Jerry Bruckheimer delivers another over-the-top fantasy action film, this time based on a video game. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is very similar to the Pirates of the Carribean series, with otherworldly aesthetics (a Bruckheimer hallmark) and feats of strength and ability that defy the laws of physics. In sixth century Persia, a street urchin named Dastan, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is adopted by the King after outmanouvering his guards following an altercation in a local market. Years later, he and his brothers participate in an attack on the sacred and holy city of Alamut and Dastan comes into the possession of a dagger that has the ability to turn back time. The shapely Princess Tamina, played by Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields from Quantum of Solace), makes an attempt to get it back and eventually enlists the help of Dastan in preventing the end of the world. Okay so the story is a little more complex than that but you get the gist. Regardless Dastan and the fair princess are taken prisoner or cornered a half a dosen times but manage to escape unscathed, every time (a dagger that lets you roll by the clock does come in handy). One of the figures always hot on their heels is the ostrich racing and tax hating Sheik Amar, played by Alfred Molina, a lesser known but great actor who provides a lot of much need laughter in this film. Sir Ben Kingsley plays one of the main characters and is ace, as usual. The visuals in this film are stunning, the huge digital cities are the stuff of an Asian Lord of the Rings and the special effects are well done. Fight scenes are inspired by The Matrix and chase scenes by The Bourne Ultimatum, though the video game is famous for it’s rooftop action. Alright, myth and magic play a role in the story, but just once I’d like to see a bloody nose or a chipped tooth from a misstep. Just because fantasy is involved doesn’t mean a film can’t be realistic, but I play that harp too often. It’s not a very serious film but it’s pure entertainment, if you’re looking for character development, or characters with any depth or motivations besides the plainly obvious, look elsewhere.
Subscribe








The anticipated sequel Iron Man 2 is a slick action flick based on the same formula as its predecessor. Tony Stark, after admitting he is Iron Man, has succesfully privatized world peace and refuses to share his technology with the U.S. Government. That much is clear from the trailer, but if you haven’t seen the first or second Iron Man, be warned there are spoilers. The key to Stark’s technology is the power source he developed with minimal resources and equipment in a cave in Afghanistan. The arc reactor in his chest keeps him alive, but its palladium core is slowly killing him. Until he can find another replacement he needs to keep an eye on the toxicity level in his body and drink a strange brew. The ingedrients in the film however are nothing new to the audience, with the main villain origins being traced back to disgruntled partners and (former) employees on a deadly quest for their fair shake. This familiar formula also means we have to wait until the end before Iron Man is really put to the test. Sure, Stark gets into a few skirmishes, first with Ivan Vanko played by Mickey Rourke, who is able to replicate Stark’s technology and show the world that Iron Man is not invincible. The brown stuff never hits the proverbial fan though, even Vanko escapes unscathed and is later sprung from jail. A boozed up Stark then brawls with Rhodes, who absconds with the Mark II suit. The rockets, grenades and lasers don’t start flying until the end, and even then he makes short work of the drones or “Hammeroids” sent to kill him.
Just over a week ago I covered
Wait a minute, didn’t this movie come out years ago? Yes, it came out in 2002, I try to stick to current films, but after watching
As promised in
Have a Heart (Brief Synopsis)

A Nightmare Remake, The Horror
With the new A Nightmare on Elm Street being universally panned by critics, I thought it was time for me to brush up on the horror genre and finally see the classic Wes Craven creation. The original film was released before my time but there are plenty of fans who grew up with it and, as is the case with most remakes, don’t feel there is need to replace or ‘update’ a timeless masterpiece. I wasn’t even aware that the film was so coveted or even seen as anything more than a scary slasher movie; but then again I only got to know the character Freddy Kruger from trick or treating on Halloween. But I got a swift education as I was listening to Mark Kermode on BBC 5 as he just unloaded on the remake, in particular for dropping all of the subtext and getting it all wrong, for lack of better words. After having watched the original I can’t say that the film was layered or very symbolic but then again I come from a different time and place. Nevertheless I can see what Kermode is saying about the archetypal bogeyman, and what others said about the dream sequences and being able to relate to them. I will admit that it is a genuinely scary movie, even if the score and special effects are a little outdated. However I found the backstory a little weak, and while there is a vague notion that Freddy is exacting revenge on the children for the sins of their parents, it’s certainly not the focus or even a main part of the story. Regardless, Kermode does rightly point out that a lot of remakes hollow out the heart and soul of their predecessors, just to make a few bucks. It’s also very aggravating, as what was once a meaningful piece of popular culture is reduced to knives and a hat. Also, the default greens and browns of horror films today are very tiresome, and sadly there are very few directors working in the industry capable of stopping the genre from being written off as little more than gore and gratuitous violence. Not that these films need to be in oscar contention, but if they want to draw an audience beyond the cheap thrill seekers then they’ll have to stop producing films like Jeepers Creepers or the latter Saw films. Hostel and The Human Centipede are unlikely to be steps in the right direction.
Read the full article »