Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

With the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise getting stale, Bruckheimer and Disney have turned to a new project (No disrespect to National Treasure, but it's weak). This potential series is about an orphaned Persian adopted by the King named Dastan who must protect a mystical dagger with the power to turn back time. The first problem is Jake Gyllenhaal. His doe-eyed Caucasian look seems somewhat out of place, and coupled with the unrefined attempt at a British accent just makes him the wrong choice for the role. Maybe I am being too picky, but one of his brothers is more Greek while another is all Scandinavian, so I guess the attention to geographic consistency in casting is a conscious oversight. I will say that Jake bulked up his physique considerably, and that feat in itself is impressive to say the least.

Ben Kingsley looks like the reincarnation of Flash Gordon's nemesis and does his best to make it appear that he isn't trying very hard. Gemma Arterton plays the princess convincingly, but it's hard to keep the redhead images of her as James Bond's tart, Strawberry Fields out of my mind. The chemistry is deflated by the ambiguous direction of their romance, and Jake's laughable accent.

The effects were secondary to impressive stunt work, and the time shifting sequences were less original as they were annoying. A sixty second reverse is all it takes to avert certain death, a poisonous snake attack, and to prove the powers of aforementioned magical dagger. The climax takes us back to the beginning of the film where the evil plot can be foiled by Gyllenhaal and his newly acquired knowledge. It's a pretty linear story without much imagination or originality.

I am easily excited by summer blockbusters and Oscar dramas alike, and to be honest, this film caused me to doze off a little due to the slow moving plot and the boring characters.

The one high point was the use of assassins and their trickery with projectile weapons. There were some cool fight sequences but the overall action factor was low. I typically like Jake Gyllenhaal, but to be honest, he is no action star. Stick to the Independent dramas and more serious fare.

I am ready for the summer season, and Iron Man 2 was impressive, but I'll wait until A-Team for the next potential source of entertainment. 6/10.

Iron Man 2

There has been a lot of hype since the surprising success of the first Iron Man movie, and for a sequel, this did not disappoint one bit. Robert Downey Jr. plays the part perfectly with his sharp wit and I don't care attitude. He isn't necessarily the star of the show, however. The typical sequel flaw is the lack of an original storyline; An attempt to hang on to the commercial success of the first movie and just release something that resembles a day-old baby's diaper. Jon Favreau stated that the first film was such a success because of the lowered expectation and overshadowing by the Dark Knight. This may be true, but with all eyes on him during this summer blockbuster season-opening weekend, he came through the right way. With an interesting story.

The characters aren't too bad either. For my money, I would have preferred Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle, but things like that can't be avoided. Cheadle had limited screen time, and he was given some of the best lines of the film. Scarlett Johannson is a terrible actress, let's get that out of the way right now. Her character took on an eye candy role, and she did just fine. Paltrow was back as Downey's assistant/love interest, but her role expands to something more substantial. Sam Jackson is back as well as the thin line connecting all of the Marvel films together. I have to say, his attitude was entertaining back in the Pulp Fiction days, but it is just getting really old. He was given too much face time for a shadow character, but there is still the excitement of seeing him introduce flashes of future films (Captain America, Thor) through Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson, who is a very likable character.

Mickey Rourke steps into the bad guy's shoes as the Russian thug/physicist Ivan Vanko. He does a great job, but there is still a slightly unsatisfying feeling to his performance. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but after the Wrestler, I had high hopes. His role was critical to the film, but there wasn't very much action besides some great Computer Generated whip scenes, and some deep-voiced laughing with flashes of gold teeth. The Russian tattoos were a nice touch, but I didn't buy him being a brilliant scientist. Sorry Marvel.

Sam Rockwell, on the other hand, stole the show in my opinion. Playing the smarmy, bratty weapons expert who is salivating to get the Iron Man suit contract with the DOD. He plays this type of character so well, and is truly still one of the most underrated actors around.

Favreau does a great job of not taking himself too seriously. The franchise is meant to be entertaining and fun, and that is exactly what comes across. Witty dialogue, humor, geek toys, action, and hot women. Perfect combination for any comic book adaptation. Additionally, he could have easily jumped on the 3D bandwagon, but he chose not to, which is a wise choice. This film is great just the way it is, and would have succumbed to the pitfalls of sub-Avatar quality that killed Clash of the Titans. The post-production 3D trend is going to die, mark my words. Reserve 3D for Pixar and computer animated films - that is where they belong. Live action is not quite conducive to 3D right now.

The best thing about the Marvel movies is that they openly tease the audience with hints of what is coming. The SHIELD back story is beginning to come full circle, and with Thor, Captain America, Avengers, and probably more Iron Man installments, the comic book superhero universe is going strong.

This is the official beginning of the summer season, and it is kicked off with a big bang. Go see it - even better than the first one. 9/10.

Shutter Island

Not since the 1991 remake of Cape Fear has Scorsese tackled the psychological thriller genre. Shutter Island is nothing like that, but in a good way. This is new territory that resembles something that Frank Darabont would direct, but there is the trademark Scorsese gratuitous gore and over-the-top violent imagery. Shutter Island is arguably the most well-written book by one of Hollywood's current popular author-turned-screenwriters (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone). It is a departure from his typical Boston crime drama motif, and delves into a period piece in a secluded mental institute for the criminally insane.

Set in 1954 on a remote island off the Massachusetts coast, Leo DiCaprio is US Marshal Teddy Daniels searching for a missing patient in a mysterious hospital shrouded in secrecy and intrigue. It is as suspenseful as it is mysterious, and evokes nostalgic cinematic emotions of other prison/mental institute films of the past.

Teddy is searching for a lost prisoner, and as the clues come together, there is a confluence of clarity and confusion that leads to the climactic revelation which makes the whole film chilling and memorable. It is truly an original and sinister story for which Lehane deserves kudos.

A great cast was assembled for this film starting with DiCaprio. I am a huge fan of anything he does, and his choice of films keep getting better and better. Ben Kingsley and Max Von Sydow play the doctors at the institute, and Emily Mortimer shines as the missing patient, Rachel Solando. Although the cast is well-placed, the story is the true star. Well-timed musical placement and jumpy scare tactics make this as much Alfred Hitchcock as it is 21st century psycho-drama.

Having read the book a few summers ago, I have been excited about the prospect of the adaptation for some time. After learning of Scorsese and DiCaprio's attachment, even more so. This film did not disappoint at all. Staying true to the important elements of the original story and highlighting every moment that stands out starkly from reading the book, my hat is off to the creative team that transitioned the book to screen almost perfectly. No easy task with the demands of fickle moviegoers.

I have a feeling that this film will be widely successful at the box office, and although there may be some naysayers decrying the ending, I for one was not disappointed in the least. My only qualm is having known the outcome prior to seeing the film. It seemed that the probable ending was tipped a little early. I would like to see audience response of someone who hadn't read the book, but either way it is worth watching.

There are some heavy themes,and some haunting visual imagery, but it is important to maintain the authenticity of the setting and genre. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I may be biased as I have an affinity for the director, actor, and story. Best movie of 2010 so far. 8/10.

Crazy Heart

Jeff Bridges, in the role that will certainly go down as his greatest in a long line of characters, plays Bad Blake, a washed up, alcoholic country star struggling with the impending twilight of his career.

The role has won critical acclaim and Bridges has been nominated, and won scores of awards. The film is essentially a combination of the Wrestler and Walk the Line, with a dash of Leaving Las Vegas. The surprise for me was how little of a role that alcoholism plays in the film. Bridges does well, but the story lacks the tragedy required of a film with this tone.

The film is good, and there is ample levity to make it less of a sob story, and more of a realistic fictional character study. Maggie Gyllenhall is a good choice as the younger love interest, and Robert Duvall plays the older mentor with his typical natural charm, but actually, it is Collin Farrell who makes the biggest impact in a relatively small role as Tommy Sweet, Blake's protege who tries to help rejuvenate his dwindling career, much to Blake's chagrin. Farrell has a great country singing voice that makes Bridges' weak, pitchy one pale in comparison.

I liked the character played by Bridges, but the singing angle is unbelievable. The songs are catchy and generic and there is a surefire Oscar for "The Weary Kind" but the songs also have that old country simplicity that bring an upbeat quality to the film.

Whether Bridges will win an Oscar depends entirely on the Academy. They tend to reward haggard, hard drinking, hard smoking, graying stubbled actors. I think that he will win his first in five nominations. The film doesn't resonate as anything more than an entertaining flick with some good music, and an unexpected happy ending, but it is worth watching. 7/10.

Golden Globe and SAG analysis

The Hollywood Foreign Press and the Screen Actor's Guild have spoken, and they lend some surprising clues toward who may win the Oscars come March.

First, the awards that were both anticipated, and uncontested. Avatar for Best Picture and Cameron for Best Director. These will undoubtedly be repeated at the big show. Not that it is the best story, or even maybe film of the year, but the fact remains that 15 years in the making, revolutionary film making technology, and the potential to be the first film ever to gross 2 billion dollars worldwide are worthy of recognition. It is an achievement never before seen, and it will win all technical awards as well. The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air were exceptionally well-made and entertaining films, but they lack the momentum and buzz of Avatar.

Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique for Supporting Actor and Actress. Waltz was incredible in Inglourious Basterds, and although I haven't seen Precious, the ladies from Up in the Air will hurt each other's chances to win. Nine is too weak of a film, and the fifth nomination is yet to be determined.

Jeff Bridges has cleaned up the major awards with his come from nowhere film Crazy Heart. I see this as the equivalent of last year's Wrestler, which probably should have won Mickey Rourke the Oscar. It was a small film, and there were some skeptics, but Bridges has more recognition and has proven his acting value with four previous nominations. He should win over Clooney and Renner, although both of them deserve the recognition for brilliant performances and have added an array of critics prizes over the past month or two.

Sandra Bullock is the big surprise for me. She has received none of the best acting awards except for the Golden Globe and the SAG. She wasn't on my radar, and I think it is more unlikely that she will lose the Oscar in a relative upset. Sidibe, Mulligan, and Streep all are more viable candidates in my opinion. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Meryl Streep wins her 3rd Oscar in her 16th nomination. (Not a typo - 16th Oscar nomination). This would put her in the elite company of Ingrid Bergman, Walter Brennan, and Jack Nicholson. Only Katherine Hepburn has won more acting Oscars (4). Streep may tie or beat that before her career is over.

Up in the Air seems to be a lock for Adapted Screenplay. The category is weak, and it was one of the best films of the year. Loved by critics (and myself), it stands out like a sore thumb.

Inglourious Basterds should win Original Screenplay. It is fresh, creative, and has the Tarantino touch. The only possibly competitors are Avatar for obvious reasons, or the Hurt Locker. I would be happy if any of the three win the prize, although Avatar is too visual and not substantive enough to truly deserve it.

Those are the categories worth singling out. Check back in the next couple of months, and see how accurate my predictions are.

Book of Eli

Denzel Washington takes on the post-apocalyptic nightmare in the Hughes' brothers' fifth film (and they really haven't impressed since Menace II Society), the first in almost a decade. This time around, they clash a spiritual theme with a more secular and violent delivery. Interesting, right? If done right, the answer might be yes.

Washington plays Eli, a lone wanderer protecting the last remaining bible on earth while making his way to the West through wastelands and Mad Max inspired characters. We have seen this paradigm before. Good guy walks into trouble, finds a head honcho baddie, and leaves a trail of havoc in his wake. The problem with this type of model is that the bad guy generally is not believable as the mastermind and muscle. In this case, it is Gary Oldman, who returns to his Fifth Element mantra as a loud and verbally abusive boss. Only thing is, he appears weak and ineffective when lined up with his rugged and ruthless henchmen.

Throwing another wrench in the mix is Mila Kunis. She is a gorgeous young actress with an annoying voice and little talent beyond her looks. The antithesis of the type of girl you would see in this horrible dystopian future, she sticks out like a sore thumb.

Washington salvages the acting however, although dialogue is not a focal point. Instead, a bleak landscape with impressive sets and slow-motion camera shots are more the star. Long lulls interspersed with short pockets of action are not enough to keep the film afloat. Washington's talent is misused in this film as well, as there is little action, little dialogue, and little story.

The ending, although not as predictable as it could have been, is a cop out in the context of the story. The religious holier-than-thou message is misguided and a bit condescending. The Hughes' should have spent a little more time with the frenetic fight scenes. They are laden with great camera shots and good choreography, but they are ultimately flaccid and unsatisfying.

Much more uplifting and hopeful of a theme than last year's The Road, but I think the post-apocalyptic film genre needs a little break and revamping before it resurrects the Road Warrior. There are just so many times you can root for one man in the face of adversity, especially when there is no justice or real endgame. Denzel took a leap of faith with this role, and although the box office may prove otherwise, it is just not very good.

Interesting idea, but falls flat. 6/10.