Prince of Persia (2010)

★ ★ ★ ☆




Prince of Persia is a straighforward morality tale, as you would expect from a Disney film. It's special effects fail to wow, and the action sequences are not over the top. This is unusual for a movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Frankly, I don't see these as deficiencies. Rather than attempting to dazzle us with gigantic monsters like Clash of the Titans did, it delivered something I didn't expect: simplicity. Aside from some light tears in the fabric of space and time, the plot was pretty straightforward. A heroic prince framed for murder flees the city with a foreign princess. While unoriginal, it was very entertaining. I enjoy morally complex films as much as anyone, but sometimes a dose of plain old good vs. evil is refreshing.

I admit that I was quite skeptical going into this. There really isn't any reason to expect much from a movie based on a video game. It also scored a paltry 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. It took a mixed review from Joe Morgenstern to convince me to see this one. Within 10 minutes, I knew I made the right decision. Though I haven't played the video game that this was based on, it did have the feel I assume the game does (from what I remember of the original Nintendo game). Prince Dastan (Gyllenhaal) constantly finds himself in vexing situations. He takes stock of his surroundings, and methodically makes improbable escapes. It resembled Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes in this respect, save that the situations take place in real time.





Jake Gyllenhall continues to prove that he's more than a washed up teen actor. This is his second respectable role in the last two years (after Brothers). Gemma Arteton was well cast as the impetuous princess, and Ben Kingsley was solid as always. Alfred Molina delivered plenty of laughs as a seedy, tax evading entrepreneur. His generally informed (though hypocritical) social commentary alone was worth the price of admission.

Big budget action movies are generally made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The goal is adequacy in every technical aspect. A few suspenseful moments, and a couple of laughs are enough to satisfy the expectations of the audience. Sadly, it's rare to even find this in a contemporary action movie. Prince of Persia is an exception. Contrary to the critical consensus, it is worth a watch.

Brothers (2009)

★ ★ ☆ ☆

Every now and then I see a preview that unduly prejudices me against the movie. A perfect example of this was Inglorious Basterds. I went into that movie thinking it was going to be a typical piece of extremely violent Hollywood nihilism. Basterds turned out to be one of the best films of the year. The same thing happened with Brothers. To put it bluntly, the preview was hilarious. I couldn't help but thinking it would be an awful remake of a certain recent war movie (if you've seen the preview, you know exactly which movie I'm talking about). To my surprise, the film was nowhere near as unintentionally funny, nor as simplistic as I'd imagined.

Let's start with the good. Brothers took a cliched premise, and actually made it into a thoughtful film. It did a great job of portraying the tensions endemic to second generation military families, and the hardships endured by the families of soldiers. Sam Sheppard did an admirable job portraying the war veteran father. His demon haunted past was always in the background, though he avoided the melodrama that often comes along with such roles. More surprising was Jake Gyllenhaal, who's role as the neerdowell brother was excellent. He has certainly matured as an actor in the last few years. Director Jim Sheridan did a fine job, though the highlight of the film was the work of eminent cinematographer Frederick Elmes. The cinematography in the Afghanistan scenes alone was worth the price of admission.

With all that going for it, one would think that it would be better than a two star movie. Unfortunately, there was one serious problem: Tobey Maguire. I simply could not take him seriously as a former football star, and rugged marine. Every time I look at him, I think of Terry Gilliam's description of why he cast him as the hitchhiker in Fear and Loathing: he looks like a frightened mongoose. It's no wonder that every time his pupils dilated, half the theatre erupted in laughter. Moreover, he was completely mismatched with Natalie Portman. The two had no chemistry. It felt more like she was his older sister than his wife. She is a fine actress, but was a few years too old for the role. Carey Mulligan, who played a minor role in the film, would have been a better fit. Replacing Maguire, and switching the two female roles would have greatly enhanced the quality of the film.







Overall, the film was enjoyable. There were a couple of unintended giggles, mostly during Maguire's outbursts, but everything else was done fairly well. It is a real shame that the preview gave away so many plot points. It's difficult to build suspense into a plot when the audience has already been told what happens in the first half. If you haven't yet seen the preview, skip it and just go see the movie if you get a chance. Just try not to look directly at Tobey Maguire.