Cannes Film Festival 2013

Jake Gyllenhaal and Ben Kingsley star in the terribly familiar 'Prince Of Persia'

Is going through the motions enough?

<p>Gemma Arterton and Jake Gyllenhaal star in Disney's 'Prince Of Persia,' opening in theaters this week.</p>

Gemma Arterton and Jake Gyllenhaal star in Disney's 'Prince Of Persia,' opening in theaters this week.

Credit: Walt Disney Company

I don't mean to sound like a grumpy jerk this year.  I swear to god I like movies.  In fact, I like many movies, and I like them often.

So why is Hollywood disappointing me so regularly this year?

Maybe I've just reached a saturation point.  After all, "Prince Of Persia" is technically well-produced, and Jake Gyllenhaal makes a perfectly amiable lead as Prince Dastan, a street urchin who was adopted into the royal family of Persia after the King saw a demonstration of his courage as a child.  Gemma Arterton certainly plays the eye candy role with all the "oh, I'm so sassy" energy that is required of her.  Ben Kingsley skulks about looking all skulky, which is what he was hired to do.  Alfred Molina satisfies the "colorful supporting comedy role" requirement with all the skill you'd expect.  John Seale's photography is lush and colorful, and the FX are top-notch, as is the stunt work which does a nice job of actually suggesting the physicality of the game.

So what's missing?  Why is it that at the end of the film, I walked away feeling like I just saw a big trailer with no movie attached?  Why, when all the elements are in place, does "Prince Of Persia" feel like a big fat miss?

For one thing, the plot is exactly the sort of plot you're used to with this type of film, and that's a problem.  It is literally impossible to be surprised by this particular story form at this point.  "Reluctant hero drawn into adventure chases magical item around for two hours.  Much talk of destiny and fate.  Close calls.  Derring-do.  Oh, what a surprise, it's his destiny to trigger the big CGI event that wraps up the story.  Bad guy confrontation.  Kiss the annoying-girl-who-he-suddenly-loves.  The end."  All that changes at this point is what the magic whatsit is that these generic heroes and villains chase around.  Here, it's a knife that contains the "sands of time," which have something to do with a sandstorm version of the Noah's Ark story, and the bad guy wants it so he can undo an act of kindness in his childhood, making himself King in the process, while the good guys want it because... well, I guess because they're good guys, and because it is their "destiny."  That word gets a fairly liberal workout in the film, which wears on me.  How about a hero who becomes a hero simply because it's the right thing to do and they have character, rather than yet another movie about a hero and his "destiny."  I'm tired of the monomyth dominating pop culture, and it's pointless.  That story has been told so many times that it's almost mechanical at this point.  You watch something like this unfold, and you know exactly how the beats are going to play out.  Only the details change.

It's fairly obvious that Jerry Bruckheimer, mega-producer, is chasing his own "Pirates Of The Caribbean" success here, and he may succeed to some degree, but Gyllenhaal is no Johnny Depp, and Prince Dastan is no Captain Jack Sparrow.  This film is so square it's cube, almost defiantly square.  The leads are both so squeaky clean that you know upfront there is no danger of any actual danger.  There's not going to be any genuine darkness to worry about or anything too genuinely eccentric.  Instead, this is all played surface.  Light.  We hear at one point about a vicious band of murdering slaves, escaped from their masters and bloodthirsty in their freedom now, and when we meet them, the movie immediately defangs them by explaining that everything we heard is just a lie to keep people away.  When we're introduced to the Hassansans, this movie's version of the Hashishians of legend, they are meant to be terrifying super-ninjas who can turn into snakes and whirling sand dervishes.  And even they are turned into fairly toothless threats right away.  Even though this film was based on a video game instead of a theme park, Disney's made sure to turn it into a film that has all the dramatic stakes of "It's A Small World."  Gemma Arterton is a pretty girl, and when I reviewed "The Disappearance Of Alice Creed," I had some nice things to say about her work there.  Truth is, though, the more I see of her, especially in big giant event films like this, the less sold I am on her as a screen presence.  I think she's vanilla on vanilla.  It's weird enough seeing Jake Gyllenhaal's baby face on this gorilla body that the trainers built for him for this movie, but he needed someone who actually brought some heat to the film as a sparring partner, not someone who can do an imitation of heat without any real flame at all.  Arterton knows what her job is here, and she gives it all the energy she can muster.  But chemistry is one of those things you can't fake, and there's nothing captivating about the two of them together onscreen.

Mike Newell might also be a major culprit here.  He is a professional in every way, and there's nothing wrong with the filmmaking here.  This isn't a case of, say, Renny Harlin where I think a director is technically incompetent.  Newell gives the film a lovely sheen and a confident pace and he shoots the action in a very matter-of-fact way that is refreshing.  But I don't get the feeling this is a movie that Newell would actually ever watch unless he were directing it, and because of that, it never feels like it has a pulse.  And maybe that's what all of my issues with the film boil down to... pulse.  Just because you build a body out of dead parts, it doesn't mean you're ever going to get it to stand up and walk around on its own.  At best, you'll get a simulation of something, a fake that looks right but feels wrong.  "Prince Of Persia" works as mindless, forgettable, sit-in-the-air-conditioning entertainment, but it's not built to last, and it offers nothing lasting to an audience.  The best you can hope for is a few laughs and a few moments of "That was sort of vaguely exciting."  And considering the size of this movie and the hopes Disney has for it, that hardly seems like enough.

"Prince Of Persia" opens everywhere May 28.

Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.

Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.

Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.

You can e-mail me at drew@hitfix.com or follow me on Twitter, where I'm DrewAtHitFix.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    hashassin

    What a bloody shame to spend all that money and human resources on something without a soul or character...Bruckheimer should be stripped of that award or whatever he got recently. I'm not surprised, but it all looked so pretty I was holding out a little hope that there might be some substance in there.

    May 26, 2010 at 8:38PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    MightyMad

    Saw the movie tonight... cannot agree more with this review. Except for one thing: Mike Newell's directing was absolutely dreadful. There, I've said it.

    May 26, 2010 at 11:24PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      shanemd Agree about Newell's directing. It was awful.

      May 27, 2010 at 1:20AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Xandaca

    I disagree with this review. Yes, the film is as formulaic as it gets, but I thought Arterton (who is a very good actress, as Alice Creed proved, but has taken weak roles in her first Hollywood outings), Gyllenhaal and Molina were great fun and kept the movie bouncing along in that silly, brainless way that make this type of blockbuster so much fun. It struck a decent balance between stuntwork and big effects and it took the best parts of the game and adapted them intelligently. In fact, the moments it tried to be more than it was were its weakest (the character scenes and Iraq War allegory fell totally flat). Sure, there's plenty that can be criticised, dialogue especially, but I didn't go in expecting or wanting Fitzcarraldo. It was a textbook silly summer movie, two-odd hours of brainless fast-paced fun, and I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. It also had Alfred Molina planting a kiss on an ostrich, which was a complete delight.

    May 27, 2010 at 12:58AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    shanemd

    Just got back from seeing this. Thought it was horrible and thought Mike Newell did an atrocious job at directing this.
    All the promise Toby Kebbell showed in 'Dead Man's Shoes' and 'Rock n Rolla' is thrown out the window in this film. He's as bland as a Cullen in this movie. Huge disappointment.
    I will not be seeing Eclipse and Sex and the city 2, so I think this will be my worst film of the summer season. Will be very hard to beat.

    May 27, 2010 at 1:19AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Warren Peace

    I'm right there with ya in casting off "destiny" as a plot device. For one thing, if it's actually destiny, then the protagonist can't POSSIBLY fail. It's just a hollow attempt to give gravitas to events that don't have any, and is most likely a cover for lazy writing... "No, this isn't actually an incredibly unlikely coincidence, it's because the universe WANTED it to happen!" Destiny means you're just going through the motions, no matter how grandiose those motions are. There's no drama.

    May 27, 2010 at 2:01AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    couchkik

    This movie has one big quality though, it goes on oldschool territory. The action scene are the best I've seen this year because they don't overuse CGI. The opening castle fight is remarquable. It's nice to see a movie where they don't just digitalized the actors so they can battle like puppets. You feel sweat and blood wich is pretty admirable (look at me Clash of the titans). I agree that the movie falls when it depends on the comic relief of the aterton/ Gyllenhall duet. It's trying to hard to be the New Indiana Jones and Jake is no Harrisson Ford sorry. His puppy eyes are perfect for the dorky dumb side of his character but leaves no place for fun or romance... But so far it is my favorite blockbuster this year because it's not pretentious like let's say IronMan 2 and much better written than, well, all the blockbuster!

    May 27, 2010 at 3:26AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Danger Mouse

    I saw this movie the other night, and I really enjoyed most of it. I liked the "mysticism" of the dagger, the comedy, the action, etc. What I really didn't like was the end. I don't want to give it away, but I guess when you have "magical" item that does what it does, then the end is pretty much predictable. Other than that, though, I thought the movie was rather entertaining.

    May 27, 2010 at 6:16AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    Well I've yet to see it but I've been looking forward to it. Love the games from way back, the movie setting is in my genre wheelhouse and no corners appear trimmed on realizing the production. I also generally like the actors so all of that combined is enough to entice me to see it.

    I can absolutely identify with the fatigue formula can bring on and there was a day that movies of this kind had an energy and charm of their own that surpassed the formula but I'm hopeful for a competent and entertaining genre movie amid an avalanche of stuff that can't even manage that. Unacceptably lowered expectations perhaps but I'm willing to bet that (especially) kids with a penchant for adventure movies and without a lifetime of moviegoing signposts to tick off while watching might be a little more forgiving.

    Again not giving a pre screening pass but hoping for better than what you got out of it.

    May 27, 2010 at 8:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Fabulous-stains_talkback_profile

    katie, a princess

    Just because it's still fresh on my mind... I feel like this movie had too many mechanical, made-up "rules" of "Lost."

    "Oh, we CAN'T go there now because this dagger, um, needs to go to this cave we JUST MADE UP."

    "Um, we're doomed because these SECRET NINJAS from this HIDDEN TEMPLE are undeafeatable, sort of."

    "Anyone can press the button, but its effect only last for ONE MINUTE at a time, and can only have sand from, like, this one place, and maybe this other place, too."

    May 28, 2010 at 11:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Dkaye2_talkback_profile

    HubertHawkins09

    A

    May 30, 2010 at 9:38AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Dkaye2_talkback_profile

    HubertHawkins09

    Agree about Newell's uninspired direction. I'm particularly getting tired of the over-editing, shot with too many close-ups action scenes. One of the great things about "The Matrix" and "The Mask of Zorro" was how the camera was pulled back and you could actually watch the fights play out relatively uninterrupted.

    May 30, 2010 at 9:41AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web