Men in Black

The film opens with a menacing alien named Boris the Animal (an unrecognizable Jemaine Clement) breaking out of a high security prison. Boris plans to take revenge on Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) for dismembering him and leaving him to rot in a cell. Soon after Boris’ escape, Agent J (Will Smith) realizes that the people around him seem to think that K has been dead for years already – by the (creepy) hands of Boris. This leads J to time-travel back to 1969 in order to try and prevent this possible reality from occurring. In the process, J must team up with a young K (Josh Brolin), leading to discoveries about K’s past that J never knew.

MIB3 rediscovers the balance of sci-fi and comedy that marked the first film without recycling everything from it like the second entry did. It actually has some new things to say about the characters, and finds extra freshness with its 60s settings. Director Barry Sonnenfeld and the scriptwriters make the central relationship of J and K firsthand again, with the action and special effects aiding, rather than dominating (as with the cash-grabbing second film), the story on display.

Smith, as the smooth J, and Jones, as the crusty K, remain a fun and unusual team; it is nice to see the two back together again. Clement also does well as the nasty Boris, though his character makes a grand entrance and then fizzles out a bit. The show-stealer, however, is Brolin. The actor is incredible as the young version of K, perfectly channeling Tommy Lee Jones. He gives a real performance rather than a simple imitation, connecting seamlessly to Jones’ ways but also leaving his own mark behind. He and Smith’s rapport is fully believable and highly enjoyable, with the two on-screen together more than Smith and Jones are.

Rick Baker’s makeup used for the aliens remains remarkable, with the traditional effects often more of a standout than the computerized effects. All of the different creatures from Baker are impressive looking, with Sonnenfeld and the set decorator’s recreation of the 60s matching them. Also good is the soundtrack, put together by the masterful Danny Elfman. Some other highlights are scenes involving Smith adapting to the “cultural ways” of 60s, a thrilling climax involving a rocket ship, and a surprisingly touching (if manipulative) conclusion.

MIB3 may be leagues ahead of the second installment, but it does have some problems of its own. As said before, the character of Boris weakens out after the opening, mostly being reduced to a growling beast of terror. Another negative is that some of the story ideas could have been a bit more juicy or witty (such as a scene in a bowling alley and another scene where Smith encounters some cops), sometimes coming across as dull and ineffective compared to others. By far the biggest problem I had with MIB3, though, was with a character named Griffin. Michael Stuhlbarg may be a good actor, but the character of Griffin (who is meant to be the warm-hearted comic-relief character) just comes across as an annoying turbo-mouth who can predict possible futures.

As said before, MIB3 wasn’t really necessary. However, it is fun. The film is not cerebral in any way and it has its flaws, but it works great as simple summer escapism. And Brolin is just killer as young K.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars.

*More articles by Daniel Rester are available for reading on Welivefilm.com.

Huntsman starts off in the early days of the princess Snow White, who lives happily with her parents in their kingdom. After both of Snow’s parents lie dead for different reasons, an evil sorceress named Ravenna (Charlize Theron) takes over the kingdom with an army of dark, glass soldiers. The beautiful, wicked woman then locks Snow up inside of a tower for many years.

As the time passes, the land becomes dank and muddy as Ravenna’s evil spreads. She relies on the youth of others (and their hearts) in order to keep herself young, using her magic to suck the life out of them. One day, Ravenna’s mystical mirror tells her that she must eat Snow’s heart in order to become immortal and remain the “fairest of them all.” In an attempt to bring Snow to Ravenna, Ravenna’s brother Finn fumbles and the princess escapes.

In order to retrieve Snow, Ravenna hires (more like forces) Eric the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to track her down in the Dark Forest. Eric finds her and eventually sides with her against Ravenna. The two are later joined in their travels by an old friend of Snow’s, named William (Sam Claflin), and a host of dwarves. This group then sets out to find a way to defeat Ravenna and have Snow reclaim the kingdom.

Huntsman easily shows that Sanders is an ambitious director. The film is decidedly dark and epic, with some occasionally eye-popping effects to fill the screen. Sanders uses a large scope here, taking the story across big landscapes and capturing them with many long shots. The visuals that fill these areas are stunning, with CGI, art direction/set decoration, and costumes all first-rate. The land of the fairies and the look of the dwarves (all tall actors shrunken down to size through movie magic) were standout visuals for me.

Where Sanders and the scriptwriters struggle is in the middle, with a gradual pace that doesn’t balance with the underdeveloped material at hand. The Huntsman and Snow (when older, played by Kristen Stewart) are too long together alone, without much dialogue exchange between them to boot. When they do come across other characters, the characters are often on screen for fleeting moments and the audience never really grow to care for them. Even the dwarves are on-screen for too short of a time, not becoming defined enough for satisfaction. This mid-section does present some wonders, but it is too thin storytelling-wise to match the pacing (if Sanders and the writers made the story and characters a bit meatier, it could have been fine).         Sanders also seems to struggle with the modulation between scenes throughout the film’s entirety. This is most noticeable towards the end, when Snow transitions from princess to ultimate hero without any observable training involved.

Stewart looks the part of Snow, but she still seems limited in her range as an actress, often gawking and lacking emotional strength (and providing an accent that comes and goes) . Theron and Hemsworth, however, are excellent. Theron is occasionally over-the-top, but she mostly nails the part as the menacing Ravenna—causing some true chills up the spine at times. Hemsworth, on the other hand, is beefy and very likeable as the Huntsman. The actors playing the dwarves (such talents as Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Ray Winstone, and Nick Frost) are terrific as well, providing the film with the little humor that it does have.

Though Huntsman never meets its full potential, it is still a good film. The thinness of the story and characters in middle does cause it to sag a bit, and it could have used a dash more of humor (as the film is relentlessly dark in tone), but Sanders has still crafted an artistic epic with memorable visuals. His future projects are certainly worth looking forward to.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars.

Though it is recommended to have seen the previous films—Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America—before seeing The Avengers in order to have a better understanding of the overall plot, it is not a requirement. The plot kicks into motion after Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the power-hungry adopted brother of the demigod Thor (Chris Hemsworth), steals the Tesseract from S.H.I.E.L.D. (Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division). The Tesseract is a small glowing cube that can open gateways in the universe. Loki plans to use its powers to launch an attack on Earth (with an army of lizard-machine-like creatures) and control its people.

In order to put a stop to Loki’s plans, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) turns to an old plan called the Avengers Initiative, which would bring together the universe’s mightiest heroes. On this list of heroes is Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), whose super-suit turns him from a regular man into Iron Man. Then there is Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans), a WWII hero (he was frozen for many years and then thawed out in modern times) with superior strength and a fanciful shield. Also on the roster is Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), who turns into the formidable Hulk when he gets angry, and Thor, a demigod with a big hammer and a strong swing. Rounding out the team are Natasha Romanoff a.k.a. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a spy with a wide range of fighting techniques, and Clint Barton a.k.a. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), a master archer/marksman.

The Avengers, with its pile of superhero ingredients, could have easily fallen apart into a chaotic mess of poor writing/direction and special effects. However, co-writer/director Joss Whedon keeps the film structured throughout. Whedon and Zak Penn’s script doesn’t take the easy way out and just drop the characters into battle without any screenplay strength to back them up. Instead, their screenplay explores how egos like these can easily clash before they come to work as a team. Every character has singular shining moments of skill and personality, and the exchanging pieces between each of the members are even more remarkable. The writers also manage to make the film have equal parts heroism, humanity, and humor. In fact, the script’s sense of humor provides more laugh-out-loud moments than many comedies of recent times.

Whedon backs up this fantastic screenplay by setting a brisk pace and establishing a grand spectacle. Both the action scenes and dialogue-driven scenes are well-executed. The action scenes provide a lot to the viewer at once, but Whedon’s terrific directing style and the editing and visual effects teams make these clear and comprehensible–without sparing an ounce of energy. The smaller scenes are often just as entertaining as the action scenes, allowing the talented cast to play off of each other and have great dialogue exchanges.

There is not a weak performance in The Avengers. Every actor brings their A-game and improve on what they did with the roles in their past films. Downey, Jr. is still exceptional as the witty and narcissistic Stark. Evans is very likable as the old-fashioned but relatable Rogers. Hemsworth is charming and has a strong presence as Thor. And even Johansson and Renner, who played smaller roles in some of the other films and do the same thing here, are ones to root for.

In the end, though, I have to give the biggest recognition to Ruffalo and Hiddleston. The filmmakers finally hit just the right note with Banner/Hulk (though Edward Norton was good too). Ruffalo is perfect as the calm and acute Banner, and the combination of Ruffalo’s performance and the special effects make for a knockout when it comes to Hulk. And boy is Hiddleston great as Loki. The actor delivered in Thor, but in this he is even more sly and vicious, making for one of the best villains in film since Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight.

It goes without saying that the special effects in The Avengers are breathtaking. The balance of all the different types of visuals (such as the character designs) is both seamless and dazzling. What is even more impressive is that the 3D conversion is actually pretty good, allowing the characters and settings to “pop” without being obnoxious or too dim.

With all of the love I have for The Avengers, there are a few aspects about it that slightly bothered me. First, the opening of the film comes across as partially dull compared to what follows in the rest of it. Second, the character of Hawkeye is underdeveloped compared to all of the other characters (though Renner still gives a solid performance). And lastly, a key dramatic scene towards the midsection of the film is stretched on for too long. These are all just minor complaints, though, for an otherwise excellent movie.

With The Avengers, Joss Whedon and the cast and crew have made a fanboy experience for the ages. This is a smart, spectacular film with well fleshed-out characters, amazing action (the climax of the film is unforgettable), and a sharp sense of humor. The movie surpasses all of the individual superhero films that built up to it and provides an exhilarating ride at the movies. The Avengers is easily the best film I’ve seen of 2012 so far and one of the best comic book films ever made.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 4 stars.

David tells the story of an eleven-year-old Arab boy named Daud, who lives in a Muslim community in Brooklyn with his family—and where his father is the Imam at the local mosque. One day, Daud is spending time in a park when he realizes a group of boys leave a book behind on a bench. In trying to return the book, Daud is mistaken as a Jewish student in an Orthodox school. This leads him to take on the fake identity of David. As David, Daud comes to learn new things from the school and becomes close to a group of students. Among the students is a boy named Yoav, who Daud builds a strong friendship with while exploring some new aspects of his youth.

David builds on the familiar “youth story” territory found in many American films by exploring aspects of the Jewish and Muslim communities (I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen many films that study the youth in both of these types of communities in America). Interweaving the varied community ideas helps to give depth to the inner-conflict of Daud, as the character himself does not speak his mind very often. Instead, the viewer often sees Daud calmly maintaining his relationships with members of each community, and sometimes dealing with struggles brought on by teenagers of other cultural backgrounds as well. Such mixings of cultural thoughts and the reactions by the youth involved really enrich David as a whole.

Writer-producer-director Joel Fendelman (who I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing) does a fine job of balancing such themes of culture and youthful outreach, while simultaneously exploring friendship and family matters that mix into the two. Though many of his characters don’t have a long enough time to fully shine (the film only runs about 80 minutes), most of them are believable and engaging (this is especially true of Daud and his father).

Also, Fendelman’s dialogue never feels fake or “Hollywood-ish,” giving more authenticity to the relationships he explores. The music (with beautiful mixtures of piano and string instruments) and cinematography are also effective in aiding in the display of Fendelman’s story, but never once overpower it – allowing the film to really feel human throughout.

Though Fendelman’s crafting is sure-handed and impressive, David really belongs to newcomer Muatasem Mishal, who plays the title character. Mishal gives a quietly powerful, nuanced performance that rings true every step of the way. His adolescent aspects in his character (reserved and subtle) are perfectly paired alongside that of Yoav’s, with Yoav being the type of pre-teen that runs on adventure and energy. Binyomin Shtaynberger, as Yoav, also gives a convincing performance, as he goes beyond the character’s obnoxious surface and really lets one see into him by the end of the film. Each character is given weight by the presence of the other, with Mishal and Shtaynberger sharing perfect chemistry whenever on the screen together. The rest of the supporting cast is suitable as well, with an especially appealing Maz Jobrani as Daud’s resolute father.

David does have some questionable moments here and there (such as how the school never realizes Daud isn’t actually a student on the roster), and it could have gone on a little longer in order to let some of its supporting characters deliver a bit more. That said, the film is still genuine and entertaining as a whole. Mr. Fendelman looks to be a promising filmmaker, as David sets him off on a great start.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars.

*More articles by Daniel Rester are available for reading on Welivefilm.com.

The event provided many different types of visual entertainments, from documentaries to narrative features to shorts – drawing in a variety of film fans.

The AIFF is important for tourism and business draws for the region. “It brings over 7,000 people to Ashland each April,” says Anne Pierotti, executive director of the festival. “The AIFF is a regional festival, serving the needs of our community. Our programming is diverse, and our goal is to bring the best films on the independent circuit to Ashland and to celebrate them through intimate screenings.”

Aside from providing a mix of independent films, Pierotti explained that the festival also offers “Locals Only” screenings, student filmmaker competitions, and TALKbacks.

The TALKbacks are free panels in which filmmakers talk about their craft. This year provided three of them, due to the aid from the National Endowment of the Arts.

According to Pierotti, there was a narrative filmmaker panel that discussed the process of translating personal stories to film, a documentary panel that looked at the latest techniques in that genre, and a second documentary panel that examined activism and how filmmakers are continuing their work ‘after the credits roll.’

This year also provided a few programs that previous years did not offer. One was called GiveFILM, which partnered with local agencies like ACCESS and Kids Unlimited in order to get tickets into the hands of some Rogue Valley residents–that otherwise would not have been able to attend the festival.

Among the new sessions was “The Science of Animation,” which explored the world of animation in film. It was partnered through the Science Works Hands-On Museum and presented by LAIKA, the Portland-based animation studio behind the film Coraline.

According to Pierotti, the festival and all of its varied activities would not be possible without the help of volunteers, as they are the “heartbeat of the festival.” About 350 people volunteer each year. One of the 350 this year was Carolyn Moeglein, who started in February. Moeglein says that preparing for the festival was “organized and focused, but came with a lot of energy.” She was happy to be a part of such a friendly and supportive group, and finds the festival to be important because it “shows people films they may not have been able to see” and sees that “different films bring out diverse groups of people.”

Among the films on the festival circuit is David, which was written and directed by Joel Fendelman and follows the story of an Arab boy in New York City. Fendelman has taken David to many film festivals in cities throughout the world–including Montreal, Rome, London, and Warsaw. As for the AIFF in particular, Fendelman says, “the audiences are very engaging” and that the festival gives off a “friendly energy.” The director also shows interest in returning to the AIFF one day with another film, as he says the festival is (in a one-word summary) “home.”

Another director that attended the AIFF was Julie Taymor, who was honored with the festival’s Artistic Achievement Award (one of the major honors at the festival). Taymor is known for films such as Titus, Across the Universe, and The Tempest. One of the events at the festival had Taymor do an on-stage discussion with Bill Rauch, the artistic director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Rauch praised Taymor for her “vivid artfulness” and for being an inspiration to people like himself for years. Taymor herself was proud to be at the AIFF in order to share her experiences as an imaginative and acclaimed director. Applauds from the audience rang out when she stated that it is important for artists to stay close to their work, and that they “have to love their art and stay true to it.”

Taymor’s words seemed to echo in every aspect of the festival, as viewers and filmmakers came together and watched and talked about films for five days. The AIFF is a place for common viewers, volunteers like Moeglein, independent film directors like Fendelman, and major film directors like Taymor; it’s a place for anyone who loves film. Pierotti described the festival with one word: inspirational.

Cregan started this project about six months ago after pouring over his songbooks and realizing that he had songs that didn’t really fit with the Idle Threats repertoire.

“There’s more of an indie soul vibe with these songs,” said Cregan. “A lighter melodic touch with pretty vocals.”

But as far as labeling his music his says he pulls from all types of genres ranging from blues, soul, 60s punk and rock, pop, acoustic and everything in between, Just good soul rock and roll.

With Cregan pulling from so many different influences, trying to compare The Delta Halos with a mainstream band is next to impossible. But if I had to, I would put him somewhere between Gaslight Anthem and The White Strips.

Cregan wrote and recorded all songs on the Delta Halos Demo EP, “I figured since I can play all the instruments why not just do it my self.”

He also played every instrument with the exception of the violin on the track sunshine, which was recorded by Melissa Orr.

As far as reaching a particular audience Kyle said his songs are meant to reach everyone, form all walks of life to enjoy and connect with in one way or another.

The first three songs Adina waits, Ma Cher Ami, and the River were recorded at Jackson Street Studios, where Idle Threats does all of their recordings. The songs all have an electric touch with a full band (Drum, bass, and electric guitar).

The other two songs, Sunshine and Stay with me are acoustic and were recorded at his home, “My house has really good acoustics so I just decided to do it there.”

The Delta Halos EP is anything but a disappointment. Though there are only five songs on the cd everyone of them are worth the listen, and leave you yearning for more.

“I have no clue where this will go I am just riding it out right now,” said Cregan. “I have done a few little acoustic performance here and there, and I played at a Domestic Violence Event.”

To check for up coming shows or to listen or purchase The Delta Halos EP, you can check him out on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thedeltahalos, or find him on itunes.  You can also stop by Mama Mia Gellataria and pick up a copy in there from Kyle personally.

Byline Contributor

At first glance, it might seem unusual that Martin Scorsese (the legendary man behind such works  as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and The Departed, to name a few) would make a PG-rated family film that is shown in 3D. That’s exactly what his newest film, Hugo, is, however. After seeing the film, though, one easily comes to understand why the masterful director chose to do the project.

Hugo takes place in a Paris train station in the early 1930s. The title character lives there, in the walls, after his father dies and his uncle abandons him there. His father was a fine clockmaker (and avid filmgoer), and his uncle maintained the clocks at the station. The skills of these two men flow to Hugo, who works on the clocks after the uncle leaves. Hugo not only takes care of the many clocks, but also must search for food and avoid a dedicated station inspector. His biggest project, though, is fixing an automaton (a mechanical man that writes) that his father had found. To fix the automaton, Hugo steals parts in the station, but is caught one day by a toy shop owner named Georges. Hugo then meets Georges’ goddaughter, named Isabelle, who possesses a heart-shaped key that may be a missing link to the automaton. Entering the two people’s lives soon sends Hugo on an adventure which eventually connects to the history of silent films.

The cast of Hugo is marvelous. Newcomer Asa Butterfield is superb in the title role, and Chloe Grace Moretz (of Kick-Ass) is simply luminous as Isabelle, who has a high spirit of adventure in her. Sir Ben Kingsley plays Georges, a fragile man, with quiet but affecting strength, giving one of his best performances in years. Sacha Baron Cohen, as the station inspector, provides great comic-relief, but doesn’t play his character in a silly one-note way, allowing some emotion and understanding to seep through. Jude Law (as the father), Ray Winstone (as the uncle), and the great Christopher Lee (as a book salesman) also pop up and add some flavor.

Though the cast couldn’t be better, Scorsese is the true star, like with most of his films. The film is based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, and vividly and passionately brought to life by Scorsese. With the film, Scorsese is able to pay tribute to both the early days of cinema and a specific director (giving away his name would give away a key plot point), showing his love of the arts and sending his personal message of how people need to preserve and admire older films. He recreates scenes and the creation processes of some older movies, but also displays unique and memorable environments of his own (such as the train station and the city) for the story and characters to be in.

Scorsese’s environments really come to life with the use of 3D—some of the best usage in a long time. He uses the effect of 3D to enhance his settings, rather than just resorting to throwing special effects at the audience in an ugly and unsatisfying manner (like many modern directors do). Also, some of the actions that take place in the train station environment between some of his non-moviemaker characters are reminiscent of scenes that could be found in silent films (such as an encounter with a flower girl that leads to an awkward conversation (Chaplin, anyone?)). And while Scorsese’s darker themes from his older films have been dropped, some distinct Scorsese touches can still be seen. For example, one exploration through the train station is similar to the scene in Goodfellas where the camera moves through an entire restaurant.

All of the before-mentioned factors make Hugo an excellent film. The movie is slightly slow at times (younger viewers and non-film buffs may become impatient at moments), and some of the supporting characters could have used a bit more development, but it is still one of the best films of the year. Scorsese has made something highly personal and far different from his other movies in themes. Hugo is a wonderful reminder of why we love movies.

Rating: 3 ½ / 4 stars

Paranormal Activity 3 opened a week before Halloween, and has since broken at least five financial records. One of these was the highest opening ever for a film released in the fall season (previously held by last year’s Jackass 3D). While the money intake is impressive, is Paranormal Activity 3 really worth the view?

The film is actually a prequel to the others (while the second entry was a prequel/sequel), mostly taking place in 1988. The sisters of the other films, Katie and Kristi, are shown here as children, growing up with their mother, Julie, and her boyfriend, Dennis. When Kristi begins interacting with an invisible friend named Toby, Dennis starts to realize that strange things are occurring. After capturing something on camera by chance, he soon becomes obsessed with trying to document the occurrences. This leads him to setting up video cameras around the house. In the end, Dennis and the others get more than they bargained for.

It is true that the first Paranormal Activity was a very impressive breakthrough, made with a thin budget ($15,000) but taking in millions and good reviews. That film was also somewhat understated at times, but still delivered a feeling of freshness and some genuine shocks. These factors made it inevitable that sequels (or prequels) would follow. And so they did, but with the third entry now, much of the novelty is gone.

The second and third films feel more like money-grabbers and gimmicks than true entertainments. While the third film is slightly better than the second (in my opinion, it’s less tedious and boring), it still seems to fall back on formula. We get more of the waiting around for shocks; more handheld camera tricks; more loud noises and slight movements; more of people arguing and flipping out instead of leaving – more of the same for the most part.

But why change the formula if it works and brings in money? True, but the more similar films to come, the more stale and disappointing the series will likely get (Saw series, anyone?). Or the makers will start to overstep the process and start adding stupid elements in that don’t click at all, leaving an even worse viewing experience.

All of this said, Paranormal Activity 3 is not a terrible movie. Yes, it is mostly more of the same, but it does deliver some chills and thrills. Like the others, it provides a tense atmosphere and it’s shock moments are pretty creative. The ending is especially nerve-wracking, with one memorable moment in particular. Another scene (earlier in the film), which involves kitchen appliances, is also inventive and jump-worthy.

Series fans will most likely enjoy the movie, while others may find it as a big bag of tricks in search of a stronger plot and more interesting characters. In the end, it’s a mix-up, both delivering and lacking in certain departments. At least it has some real scares going for it, though, instead of just filling the screen with blood and gore. But who knows what the (likely) future sequels/prequels will hold?

Rating: 2 / 4 stars

What started as a sparce group of friends and family turned into a sizable crowd as curious students kept filtering in to see what all the hilarity was about. They soon joined in, enthusastically laughing and applauding as the performers portrayed roles from a variety of improvisational skits.

Simular to the TV show “Who’s Line Is It Anyway?” featuring Drew Carey, students of Cil Stengel’s Improv Comedy class played in games like “Fortune Teller,” in which one actor tries to guess their future based on hints from another actor. The audience provides the future, and the comedy goes from there.  Some other games that entertained an appreciative crowd  included “Three Headed Expert,” “State Trooper,”  “Fairy Tale,” and “Emotional Quadrants.”

Students of Improvisational Theater I, II, III classes starred in the showcase of their comedic stylings on a theme.   Stengel, the instructor, is one of the local creative forces in comedy and a founding member of the Hamazons, “The  Warrior Princesses Of Comedy.”  The next two shows will be in the HEC Presentation Hall at 7 p.m., Friday, June 3, and the last one at noon, Monday, June 6.  Come prepared to be highly amused.

Space is still available for fall in the class, offered at TRC on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 2:30-4:20 pm.

Students from the class have also created a new RCC club, “The Improvables,” which meets at 3 p.m. Fridays at Riverside campus in the  C building.  Interested in joining?  Follow the laughter to the end of the hall.

Gyllenhaal and Arterton swashbuckle their way through another Summer snooze-fest.

By Mig Windows

Staff Writer

Do you like loud noises? Do you like glittery special effects? Did you like Pirates of the Caribbean, but felt it ought to have had taken place in the Middle-East? Do you like ostriches?

If the answer to any of those questions is “yes,” then this is the movie for you! If you are a fan of the video game, however, you might notice a definite lack of sand monsters. There are no sand monsters present in the film whatsoever. The filmmakers didn’t even throw one in for kicks as a reference. Instead, Jake Gyllenhaal’s Persian prince battles a lot of soldiers, guards, snake-wielding Hassansins and various family members in a series of mildly amusing swashbuckling, parkour, and Tarzanesque rope-swinging.

The plot follows Dastan (Gyllenhaal), the adopted son of the King of Persia, who seems to not really do much as Prince besides hanging out in the streets practicing backflips with his buddies. His uncle, the obviously-evil Nizam (Sir Ben “What am I Doing Here?” Kingsley), announces that a neighboring country contains weapons of mass destruction. Dastan’s brothers, Tus and Garsiv (Richard Coyle and Toby Kebbell) go to attack, and the uninvited Dastan decides to gate-crash the invasion. Succeeding, the princes take the kingdom’s defiant princess, Tamina (Gemma “Keira Knightley Wasn’t Available” Arterton) as a prize, and Dastan loots a cool-looking golden dagger. Their victory is short-lived, however, when their father, King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) is poisoned by an unfortunate wardrobe choice.

Despite the fact that he’s innocent, Dastan is blamed for the King’s murder and flees with the help of Tamina. It turns out that the dagger he grabbed earlier is actually –surprise! – a mystical McGuffin that not only emits swooshing golden CGI sand, but also can turn back time by one minute – in super-cool slow motion! The two embark upon an adventure across the desert, traveling from one ill-planned goal to the next, all while quarreling in an effort to establish chemistry. Eventually they meet up with illegal-ostrich-racing comical relief Sheik Amar (Alfred Molina) and his knife-throwing buddy Seso (Steve Tossaint), who are pretty much the Jay and Silent Bob of Ancient Persia. Not to be outhammed, evil Nazim seeks the help of the Hassansins, who use snakes, black robes, supernatural powers and overall creepiness to track down and attempt to dispatch Dastan & co. It all boils down to an Indiana Jones-inspired temple crashing party, with plenty of messages about true callings and destiny thrown in for good measure.

For what it was, it was actually a halfway decent popcorn movie. Don’t expect a lot of originality or deep messages that you haven’t seen or heard elsewhere, particularly in Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which were produced by a few of the same folks. The pacing moves along just quickly enough to keep boredom at bay but is not too fast-paced to follow. The cast does a fine job, and Gyllenhaal seemed surprisingly comfortable in the swashbuckler’s role for someone who has mainly appeared in dramas and dark comedies. Still, the filmmakers easily could have made a semi-historical Middle Eastern zombie movie, which potentially could have been great. Or terrible. We’ll never know.

If I had that magical dagger, though, I might have turned back time to save myself some money and wait for the film to come out on DVD or Blu-ray, where the blaring and repetitive soundtrack can be lowered to a less headache-inducing volume.