me as mad as the TV series Lost has made me.

This script was painful; as was its execution. I thought only John Cusack walked through movies without giving a damn; but now it seems as if it's the in thing to do. Yes, the action was well choreographed, the acting was obviously left on the back-burner until it was too late.  Prince of Persia was written by three veteran screenwriters; including Boaz Yakin's whose claims to fame include From Dusk til Dawn 2 and Dirty Dancing 2. I'm sure it must have been his contributions to the script that made Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time feel like a horrible sequel. The other two screenwriters have worked together before writing sub-par films like The Great Raid and The Uninvited. They are also the minds behind the upcoming Disney flick The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which after this film makes me lose faith in how that film will turn out on release.

But, for the lack of writing talent one can hope that amazing director Mike Newell could still save this film; he has, in fact, been behind the camera for film greats including: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Mona Lisa Smile, and has 76 directing credits to his name over the past 46 years. And while I can honestly say the film was well shot and had great moments of cinematography Newell's mind was obviously more focused on getting great fight shots and working on capturing a great set than on creating a movie with a decent plot that was actually able to captivate it's audience.  People were walking out of this film before the credits even started rolling.

Let's talk about the credits for a second. I know that this isn't going to be the case across the world; but at the Premiere - no credits were rolled. I don't know if that's the fault of the studio or the theatre; but when the film ended - no credits rolled. And I know it has nothing to do with the film; but there were hundreds of people who devoted so much time and effort to this film that even though not a lot of people stay for the credits their names still deserve the right to scroll across the big screen. I sat patiently waiting to see if they would start; after five minutes nothing had yet to roll and I slowly left the theatre. At least the credits would have been more entertaining than the actual film.

This film was dreadfully boring. It's plot nearly drifted me to sleep many times and it's acting was atrocious. Disney's live action films have been a let-down over the past few years... I can only hope that they manage a rebound with their upcoming Sorcerer's Apprentice and if not that, with Tron Legacy.

This film is definitely a skipper. Don't waste your money; go watch Shrek Forever After again or instead wait a week until something that looks like it has more promise to it like Splice or Get Him to the Greek or maybe even Killers.

1 out of 5 stars

Shrek Forever After: Movie Review

Shrek Forever After is the fourth and final installment of the Shrek series brought forth by the ever creative DreamWorks Animations. Once again Shrek, Fiona, Donkey and Puss in Boots are intertwined in another adventure of a lifetime. However, this time only Shrek knows it. When domesticated life gets a little dull for Shrek he makes a deal with the tricky Rumplestiltskin just to be a scary ogre again for one day; but to get a day he must give a day.  Without thinking of the consequences Shrek signs away a day from his childhood; which Rumplestiltskin takes to prevent Shrek from being born. This of course means that Princess Fiona is never born and the Kingdom of Far Far Away is in peril.  When Shrek comes to on his day he finds himself in a drastically altered Far Far Away where no one knows him, including Donkey, Puss in Boots and Fiona. So before days end, to save himself and his loved ones he must make Fiona fall in love with him all over again while defeating the evil Rumplestiltskin.

The plot, for a Shrek film, is actually quite complex yet it plays out well. Once again voice actors Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, and Eddie Murphy are back voicing their respective roles. Mike Mitchell helmed the wheels as director. Although being a vetern director Mitchell hasn't done any decent work since his work on the very short-run but hysterical television show Greg the Bunny.  Shrek Forever After was written by Josh Klausner (writer of Shrek the Third) and Darren Lemke (who hasn't written anything worthwhile in his entire life).  As for a script it was alright; nothing to write home about. My only concerns with the script were the excessive references to the very first Shrek  and the fact that it was super dark, content wise. Not a film I would take young children to.

The film as a Shrek film was much better than the atrocity that was Shrek the Third. I'm in the minority of people who have never been a big Shrek fan from the beginning. I didn't like the first one and I hated the third one; although I really, really liked the second one.  I can't really compare Shrek Forever After to any of the other Shrek films since the storyline is very unique (other than the references) from the other Shrek films.

The film itself was, as I mentioned before, quite dark; yet despite being the least funny of the Shrek  films the few laughs it had were good ones.  I didn't think I was going to like fat Puss-in-Boots either; but he ended up being one of the highlights. However, while I wouldn't take very young children to the film it is a good family movie.

As for the 3D - to be honest; I didn't really notice it. The glasses were more of a hassle than anything - but than again I'm not a big fan of 3D. I would suggest you just do the 2D route because the movie is enjoyable regardless of 3D or 2D.

Yes the content is dark; but it has it's moments and the story is actually enjoyable. If Shrek the Third scared you off of Shrek films you should still give this one a chance.

Oh - and as a last minute aside - the character of Rumplestiltskin was introduced very briefly in Shrek the Third in a bar scene; where he appears as a tall and lanky character not a short angry character. Just thought it was interesting to point that out; especially since the third and fourth Shrek were written by the same writer.

3 out of 5 stars.

The Trotsky: Movie Review

Jay Baruchel has had a busy year. The Trotsky is the fourth film that he has been in the past 12 months with another one on the docket to come out in July. Despite growing up and living in Montreal it's a true honour to say that Baruchel hails from Ottawa where a lot of great talent is managing to find its way to Hollywood's doorsteps.  Jay Baruchel is joined by the ever talented Colm Feore,  Anne-Marie Cadieux, Emily Hampshire, Saul Rubinek and Michael Murphy to provide a knee-slapping Canadian comedy that pulls no punches yet remains intellectually stimulating from start to end.

Leon Bronstein (played by Jay Baruchel) believes he is the reincarnation of the late Leon Trotsky; and therefore feels destined to bring social justice to whomever he meets and wherever he works.  After staging a failed hunger strike to unionize his father's packaging/shipping company he finds his funds cut off and he is headed to public school for the first time.  At the public school Leon realizes that those in power, mostly the principal, Principal Berkhoff (played by Colm Feore) are abusing their power; so Leon decides to unionize the school; which leads not only to a strike but also other antics which provide two hours of hilarity.

First off, Canadian movies, unless made by Paul Gross, get a bad rep and are treated too much like foreign films. Films like Lucid, Niagra Motel, Mouth-to-Mouth, The Cabin Movie, and one of my favourites Bon Cop, Bad Cop are completely ignored by film fans, and even critics at time, despite the fact that not only do they represent great moments in Canadian culture but they are also some of the best works of art out there.  The Trotsky as great it is will likely end up on the same slate. Release date is May 14, 2010 yet it is only being released in one Ottawa-theatre.  It's a travesty that we manage to neglect Canadian film so easily; especially when it's so good.

The plot of The Trotsky is simple, yet intellectually stimulating and manages to capture Canadian comedy at it's best.  It was written and directed by Jacob Tierney who is also writer and director for another upcoming Jay Baruchel film Notre Dame de Grace. Tierney has more experience in front of the camera than behind it; but despite The Trotsky only being his third film as a writer and director he has really nailed it as an art form. He has managed to take something as simple as one-loan Montreal high school and make it seem like the most important thing in the world; or at least the starting point for something great. No one could have captured this story in the same way that Tierney did.

The acting was phenomenal. Jay Baruchel is at the top of his game and has been ever since he really broke out onto the scene in Judd Apatow's Undeclared. I can't wait to see what else he is able to pull off as each performance he pulls off I think to myself; he can't get better - yet manages to prove me wrong every time. The supporting cast, Canadian as well, were breathtaking to watch and everyone, down to the involved background performers, gave their heart out for this performance to make one of the best Canadian films, let me rephrase that, one of the best films, I have ever seen.  Going through the cast list on imdb and seeing the list of actors and actresses it's neat to see how many have actually filmed here in Ottawa, including projects I have worked on.  Colm Feore, while not his best performance, is still amazing.  Colm Feore is one of my favourite actors and he doesn't disappoint.  This is the same man who has performed many live shows on Stratford while managing to film over one hundred movies or television shows including his ultimate performance as Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the captivating miniseries: Trudeau. I'm very excited to see how he does on the upcoming Paramount film Thor.

There isn't really anything wrong with this movie. It wasn't 100% perfect but in hindsight I can't think of anything that I would change about it and this film is definitely the best film I have seen since last summer's The Hurt Locker.

I recommend this film. I highly recommend it! Not only as a Canadian film but as a great film in general.  Go out and support Canadian film so that way the next Canadian release is more than just a one-theatre run!

4.5 out of 5 stars

Letters to Juliet: Movie Review

I'll be honest, seeing Letters to Juliet was really the last thing on my mind. I had no real interest in sitting through another rom-com and seeing the exact same plot developments we've all seen a hundred times before. However, when I realized that Jose Rivera was one of the co-writers of this flick I knew I had to give it a shot. Rivera has written for Diffr'ent Strokes and Family Matters as well as the film The Motorcycle Diaries and one of my personal favourites: Trade.  Tim Sullivan, the other co-writer is fairly new to me; and so I didn't know what to expect.  However, I decided to give it a try; I really didn't want to see other movies like Valentine's Day or Everybody's Fine yet found myself thoroughly enjoying both of those flicks... maybe Letters to Juliet would buck the trend of the regular rom-com and provide me with some decent laughs and some unexpected plot twists.  I was sorely disappointed.

Letters to Juliet follows Sophie (played by Amanda Seyfried - who has a surprising amount of arm hair) who goes on a 'pre' honeymoon with her fiance, Victor (played by Gael Garcia Bernal) to Verona. While in Verona she and her fiance slowly drift apart while he tries to find suppliers for his New York Italian restaurant and she starts to help out the secretaries of Juliet. An organization of women who respond to love/help letters that are left by women who come all the way from around the world to leave a letter at the wall of Juliet Capulet. Sophie finds a letter in the wall that has been hidden in a hole for fifty years; she responds and to her surprise the author of the letter, Claire (played by the ever-talented Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) show up in Verona to follow the advice of the letter and find Claire's long lost love.  Meanwhile everyone, Victor excluded, learns more about who they are and how they want to live their lives regardless of the consequences.

The movie is, to be frank, boring. The plot, as simple as it is, feels almost insignificant in the long run and the audience gets confused over what the main plot truly is. The movie has many subplots but no real singular plot. Sophie wants to become a writer for The New Yorker leads to Sophie finding a story and becoming a writer for The New Yorker. Sophie is engaged to an inattentive fiance who cares more for his restaurant than her leads to Sophie realizing she needs to take control of her life and find someone who is willing to change for her - which to me is a horrible message. The fact that even the man she finds in this plot to 'love her' and she finds herself 'falling in love' with requires change and he even makes a comment that is along the lines of how he would change who he was for her... can't she find someone compatible to her own needs without requiring a drastic change? Finally there's the plot where Claire comes to Verona to find her old lover; all intertwined through the shit-disturbing Sophie.  Three plots; which even intertwined to formulate one plot feel scattered, drawn out much longer than need be and also dreadfully boring.

The movie is your typical rom-com made in the likeness of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet; two lovers whose families are so different yet they find themselves being pulled closer together despite what the consequences may be; however it's also dreadfully boring and the only likable character is Claire; but that could just be because Vanessa Redgrave was the only talented actor in the film.  Gary Winick has been a director of many misses; including 13 Going on 30 and Bride Wars; it is not surprising that Letters to Juliet is a mere follow-up.

Amanda Seyfried seems to be getting a lot of attention ever since she shared a kiss with Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body, yet no one seems to remember that flick and it's not even a year old.  Despite the fact that she is on the hit HBO show Big Love much attention is from her more risque roles with Boogie Woogie and Chloe. In many ways she reminds me of Anne Hathaway; a decent actress who went wild in a few movies and just hasn't been the same since her Disney days.  Has Seyfried's time already come and pass? Her acting in this film would certainly suggest so.  Don't even get me started on Gael Garcia Bernal - I don't even know what the hell he was trying to do. His character's behaviour was so erratic; that I'm not sure if his character came off as a two-dimensional character because of his lack of talent or the lack of writing skills involved in this film. Finally; the best for last; Christopher Egan who fluctuates from being a total douche bag to a love-struck puppy and back again.  His acting was almost more two-dimensional than that of Bernal's.

Ultimately this movie fails on many levels; a poor script and dull acting are just the first two and they are enough for me to warn you to skip this film. I understand that it's got that romantic nature that many people out there like; but I guarantee you before; if romantic-comedies are your genre you've seen this film before; many times.

1.5 out of 5 stars

Iron Man 2: Movie Review

Iron Man 2. What can I say? It's definitely the most anticipated movie of 2010 and it's going to rule the box office opening weekend; but just how good is it?  Everybody remembers how horrible Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was in comparison to it's predecessor.  Would Iron Man 2 have to suffer the same fate?  Let me answer the question before I get bogged down in the details of the film: no.  While not better than Iron Man as The Dark Knight was to Batman Begins or X:2 was to X-Men, Iron Man 2 is still a solid sequel.

Iron Man 2 starts off just a few months after Iron Man finishes. Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) has come out of the closet as Iron Man and has 'successfully privatized world peace.'  The world loves him; the government hates him; and weapon-manufacturers are jealous of him.  Across the world in Russia a man by the name of Vanko and former partner of Tony's father passes away in poverty after being cast out of America as a spy; he however possesses an advanced formula of the Iron Man suit as he helped design it.  His son, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), takes the plans, builds his own Iron Man suit (Whiplash) and plots his revenge on Tony Stark for the desecration of the Vanko family name. Tony, however, is suffering from a problem himself, his suit is releasing palladium into his body slowly killing him, which pushes him away from the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), his best friend Lt. Col. Roads (Don Cheadle), and his new associates Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).  Acting as a one-man show Tony must save himself, and the world from the likes of ultra-jealous weapon manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and the likes of the ultra-evil Ivan 'Whiplash' Vanko.

First off I must say that the acting is phenomenal. Mickey Rourke, almost silent throughout the film, plays the perfect superhero villain and Sam Rockwell nearly steals the show as Justin Hammer of Hammer Industries. And leading lady Pepper Potts got pushed aside for Scarlett Johansson's portrayal of the super-sexy Natalie Rushman ("Black Widow").  Don Cheadle on the other hand walked around looking embarrassed to have stolen best friend Terrance Howard's role.  And as for Robert Downey Jr., this is where he shines. No other role was suited for him like the role of Tony Stark.

Let's talk about the movie itself, it's not perfect, far from it. A lot of the middle part of the movie is anti-climatic showing Tony Stark slaving away by himself in his lab to create a machine to save himself and then it compares to Ivan Vanko sitting in a lab preparing his army of drones/creating his new-and-improved Whiplash suit to destroy Tony Stark.  The movie started off very strong with an epic battle between Iron Man and Whiplash and quickly faded away to more of a personal drama for both before an epic battle at the end, culminating with a rather weak showdown between Whiplash and Iron Man and The War Machine.  And that is the only part of where the movie fails.  It starts off with a great big boom, and becomes very anticlimatic quickly; but at the same time; it's not an anti-climatic atmosphere that is necessarily a negative one - it's just how the film worked out.

I liked the film; and so did the crowd at the screening. A lot of people cheered throughout the film and loved the scene after the credits.  The movie was also funny, which was a nice change.  The Dark Knight, X:2, Spiderman 2 and other sequels (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen excluded) tried to move away from comedy and focus more on a serious darker nature. I feel that Iron Man 2 was able to hit a darker level while staying rather funny.  I was also impressed with how clever John Favreau's (the director's) cameo's were. They were quick, but frequent, and entertaining enough for the audience to enjoy them.  He made a very good follow up to his smash hit Iron Man.

I am very excited to see what Iron Man 3 and The Avengers Initiative bring us and hope that John Favreau manages to stay attached.  Ultimately this is a fun summer blockbuster and I highly recommend it!

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Losers: Movie Review

I was looking forward to seeing this graphic novel to movie adaptation... unfortunately; the critics don't lie when they say The Losers doesn't live up to the hype.  The first problem is the casting.  Oscar Jaenada, who plays Cougar, looks too much like Justin Long faking a bad Spanish accent; Zoe Saldana, while gorgeous in other films, looks like a cheap two-dollar whore; and Jeffrey Dean Morgan? Well I haven't forgiven him as an actor since he played the dead ghost of Denny who wouldn't go away on Grey's Anatomy.  And the rest of the supporting cast including the ever-talented Idris Elba, Chris Evans, and Jason Patric just fall flat; and it could be in part to the script, the directing, a combination or just a lack of enthusiasm for this film.  It was obviously just a paycheck for the actors in the film who walked through it worse than John Cusack did in 2012.

The story behind The Losers is about a band of soldiers get betrayed by a rogue agent in the CIA and have to fake their own deaths so as not to be the subject of an international hunt.  They in turn meet Aisha, played by Zoe Saldana, who miraculously knows about everything that's happened to them and how they can catch up to Max (Jason Patric) the rogue agent who betrayed them.  The weak story is complimented by a series of pitiful stop-action fight sequences that at times are non-sensical and at other times bordering on pathetically choreographed.  The worst part about this pathetic movie was that the ending was very unsatisfying as the studio definitely tried to set it up for a sequel; which we can all pray will never happen.

Director Sylvain White's claim to fame; if you want to call it that is Stomp the Yard; yet he seems to be on tap to direct a remake to Ronin. I daresay we minimize White's budgets so we don't get mainstream films like The Losers that look to be promising and yet end up boring us to tears. I was hoping for so much more from writers James Vanderbilt and Peter Berg.  Vanderbilt was the genius behind the great story Basic, and the enjoyable Zodiac and The Rundown so I was hoping for something fantastic with The Losers but the story was definitely a disjointed mess of crappy dialogue and horrible plot developments.

This movie isn't worth the 95 minute run-time that it is.

Definitely add it to your skip-pile.

1 out of 5 stars

Furry Vengeance: Movie Review

Sorry for the delays; I have been ultra-busy with work and everything else.  I saw this film before it was released and I just knew that it wouldn't last long.  Furry Vengeance is a film about a contractor, Dan Sanders (played by Brendan Fraser), who is building a suburban community in the Oregon forests, despite the fact that he doesn't really want to build it.  His boss Neal Lyman (played by Ken Jeong) is forcing his hand and making him get ready to tear down the entire forest.  The forest animals find out of this plan and don't like it; and mistaking Dan Sanders as the ultimate devil rather than Neal Lyman.  They make his life a living hell, ultimately trying to kill him, driving him insane to the point where he tries to kill all of them. In the end of course Dan Sanders bonds with the animals and helps them drive Neal Lyman away.

The plot is simple, it's a child's movie for God's sake, but it's the worst kind of child's movie.  A movie where there are no good guys because throughout the movie you grow to hate the animals and hope that Dan Sanders manages to kill them; but at the same time Dan Sanders is just as annoying and so you hope the animals win - or ultimately the terrorists drop a nuke on Oregon erasing this painful movie from our memories with the destruction of everyone. 

If you like movies that are filled with cheap nut shots, animals talking using word bubbles and an incoherent plot filled with skunks spraying the main character (every other scene) than this is the movie for you. If you were the parent who cringed every time a dog talked in Beverly Hills Chihuahua just tell your kids that this movie didn't come out and take them to see How To Train Your Dragon again.

This film was directed by Roger Kumble, who infamously directed Cruel Intentions and from then on, a pile of garbage.  Furry Vengeance can be added to that pile of garbage alongside Cruel Intentions 2, Just Friends, The Sweetest Thing and College Road Trip.  The writing team of Josh Gilbert and Michael Carnes join forces to create a tour de force that was even worse than their first film Mr. Woodcock. It seems that the only thing they know how to write is cheap body humour and it makes it understandable how Steve Carrell and Jeremy Pivens both passed on playing Dan Sanders leaving the sinking-ship Brendan Fraser to step in and take hold of reins.

I don't understand why anyone would attach themselves to this project; let me give you a few examples of how painful this movie was:

1. There is a scene which takes about 10 minutes and all it is, is a crow tapping at a window pane trying to keep Dan Sanders from falling asleep. His wife, pitifully played by Brooke Shields doesn't here it, neither does their son. But this 10 minutes of tapping is also 10 minutes of Dan Sanders rolling around in bed frustrated wanting to scream; ultimately it leads to him climbing out onto the roof, falling off, landing in the hot tub and falling asleep there.
2. Dan Sanders is driving in a car. 20 skunks pop out of nowhere causing him to crash. This scene is repeated two or three times throughout the film. 
3. Whenever the animals talk to each other they have word bubbles pop out of their heads.
4. Nut shots. Nut shots. Nut shots. One where Dan Sanders is soaked around the crotch-region and makes a public statement: "Oh, look at Mr. Pee-Pee pants."
5. The film is supposed to be about saving the environment and helping animals out; but the animals come across as mean sonsofbitches and are so vengeful and hateful that I almost hated them more than anything else in this film; and I LOVE animal films!

This movie is not cute in anyway. It's dreadfully boring and painful to watch.  A child behind me kept crying for the first 30 minutes: 'I don't like this movie! I don't like this movie.' Until her parents took her out.  Upon leaving the theatre kids had mixed reactions about it but parents HATED the film.  Ultimately detested the film saying that the only benefit it would have would have been if it had been released in mid July - August so they could escape for a 90 minute air-conditioned nap while their kids mindlessly watched the retarded antics brought to you by Roger Kumble.

Don't bother with this movie. Seriously, as a parent you will hate the film.  Don't subject yourself to this torture. It somehow managed to score a 2.1 out of 10 on IMDB.

0.5 out of 5 stars.