(Long Island, N.Y.) Cyrus is a new comedy written and directed by brothers Jay and Mark Duplass. It’s a small, rather intimate movie and as usual for an off-beat, independently-made movie of this type, the marketing guys in charge of pushing it emphasized the “ha-ha’s” in its advertising far more than the “boo-hoo’s.” As a result, just like with 2009’s (very) black comedy, Observe and Report, I went into the theater expecting one type of movie and got

another. It’s not entirely jarring – Cyrus isn’t nearly as dark as Observe and Report turned out to be – but it still contains it’s fair share of heartache and drama, effectively blended with moderate doses of humor.

John C. Reilly is John, a guy dumped by his wife (played by Catherine Keener) seven years ago who doesn’t appear to have had even one date since then. He’s still friends with the ex (you get the feeling she still tolerates him purely out of pity), and often intrudes upon her and her new fiancee for advice on his barren love life. John, middle-aged, out-of-shape, and somewhat unattractive, finally meets a woman named Molly (Marisa Tomei) at a party. Molly seems instantly drawn to John, despite the fact that A) she’s so much better-looking than him that I thought she might be a prostitute secretly hired for him by a friend as a favor, and B) he’s peeing in the bushes when they first meet.

John and Molly begin a whirlwind romance, but there’s one problem: Molly’s 22 year-old son, Cyrus. At first, things between John and Cyrus seem friendly enough, albeit awkward and uncomfortable. But soon Cyrus, who enjoys an incredibly close relationship with his mother, begins to feel threatened and starts to undermine and eventually sabotage the relationship between Molly and John. Despite appearing to be a complete buffoon John picks up on this, and not wanting to lose what he has with Molly, he starts a cloak-and-dagger battle with the cunning Cyrus over the woman he loves.

Cyrus is an odd duck, cinematically speaking. In some ways it’s amateurishly made, shot on location and exclusively using hand-held cameras operated by folks a little too trigger-happy on the zoom buttons. It’s like they were obsessed with the documentary-style film-making used on the Fox TV series The Shield, but missed the point; the cameras in Cyrus tend to harshly pan and zoom in and out on characters and objects almost randomly, whereas The Shield used this technique more

subtly, just to punctuate dialogue or movement. The camera work in Cyrus isn’t horrible, mind you, but it is distracting at times.

Also, the story is as simple as they come and doesn’t feel nearly as fleshed out as it could have been. Once John and Cyrus make their combative intentions clear to one another, you expect the s-word to really hit the fan, but…it doesn’t. Yes, tempers eventually boil over and the two have their big throw-down, but there’s none of the cat-and-mouse competition between them that you’d expect leading up to it. It’s all talk and no follow through.

Frankly, Cyrus’ success as a film relies solely on the strengths of its actors; if the film was populated with all no-names, it probably wouldn’t be getting half the buzz it currently is. John C. Reilly has really made me take notice of his skills as of late…they guy is far more talented and versatile than I ever suspected. He impressed the hell out of me with his work on 2009’s somewhat average Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant, showing that he can actually melt into a semi-serious role. While Cyrus is more of a return to comedic form for him, Reilly still manages to display some subtle, genuine emotion between the laughs.

Superbad’s Jonah Hill is solid as the unbalanced and manipulative Cyrus, playing him as oddly quiet and monotone most of the time, which makes his eventual outbursts all the more effective when they happen. And as usual, Marisa Tomei is funny and charming. She also brings an interesting level of depth as a mother seemingly dependent on her relationship with her eccentric son, and this aspect of her character manages to tug on the ol’ heartstrings later in the film.

So, if you’re in the mood to see a uneven-yet-quirky indie-style movie with a few big-name actors slumming it for a good cause, Cyrus should fill that need quite nicely.

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s not often that you find a film where the main character is a bad guy…and this usually goes double when it comes to animated fare. Yet that is exactly what we get with the release of Despicable Me, a CG movie produced by Universal Studios and one of the few entertaining animated flicks in ages (Along with Dreamworks’ How To Train Your Dragon) NOT made by a company named Pixar.

The aforementioned bad guy heading up the cast of Despicable Me is Gru (voiced by Steve Carell), a character clearly inspired by Charles Addams’ Uncle Fester. Gru is a wanna-be super villain who never seems to get it right. Oh, sure, he’s got an army of adorable yellow blobs (dubbed “Minions”) who clumsily carry out his every ruthless command, and he’s pulled off a few minor capers successfully (his most recent involving using a freeze ray on the line at Starbuck’s to cut to the front). However, there’s nothing on his resume that would ever catapult him into the ranks of criminal super-stardom, and as a result, the Bank Of Evil (formerly Lehman Bros.) that funds his endeavors is threatening to pull their support, begging the question: what’s a super villain doing borrowing money from a bank, even if it IS a Bank of Evil? Why doesn’t he just STEAL it? I mean, that would certainly cement his status as a top bad guy, right?

Anyway, faced with a lack of funds and competition from a hot young criminal newcomer (the nerdy Vector, voiced by Jason Segel), Gru becomes desperate. In order to finally break out of his rut, he devises his masterstroke: he will shrink and steal Earth’s moon itself! However, there’s just one tiny little problem: once Gru steals the required shrink ray weapon from a lab in Asia, it’s in turn stolen from him by Vector. Unable to pierce the formidable defenses of Vector’s fortress, Gru decides to use cunning where brute force has failed. He adopts the three orphan children that Vector had previously placed a cookie order with in order to use them as disposable pawns; when they deliver Vector’s Thin Mints, Gru plans to use the opportunity to steal back the shrink ray. But will the kids’ innocence and charm melt Gru’s cold, evil heart and inspire him to change his ways? Or will he just get his hands on the shrink ray and feed the annoying brats to sharks with lasers attached to their heads?

Despicable Me was one of the few recent movies I’ve seen that actually managed to live up to the promise suggested by its trailer. It’s fun and lighthearted, but with just enough of an edge (due to Gru being evil and all) to keep things from getting too cutesy. For example: when Gru brings home the kids/pawns for the first time, he demonstrates his blatant disregard for their needs by introducing them to the “facilities”…a few sheets of newspaper with a sign hilariously reading “POOP AND PEE.” Gru’s wonderful self-centeredness is the crux of many of the gags in Despicable Me, but, as can be expected in a major studio release, he’s eventually revealed to be a not-so-bad kinda guy way deep down. It’s depressing that no film ever really manages to go all the way with the whole “main character as a villain” concept, but Despicable Me isn’t really the movie to try and do that in…it’s a kid’s flick, after all, so I guess the protagonist shouldn’t really be hacking children apart with an axe.

But with that said, there’s plenty of jokes aimed at older folks as well, and the genuinely funny gags and quips come at a rapid-fire pace, thus ensuring that the film never gets boring. Despicable Me is the rare film that, through the benefit of smart writing, talent, and design, manages to have a broad appeal and loads of charm without appearing to be trying too hard to be “cool.”

The voice talent and character design are a big part of what makes Despicable Me work so well. Steve Carell doesn’t just do Steve Carell; he conjures a delivery for Gru that reminded me slightly of Dracula, and it fits his dark, sinister, yet slightly peculiar depiction perfectly. That unusual design aesthetic carries over to the rest of Despicable Me’s cast and surroundings; the overall art style is quite cartoony, exaggerated, disproportionate, and over-the-top. Gru drives a giant jet-propelled armored car around town and lives in a towering, menacing black house in the middle a typical suburban utopia. You can really tell the artists went wild…well, except when it came to the three orphans, whose appearance appears to have been directly mandated by Universal Studio’s marketing department. Margo (Miranda Cosgrove of iCarly fame), Edith (Dana Gaier), and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) are all solid, amusing characters (the unicorn-loving Agnes is especially endearing), but out of everyone in the movie they’re the only characters that were obviously designed to be “cute” first and foremost, as a result they achingly stand out as the only “normal” (read as: bland) looking ones in the entire movie. 2009’s stop-motion animation based Coraline displayed character designs that were both quirky yet appealing, proving that the makers of Despicable Me didn’t have to go the ultra-generic route with the orphans just to try and tug on our heartstrings. It’s a minor complaint, but it’s just something I wanted to touch on.

Oh, yeah, the Minions. They’re like Corn Pops with big googly eyes and overalls. They speak gibberish, foul up Gru’s orders more often than not, and you’re going to wish you could own a few hundred of them by the time the movie’s over. Needless to say, they’re pretty awesome and a big part of Despicable Me’s appeal- they’re cute in a totally weird and outlandish way, unlike the orphans, who are far more pedestrian and as a result, far less memorable.

Despicable Me is a great film for kids and adults alike. Highly recommended for anyone with a pulse and a brain, and if you’re reading this, you’re likely to have both. Go see it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I never got around to reviewing director Christopher Nolan’s last film, a little something called The Dark Knight, which was about this guy called Batman. Maybe you’ve heard of it. So, to make up for that omission in my review archive, I’m going to give my official judgment on it right now. Are you ready? It was really good.

Okay, now on to Nolan’s new movie: Inception, a sci-fi movie starring the great Leonardo DiCaprio. The funny thing about Inception is that no one seems to understand what it’s about. Yeah, there’s buzz around it due to this being Nolan’s big Dark Knight follow-up (Batman 3 coming up next!), but the trailers have been vague at best. Fascinating to watch, but vague. And this veil of mystery has enveloped the plot of Inception until opening day…a rarity in the film industry, especially when it comes to such a big-name release. This fact had me interested, as director Nolan is known for his intricate, finely-woven, and at times confusing stories and, freed of the slightly more logical constraints forced upon him buy the established Batman universe, Inception was sure to be deep. But now it’s here, and like 2000’s Memento and 2006’s The Prestige, it’s layered and might actually require more than one viewing to take in all the little nuances. Luckily, it’s entertaining enough to make repeat trips into its world quite bearable.

I’m going to go light on the plot recap, if only to preserve the abstruseness of the story until you get around to watching it. The film works better that way, since none of the previews I’ve read have gotten it right, anyway. Inception takes place in a world where people can invade other’s dreams, ala Freddy Krueger. Only, instead of hunting down and killing promiscuous teenagers, these dream invaders are a bit more subtle and conniving; they implant ideas and subconscious suggestions, in addition to stealing memories. Inception deals with Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a subconscious security expert who leads a team of crack

operatives in committing dread-based crimes.

Navigating the dream world and accomplishing their goals are a tricky process (one would assume), and each member of Cobb’s team serves a distinct purpose: Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a “forger” who can change his dream identity; Eames (Tom

Hardy

); and an “architect” named Nash (Lukas Haas) who basically shapes and balances the reality of the dream world. Hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) for a bit of subliminal industrial espionage, the addition of a new architect to the team (Ellen Page) and Cobb’s own anguished mental baggage threaten the operation and soon has the viewer beginning to doubt

what is real and what isn’t.

Inception is a tight, intelligent,

and enthralling film from a man, Christopher Nolan, who seems to excel at crafting such tales. A few weeks ago I called Toy Story 3 the best film of the year, and in the wake of Inception’s release, it still manages to hold onto that honor, mainly because the capper to Pixar’s trilogy affected me on a far more emotional level. But brilliant writing, acting, visuals (the infamous shot from the trailers of the dreamscape city folding up on itself is just the tip of the iceberg), and a completely unique story with more layers than an onion (oh, no, I didn’t just use the worse cliché on the planet, did I?) all combine to ensure that Inception snags the year’s #2 spot, for sure.

Special notice must be taken of Leonardo DiCaprio, who by now I’m sure has convinced everyone with a pulse that he is one of this generation’s best (one of? maybe even THE best) actor. The role of Cobb is as complicated as I’ve seen in a modern movie…I’ve purposely avoided revealing much of anything about his back-story so you, the viewer can be as bowled over as I was. Just amazing. But his back-up cast somehow manages NOT to get lost in his wake, due to pure talent and Nolan’s apparent ability to consistently coax the

very best performances out of

the people under his watch. Joseph Gordon-Levitt in particular stands out (you might remember him as the only actor that WASN’T horrible in the recent G.I. Joe stinker), as does Juno star Ellen Page. Nolan regulars Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, and Ken Watanabe (he was in Batman Begins, remember?) also pop up as well, and each one just impresses more than the next.

So, Inception is a great, thought-provoking sci-fi thriller. Go watch it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, it’s finally here…the first new stand-alone Predator film in 20 years. Directed and produced by the team of Nimród Antal and Robert Rodriguez, Predators is a direct sequel to the classic 1987 original starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, which told the tale of an elite squad of military operatives being stalked and killed in the jungle by a stealthy alien big-game hunter. Now, in the sequel, we’re told the tale of an elite squad of military operatives being…well, stalked and killed in the jungle by a stealthy alien big-game hunter. But there’s more than one hunter running around this time, and the jungle isn’t set in South America, but on another planet that serves as a “game preserve” of sorts. It turns out that the aliens (known as “Predators”) like hone their craft by kidnapping strong prey from around the galaxy, depositing them here, and hunting them down for sport.

If you’ve read my review for 2009’s heist film Armored, you’d have probably taken note of my interest in its director, Nimród Antal. At that point, he had just been announced as helming the new Predator sequel, and, as the original is quite near and dear to my heart, I watched Armored with great interest to see what Antal would bring to the table. In Armored, I found a film that was rather lamely scripted, but expertly directed in a sharp, refreshing, old-school fashion, emphasizing character and acting over mindless action (which was still in abundance, don’t worry), crazy editing, and wobbly cameras. It left me hopeful for the future, and that faith has been (for the most part) rewarded. With Predators, Antal displays the same talented film-making that he did in Armored, but now on a much grander scale, deftly blending action and horror with only a few minor hiccups along the way.

At the start of Predators, an otherwise unrelated group of assorted human combatants are dropped onto a distant planet, none of them sure how they got there: Royce (Adrien Brody), an American Mercenary; Edwin (Topher Grace), a doctor; Cuchillo (cult favorite and Rodriguez regular Danny Trejo), a Mexican drug enforcer; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian Spetsnaz (those guys are scary!); Mombasa (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), a former death squad officer; Stans (Walton Goggins), a death row inmate; Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli sniper; and Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien), a silent Yakuza assassin. Naturally, they’re all confused, but it doesn’t take long for them to figure out what’s going on and band together to survive. Eventually, the monstrous Predators (one of whom is played by Derek Mears, who was Jason Voorhees in last year’s Friday The 13th remake), using advanced technology and guerrilla tactics, start picking the team apart, making their prospects for living long enough find a way home look dim. A few surprises and twists pop up, blood and body parts go flying, and…well, that’s all I’m saying. Go buy a ticket if you want to see how it turns out.

First of all, I’m going to discuss the chracters of Predators, since that was the driving force (and big part of the success) of the original Predator. While the new gang of warriors in this film are a good, effective lot, none of them can touch the eclectic (and dare I sat iconic) band of characters director John McTiernan gathered together in the first movie. Adrien Brody, as surprisingly solid as he is in a tough-guy action role, is no Arnold. He just doesn’t have the same presence, physicality, or charisma. And the supporting cast of the new flick doesn’t really stand up to the unbridled 80’s machismo of Jesse “The Body” Ventura or the craziness of Bill Duke after he completely flips his lid (“I’m gonna have me some fun…I’m gonna have me some fun…I’m gonna have me some fun…”).

Still, I’m not saying that this crop of new actors assembled by Nimród Antal doesn’t hold up in their own very distinct ways. Adrien Brody, as stated, does well as the lead. Thankfully, he doesn’t to compete with Arnold (really, who could?), but instead plays the role as cold, detached, and ruthless, which turns out to be very effective. Walton Goggins (who you might remember from the TV series The Shield) was fun, as was the hard-as-nails Nikolai, who carried a minigun as a (not so) little nod to the former Governor of Minnesota. But one of my personal favorites was the katana-brandishing Hanzo, who gets one of the coolest scenes in the movie. I don’t want to spoil anything, but imagine if they had actually shown Billy fight the Predator in the first film instead of just hearing him off-screen going “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!” Good news: we don’t get gypped this time.

Of course, there are weak links in this chain as well. I’m a huge fan of Laurence Fishburne, who shows up in a small role later in the movie (rumored to have originally been intended for Arnold Schwarzenegger himself at one point). However, Fishburne’s shockingly lackluster performance (and the fact that he’s supposedly been surviving in a brutal jungle for 10 years on his own but is somehow still fat) prevented me from getting into his character at all. Alice Braga’s Isabelle serves no purpose other than to be the token woman of the cast. Oh, and to fill in the gang on the events that transpired in the original film, which, as shown in 1990’s Predator 2 (which I’m not sure exists in this film’s continuity), are apparently known to the military. Oh, and Topher Grace’s doctor character is just stupid. You’ll see why.

And while the dialogue in Predators is more than serviceable, it falls short when compared to it’s 1987 forefather, which was a high-water mark for 80’s Action one-liners (second only to Arnold’s blood-drenched masterpiece, 1985’s Commando). “If it bleeds, we can kill it.” “Stick around.” “I ain’t got time ta bleed.” But while Predator was FILLED with brilliant quotes like that, you probably won’t find yourself repeating any of the lines from its sequel to your friends.

It wouldn’t be a Predator movie without Predators, now would it? The giant alien warriors are back in good form, and director Antal not only stays faithful to the famous Stan Winston designs from the first film, but expands upon them by introducing more savage-looking “Black” Predators (a rival clan challenging the “Classic” style Predators), as well as some frightening “Predator dogs” that are used to herd the humans around. Practical, physical effects are used whenever possible, which is more than welcome, and what’s CG ends up looking pretty nice (aside from the aforementioned Predator dogs, who need a little work). But visually, my one major complaint has nothing to do with the effects, but instead with fact that these people are on an alien planet that…doesn’t look like an alien planet. At all. Filming of Predators was mostly set in Hawaii (oh, that poor crew…), which ends up looking a lot like the South American jungle seen in the original flick. It’s beautiful scenery, but shouldn’t there be some…I don’t know, weird, sixty-foot tall purple man-eating plants or something? Or those dart-firing flowers from that one 1960’s Star Trek episode? Something?

But aside from some quibbles with the acting and setting, Predators delivers, breathing new life into the once-dead franchise. It’s not as good as the first, but it’s better than (the still fun) Predator 2 and certainly millions of light-years improved over the terrible Alien Vs. Predator flicks. Plus, it leaves itself wide-open for a sequel, which it deserves. If you love sci-fi and action (I do!), it’s a no-brainer. Go see it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I’m not sure what happened with Grown Ups. On paper, this movie read like a “who’s who” from the world of comedy: Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, David Spade, and Rob Schneider are all in the lead roles, and the supporting cast is made up of guys like Colin Quinn, Norm MacDonald, and Sandler regular Steve Buscemi. The pieces were all in place for a flick that would test the endurance of funny bones across the nation…how could it all go so very wrong? Well, it’s easy when you look at the collective pedigree of the film’s stars…

Adam Sandler’s career is far past its comedic peak. Chris Rock is this generation’s greatest stand-up comic, but has never made a good movie. Ever. David Spade and Rob Schneider are both b-level comedians who aren’t funny. As for Kevin James, I can’t really speak about previous stuff; I’ve never watched The King Of Queens (although people assure me that it’s good), and I somehow missed the majesty that was “Paul Blart: Mall Cop.” But in Grown Ups he’s just yet another guy ruining the movie. In fact, no one stands out…meaning, the performances are universally bad across the board. Well, except for Buscemi, who seems to be to Sandler films what John Ratzenberger is to Pixar. Sort of.

So, what made this movie an exercise in pain? Well, first there’s the plot, such as it is. A bunch of kids play on a grade-school basketball team, grow up, are told their coach died, they attend the funeral, and then decide to catch up by spending the weekend at a rented lakeside house. Other movies can weave all that into a deep and beautiful coming-of-age tale or something, but in Grown Ups, all of that is covered in the first 3 minutes or so. The rest is an incomprehensible mish-mash of scenes and gags that seem almost randomly thrown together. Oh, there’s some side-plots thoughtlessly tacked on about how the wife of Adam Sandler’s character (played by Salma Hayek) takes her job as a fashion designer too seriously and their kids are little snobs, but none of it amounts to anything. Oh, and the basketball team’s childhood rivals show up to harass our heroes at a water park at one point, but since the movie didn’t bother explaining who they actually were until about 45 minutes later (when they have a “dramatic” re-match of their championship game from years before), I just got confused.

But the lame and bare-bones plot isn’t Grown Ups’ greatest crime, oh no. It’s not even the fact that the movie is unable to elicit even one decent laugh during it’s entire running time. No, Grown Ups’ biggest affront against humanity is that it’s actors supply their own laugh track whenever someone makes a joke. Any joke. Remember back when Eddie Murphy did stand-up and used to crack up at all his own punch-lines? It’s like someone made a whole movie based on that, but somehow removed all the humor that Murphy brought to the table. What we’re left with is a film where characters constantly make wise-cracks followed by their friends breaking into laughter TO REMIND US HOW FUNNY IT IS. Only, it’s not. But really, even if the jokes WERE funny, the laughing wouldn’t be doing them any favors. But laughing at BAD jokes…? I swear, there were parts I thought Chris Rock looked like he was going to cry.

And when Grown Ups isn’t unsuccessfully trying to be funny, it’s boring. Actually, it’s boring even when it’s trying to be funny, but I’m sure you get what I mean. It just plods on and on and on until it cruelly teases us with ending at one point, only to go on for another 20 minutes or so. Everyone appears to be going through the motions, as if they know how bad the movie is, and none of the characters have any chemistry whatsoever- you never get the feeling that the people were childhood friends. The film is bland, shallow, and takes genuine effort to watch.

Amazingly enough, one of the guys I went to the screening with had already sat through Grown Ups once before, and I couldn’t understand how. I mean…how? He never said he actually enjoyed it, but unlike me, he didn’t show any obvious signs of physical discomfort, either.

And the fact remains that…he managed to watch it a second time! And this same individual hated 2009’s District 9, an amazing and highly original film that I deeply love…I, I just don’t know.

By the way, there’s a lot of talk about how M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie “The Last Airbender” (review coming soon!) is a strong contender for Worst Movie of the Year honors, but I can’t see what that movie could have done wrong that Grown Ups didn’t already blow out of the water. But, we shall see!

Anyway, if you’re the type of person that skips to the last sentence of a movie review just to get to the point, here it is: Avoid Grown Ups at all costs. It’s bad. How bad? REAL bad. Have a happy Fourth of July!

(Long Island, N.Y.) I believe the phrase “middle of the road” was coined specifically to describe this movie. What movie? Oh, we’re talking about Knight And Day, a new action/comedy film starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. The movie is fine, mainly because that’s all it apparently aspires to be. Not good, not great, and certainly not horrible. Just…”middle of the road.” Do I give a movie points for such an achievement? Just for not being bad? I don’t think so, especially since I already saw the year’s best movie, Toy Story 3, last week. Following in the wake of that masterpiece with a by-the-numbers effort like Knight And Day is like chasing moist, delicious chocolate cake with a shot of cod oil. Well, maybe not THAT bad, but you get my point, don’t you?

Knight And Day is about a secret agent named Roy Miller (Cruise) who, through a wacky twist of fate, keeps bumping into June Havens (Diaz), a normal everyday gal. She (of course) accidentally gets caught up in his shenanigans and soon finds herself mistakenly targeted by the CIA and running all over the globe with the deadly super-spy Miller, who just so happens to be after perpetual energy battery thingy called the Zephyr. But is Miller trying to stop the battery from falling into the wrong hands, or is he a rouge operative out to make a quick buck by selling it into said wrong hands? Who knows, and Diaz might not live long enough to find out. You will, of course, but that’s because movies aren’t real so you’re in no real danger if you go see it (unless you frequent bad neighborhoods). But…should you?

That’s a hard question to answer. I’m trying to be a professional here and not let the

majesty of Toy Story 3 taint my viewpoint, but if a computer-generated cartoon can affect me on such a visual and emotional level, shouldn’t a movie with REAL LIVE people be able to do the same? Should I be sitting in my theater seat witnessing over-the-top CG stunts, completely indifferent, when I was doing almost the same thing last week, but clutching my girlfriend in terror when faced with the possible horrific fate of Woody, Buzz, and the gang? In both cases we know, deep down, that everything’s going to be okay in the end, but the difference is that, in the case of Knight And Day, you just don’t care. That’s how little I found myself invested in the film’s characters. The pace is swift, and it’s never really boring, but nothing touches you, either. You’re not given a real reason to care about Cruise or Diaz, so you never get the sensation of being brought along for the ride…instead, you’re just painfully aware that you’re sitting in a movie theater seat and something icky is making your sneakers stick to the floor. Ewww…

Still, like I said, Knight And Day is briskly-paced. That’s good. And it does have a few good gags that made me chuckle, fight scenes that were well-staged,

a few neat (yet very fake-looking) stunts and, while their characters are as thin as paper, Cruise and Diaz do possess a decent degree of chemistry. But everything that happens is 150% predictable and I’m just getting sick of these cookie-cutter flicks that don’t engage or surprise me on any level. Also, the stigma of Cruise’s couch-hopping rant on Oprah and his infamous anti-psychiatry interviews back in the day are still hanging over him. It’s a shame, because he’s always been a good actor, and he’s still a viable action star since he’s kept himself in great shape, especially considering his age (what? he’s 47?!?). But I can’t watch a movie with Tom in it without picturing the guy bouncing around the Oprah set squealing “I’M IN LOOVE” or claiming that hanging out in a sauna while stuffed full of vitamins will cure your drug addiction. But, much like Mel Gibson and his well-publicized follies a few years ago, you have to separate the man from the actor and judge them on their own merits. That’s only fair.

Cameron Diaz, on the other hand, I’ve never really been a fan of. I just don’t find her to be a very good actress, nor believable at all in action roles. Oh, and she’s downright annoying sometimes, too. But, given the right script, she can do okay, and that’s what she does here; she does okay. But, as I pointed out, she does get on well with Cruise, so their (inevitable as the tide) romance doesn’t seem as forced as one might suspect it would. Almost.

Hopefully I’ll have purged my system of Toy Story 3 within the next week or so and can go back to appreciating completely average movies again. Until then, I’ll have to suffer with the memory of what a truly great film can be and how pitifully few of them are actually made each year. But eventually, I’ll re-settle back into my rut and when that happens, a film like Knight And Day might even seem a pleasurable experience. Until then, it gets 2 stars…but that’s only because I’m in a good mood.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Toy Story 3 is a hard movie to review. Not because it’s bad, mind you- the beautifully animated CG tale of a young boy named Andy and his loyal toys (who, of course, come to life when he’s not around) easily sits near the top of the Pixar echelon, along with such works of sheer brilliance such as WALL-E, The Incredibles, and, of course, the original Toy Story. But Toy Story 3 has something that the aforementioned films do not- a sense of finality.

This is the LAST Toy Story movie, barring a sleazy cash-run. But this is Pixar we’re talking about here, so I think it’s safe to say that’s not going to happen. The funny thing about Toy Story 3, however, is that it’s a movie I originally didn’t think needed to be made; when it was announced, I thought perhaps that Pixar actually WAS going for the cash-run this time. But silly me…watching movies my whole life, yet still naive. This movie NEEDED to be made, because after all the ground covered by the first two movies, there was one glaring omission: the fact that, eventually, all boys grow up and leave their toys behind. Well, unless they’re like me and they have a shelf or two filled with them, but that’s another matter entirely.

By the way, we dodged a bullet, folks. Remember a few years ago, when Pixar was in a tiff with Disney (their distributor and, ickily enough, owner of all the characters Pixar created), and their relationship was almost at an end? Thank whatever deity you hold dear that they patched things up, because we were spared the horror of a Disney-created Toy Story 3 (which was the plan at one point). Disney used to have the touch, ages ago, but they haven’t made a decent animated movie in years. But thanks to Pixar (and others, like Japanese director/animator Hayao Miyazaki, creator of the recent Ponyo), a cartoon can still wow me here and there with its originality and soul.

For once, I’m going to skip my usual overally-detailed plot summary (that’s something I’ve been slowly trying to wean myself off of, anyway- after all, why watch the movie when you can read my OCD-ridden review, right?), mainly because the trailers and TV commercials for Toy Story 3 managed to do a brilliant thing: they basically don’t tell you a damn thing about the movie. Sure, they inform us the gang’s back: Woody the Cowboy (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Jessie the Cowgirl (Joan Cusack), Hamm the Piggy Bank (Pixar mainstay/mascot John Ratzenberger), Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), et al. The trailer also tells us that Buzz somehow starts speaking Spanish, and that the toys end up in some kind of day care center. That’s it, really, and keeping the plot of a major release such as Toy Story 3 in this age of the internet is nothing short of amazing. Going in, you have no idea of the emotional depth this film possesses, and it really knocks you for a loop when it’s revealed.

No, this isn’t yet another yarn about Andy losing his toys and their struggle to reunite with their master. This is a story about growing up, moving on, and, most depressing of all, dealing with outliving your usefulness…being left behind. As our tale opens, Andy is now 17 and getting ready to head off to college. His annoying mother insists he decide which of his beloved childhood toys go to the attic and which go to the curb, a misunderstanding takes place, and the toys find themselves at a day care center. What follows is an emotional journey that demands tough choices…should the toys embrace the new life offered to them, or find their way back to Andy yet again, only to be stuffed into a garbage bag and resigned to the attic, or worse, a yard sale? Or…is there another choice, yet unknown to them, that might bring them true happiness yet again?

Toy Story 3 continues the Pixar tradition of films that appeal to young and old alike…as usual, the kids will be happy with the physical comedy and cutsey gags (yes, despite the somber tone of my write-up thus far, this movie IS very funny), while the smart jokes intended for grown-ups sail right over their heads. Pixar knows what makes a true classic tick: endearing characters, complexly-woven plots, intelligent humor infused with Tex Avery-inspired slapstick, and a complete lack of the dreaded “edginess” that seems to have permeated (read as: ruined) almost every other children’s movie made in the last 15 years. For example, the new teaser trailer for the upcoming Smurfs movie features “edgy” phrases such as “prepare to get SMURF’D” and “SMURF HAPPENS” (They sound like curses! GET IT?! That’s EDGY, so it MUST be cool!), along with the ancient Tone-Loc song “Wild Thing” with the trademark Smurf “La-la-lalalala” tune mixed in. I mean, what out-of-touch marketing clod made THAT call? First of all, it’s a song about HAVING SEX, and second of all, that song is, like, HOW old? 20 years? They couldn’t think of anything more current in their quest to be “hip” and “edgy” to 8 year-old kids?

Toy Story doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about being hip. It’s more concerned about just having brains, heart, and giggles. And therein lies its strength. It’s not out to make as many tired pop culture references as its voice actors can spew out…leave that to the Shrek movies.

Pixar’s movies wouldn’t be nearly the collective success they’ve been without the perfect voice talent they always manage to cast (actually, is that true? WALL-E managed to be enthralling with hardly any dialogue). The setting of a day care center has opened up the possibilities for a vast assortment of different toys in this film, and both licensed favorites and original creations pop up, all wonderfully acted. Aside from the returning voice actors of the regulars, all of whom continue to deliver the goods, new additions such as Ned Beatty as Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear, Michael Keaton as Ken (yes, as in Barbie’s main squeeze), Whoopi Goldberg as Stretch (an octopus!!!) really help round out the inspired line-up. Oh, there’s cute little unicorn character, too- I just thought I’d mention that because my girlfriend likes unicorns. That’s the power you wield when you edit your own column… heh heh.

Oh yeah, the movie’s really pretty, too. Pixar has this computer animation thing totally dialed in…Toy Story 3 is so much better looking than it’s two predecessors that it’s not even funny. Some of the plastic-based toys have only improved just so much from the original flick (I mean, they were already perfect), but the rendering and animation of Lots-O’-Huggin’s fur is almost…hypnotic. Way beyond Sully in Monsters, Inc, that’s for sure. The world of Toy Story 3 is rich, detailed, and mind-blowing, but the brilliance of it is the restraint shown by the designers. They adhered to the cartoony design aesthetic shown by the first two entries in the series instead of totally flexing their CG-rendering muscles just to be complete show-offs. But regardless, your eyeballs will melt from the shear visual majesty on display. Call a lawyer!

I loved Toy Story 3. While WALL-E remains my all-time favorite Pixar offering (that movie totally gets to me, even after seeing it a million times…I really should have given it 4 stars instead of 3 1/2), and it’s not quite as good as the original Toy Story (how could it be?), it’s still better than 99.9% of the animation…actually, scratch that, ANY movie you’re likely to see this year. See it, and then think a quiet little thought about your favorite childhood toy, the joy it brought you, and where it might be now. If you can, find it…and say thank you. They’ll appreciate it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) When I was a wee lad back in the 1980’s, one of my favorite television shows was The A-Team; mainly, this was due to the character of “B.A. Baracus,” played by the ultimate 80’s tough-guy, Mr. T. Mr. T was a hero of mine growing up, second in my estimation only to the Austrian Oak himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I mean, everyone looks up to someone, and I often gravitated towards big, strong, larger-then-life characters who could effortlessly kick butt (this was probably due to the fact that I was a scrawny little wimp at the time). But as far as the A-Team went, it was a show that certainly had more going for it than just Mr. T pitying fools and then throwing said fools across a room and out a window; it had action, humor, and loads of personality. So it should come as little surprise that the merciless Hollywood remake machine is attempting to cash in on nostalgia for yet the billionth time by now bringing The A-Team to the big screen.

Remember the famous voice-over at the beginning of each episode of the original TV series that covered its backstory? Um…how did that go again?

“Ten years ago, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn’t commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire… The A-Team.”

Oh, right, that’s it. Anyway, that’s what this movie is about: the crime they didn’t commit, their prompt escape, and their attempt to clear their names. The ‘soldiers of fortune helping the downtrodden by blowing up everything in sight’ stuff that formed the basis of each and every weekly episode of the TV series is apparently being left for the eventual sequel. But hey, this approach ends up being a somewhat unique take on the subject matter- after all, the show started up with all the players already in place and doing their thing. Now, for the first time, we get to see how they actually met and became The A-Team: Col. John “Hannibal” Smith (Liam Neeson), Lt. Templeton “Faceman” Peck (Bradley Cooper), Sgt. B.A. “Bad Attitude” Baracus (Quinton “Rampage” Jackson), and Capt. H.M. “Howling Mad” Murdock (Sharlto Copley).

Here’s the gist of it: once the hows of why the four meet are gotten out of the way (turns out they’re all Army Rangers united by fate…or something), time fast-forwards to the end of the Iraqi war where The A-Team (as they’ve come to be known as), now considered elite combat unit, are given a top-secret “unofficial” assignment to steal back counterfeit U.S. treasury plates that are being moved out of Baghdad. However, upon successful completion of the mission, they are instead betrayed and charged with going rouge, with each member of the team sentenced to 10 years in the cooler. Naturally, our heroes are not inclined to take this injustice lying down, and with the help of a shady CIA operative named “Lynch” (Patrick Wilson), the four bust out of prison and set out to clear their names…mostly by shooting and blowing up everything they see. However, they are pursued by “Faceman” Peck’s ex-girlfriend, Capt. Charisa Sosa (Jessica Biel), who apparently is apparently sore about the break-up and seems determined to even the score. And SHE dumped HIM! Women, huh?

Anyway, The A-Team’s investigation ends up uncovering lies, conspiracies, backstabbings, hoodwinking, plots, shenanigans, tomfoolery, and just about any other word you can think of that would indicate that naughty people are trying to stack the deck against our fearless quartet. In the end it will not only take endless expenditure of ammunition and bombs to see that justice is done, but a fair amount of cunning and guile as well. Luckily, The A-Team has all of it in spades.

Directed by Joe Carnahan, known for the 2002 crime drama NARC and the 2007 action flick Smokin’ Aces (which was my actually the subject of my second-ever review here at Long Island Exchange, and you could see the vast potential and talent of this brash young reviewer in every sentence), The A-Team is a fun movie starring a group of actors who display a great amount of chemistry and camaraderie with one another. The film is funny, fast-paced, never boring, and features several action scenes that, while bordering on the ridiculous, are still well-done and exciting. I’d say that the movie basically captures the action-packed and comedic tone of the TV show that inspired it pretty well…in other words, I didn’t feel like a chunk of my youth was raped and pillaged like I did when I watched the recent G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra. Of course, there was one major departure from the original series that even had Mr. T himself up in arms: in the TV program, no matter how many shots were fired or things blew up, no one EVER got killed. Like, ever. I mean, you’d see a horrific car crash and the camera would always take a second or two to show the drivers climb out, shaken but unhurt. It was solid family viewing; homogenized destruction without the unpleasant side-effects of death and suffering. But the PG-13 film adaptation forgoes the cartoon violence of its forefather and wastes no time in actually pumping bullet after bullet into bad guys instead of just aiming for the ground by their feet. It’s actually not that jarring- the lack of any body count in the show was actually pretty silly considering the carnage unleashed each episode- and it’s never morbid or gratuitous.

I’ll get to the only part of this review that really matters now: how well the new actors fill the shoes of the original cast. Now, before I get to the individual performances, let me just say this: on the TV show, it was basically all about Mr. T. The A-Team itself was originally conceived as a starring vehicle for him and the whole show was built around his character. But one thing the movie does better than the show is that now the team seems much more like a family- I’m not sure if these actors just have a better rapport with each other or what, but their interaction just felt far more organic and natural than it ever did on the show.

It also helps that each actor doesn’t simply try to ape their respective 80’s counterpart- instead they each infuse their roles with a bit of themselves as well.

As for the main cast, let’s go in order:

Liam Neeson as Col. John “Hannibal” Smith: My boy Liam does himself proud in the role first held by the late George Peppard. Mr. Neeson, an amazing actor with a long, illustrious career, has already proven himself a more than capable action star in 2008’s Taken, a intense and blood-drenched favorite of yours truly (long-time readers will notice that I point this out at every opportunity I get). Neeson puts his own personal spin on the smug and scheming Hannibal, the grizzled leader of the group who has easily earned their loyalty a hundred times over. As soon as Neeson was announced for the role, I knew it was in safe hands. And I was right.

Bradley Cooper as Lt. Templeton “Faceman” Peck: He’s the pretty one, a con-man with a thing for the ladies. Cooper doesn’t play the role as smarmy as Dirk Benedict did, but it’s probably the one portrayal in this movie that strays the least from the mark. Still, they try and flesh him out a tad in regards to his relationship with Biel’s character, and it kinda works to humanize him a little. Please don’t mistake this as anything approaching character development; there’s little of that in this movie. I’m just making conversation, is all.

Quinton “Rampage” Jackson as Sgt. B.A. “Bad Attitude” Baracus: Now this is an interesting one, and probably the performance I’m the most conflicted about. To start off: Rampage is no Mr. T. I’m sorry, but he isn’t as big, intimidating, or just plain mean-looking as the Mohawked One was in his prime. In fact, there were points in movie where Quinton came across as almost cuddly. But that said, Rampage Jackson, a UFC fighter by day, surprised the hell out of me by being a more-than-capable actor. On the TV show, B.A. was a mean dude that threw suckas that crossed him- that was pretty much it. But Rampage’s B.A. Baracus is far more nuanced and deep, coming to an emotional and moral crisis regarding violence mid-film. This works very well, but it also made him seem wishy-washy. B.A. starts reading books by Gandhi and renouncing his violent ways, but then Hannibal points out that Gandhi said it’s ok to fight for what you believe in and suddenly B.A. is fine with killing people again. Um, okay.

This character strayed the furthest from his television roots, although Rampage did an excellent job of directly channeling the spirit of Mr. T whenever “that crazy fool” Murdock would start freaking him out with his insane antics.

However, no one knocks out B.A. with drugged milk, and while he eventually DOES throw a fool, it’s not quite as satisfying as when Mr. T did it. Bummer.

Sharlto Copley as Capt. H.M. “Howling Mad” Murdock: This was the most inspired piece of casting in the movie. Sharlto really blew me away in 2009’s District 9 as the nerdy, twitchy Wikus van de Merwe, and the second I heard he was getting this high-profile gig originally made popular by Dwight Schultz in the TV series I actually got very excited. Sharlto proves that his fledgling performance in District 9 was no fluke: he takes Murdock and reinvents the role with a degree of insanity that eclipses Schultz’s portrayal, in my opinion. He doesn’t just act nuts; he IS nuts, in a way I’ve never really seen ‘nuts’ done before. Sharlto constantly changes his accent, his mannerisms, you name it. He’s truly unpredictable and I can’t wait to see what Sharlto, the most unlikely movie star in ages, brings to his next role.

The rest of the main actors were all actually really good as well. Jessica Biel was fine but probably stood out the least as the scrappy Capt. Sosa. The real stand-outs were Patrick Wilson as CIA agent “Lynch” and Brian Bloom (who I think I remember from an episode of HBO’s OZ) as Pike, the villainous leader of a civilian security unit. Both guys were funny, intense, and when it was called for, downright evil. Considering the strength of the main four cast members, it’s easy in a film of this type for the supporting cast to be overwhelmed, but that’s not the case here, and The A-Team is all the better for it.

Okay, the bad stuff. the editing is a nightmare at times.

The A-Team exemplifies rapid-fire cuts and camera shaking to its extreme, and it makes some of the fights impossible to keep track of. It seems to let up as the movie goes on, but it’s still a major annoyance. Also, some of the action scenes, as mentioned above, are just so over-the-top that it ceases being in any way, shape, or form believable; there’s a scene involving a cargo ship near the end that not only is the pinnacle of implausibility, but also features Lego-quality (read as: BAD) computer effects. The ending reigns it back in, but there’s points in The A-Team where I was just shaking my head at how silly it all was.

But in the end, The A-Team is about character and nostalgia, and it has all that covered quite nicely. Overall, this summer isn’t really packed with many blockbuster films, and out of those that I’ve seen (and the vibe I’m getting from those that have yet to come), I’d say The A-Team stands pretty much near the head of the pack. It’s fun, first and foremost. Well, actually, that’s all it is, but if you were expecting anything else out of an adaptation of The A-Team, you crazy fool!

(Long Island, N.Y.) Here’s an interesting

fact: Killers, the new action/comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl, was not screened for critics prior to its release. Studios often do this for their movies when they just KNOW said critics are going to rip it a new one and Lionsgate, the studio behind Killers, is an especially active participant in this practice.

They do it with every installment in the terrible “Saw” series, too, because they want to try and get as many people into the theater before word gets out that their flick is the equivalent of the Jonestown Kool-Aid. But in this case, such an act may not have been completely warranted- while Killers is basically an uninspired knock-off of the great Arnold Schwarzenegger/James Cameron film True Lies (woman marries guy, only to learn later that

he’s a spy), it’s still manages to be…well, just okay. Come to think of it, if saying Killers is “…well, just okay” is the highest praise I can heap in this movie, maybe it’s for the best that Lionsgate didn’t screen it after all.

Well, here’s the plot, such as it is: Jennifer Kornfeldt (Heigl) is on vacation with her parents (played by Tom Selleck and Catherine O’Hara). The rather neurotic (yet otherwise quite normal and boring) Jennifer meets Spencer Aimes (Kutcher), the two fall in love, engage in a whirlwind romance and quickly marry. But what Jennifer doesn’t know is that Spencer is a CIA assassin who kills people (but, to quote Schwarzenegger from True Lies, “dey vere all bad.”). Tiring of the bloodshed and wishing nothing more than to have a normal life, Spencer quits the CIA and settles into a bland yet pleasurable existence in suburbia with his new wife. Things are great, until Spencer’s

past comes back to haunt him in the form of an army of knife and gun wielding wackos out for his hide. Considering the fact that people are now trying to gun down Spencer left and right, he has no choice to let his sweetie Jennifer in on his “little secret.” But this reveal begs the question: will Jennifer stand by her man, or run for the hills? If I were her I’d split, but hey, that’s me.

Hmm…how do I expand upon my “…well, just okay” summary of Killers, as stated above? Well, first off is the big surprise to me: Ashton Kutcher somehow managed NOT to be annoying! I know, I know, you’re shocked as well, but it’s the truth! The character of Spencer is really a nice guy at heart, albeit kind of a goofball, and for some reason Kutcher just gels with that kind of role. Katherine Heigl, on the other hand, is just plain aggravating. Her character starts out skittish and completely useless, but eventually evolves out of nowhere into this Linda Hamilton/Terminator 2 hard-edged kinda gal. The problem is that she’s extremely annoying in EITHER mode. Together, Kutcher’s

likeability is somewhat (but not completely) cancelled out by Heigl’s UN-likeability, leading to a film that is “…well, just okay.”

But wait, it’s time to pick apart the “comedy” and “action” aspects of Killers. To do so, let’s reference the superior film it rips off, as I mentioned above: True Lies, a movie that almost perfectly managed to balance the humor and explosions. Director James Cameron was able to weave these two aspects into a fine tapestry of excitement and adventure; the jokes were funny, and the action scenes deftly and breathtakingly pulled off on a grand scale. It helped that Cameron’s two stars, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis, were both charismatic and had great chemistry together. But due to Heigl’s wretched performance in Killers, half of that important equation is lost, and Kutcher just can’t carry it all on his own. It also hurts that there really aren’t that many laughs and that the action scenes tend to lack any real “oomph.” It’s solid (or you could say, “…well, just okay”), but the negative True Lies comparison is always just lurking under the surface. You can’t produce a movie with a near-identical premise and escape that. But at least Kutcher manages to pull his weight when it’s time for fisticuffs and gun slinging. I’m not saying the guy is ready to usurp Arnold’s throne or anything (the very thought is enough to make me chuckle lightly into my Sobe Fuji Apple Pear juice), but he certainly doesn’t embarrass himself at all, either.

So, here we have Killers, a “…well, just okay” movie that isn’t horrible and certainly isn’t worthy of the stigma Lionsgate has forced upon it by failing to screen the film for critics. I’d say

Killers is worth the price of a ticket if its only competition was the “I’d rather apply soap with a cheese grater for the rest of my life than see it” Sex And The City 2, but the fact is that there’s a neat little sci-fi/horror film debuting in theaters today called Splice starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley that’s far more worthy of your time and money. Heck, I’m even hearing good things about the new comedy Get Him To The Greek, which I originally thought looked pretty bad just from the promotional poster alone. So, I’ll end my little review like this: if you’ve already seen Splice and Get Him To The Greek, but find yourself still craving yet another movie, Killers is for you! Otherwise, it’s (wait for it) “…well, just okay.”

(Long Island, N.Y.) Hmm…another video-game movie, and one based on a game that I’ve actually played and enjoyed! Prince of Persia is an ongoing gaming franchise started way back in 1989 that chronicles the adventures of a Persian Prince as he negotiates obstacles with his

agility and enemies with his sword. It started out as a two-dimensional side-scrolling series and, as technology advanced, eventually evolved into 3D, with elements of the French physical art Parkour incorporated into its game-play to take advantage of the expanded perspective three dimensions could provide.

Prince of Persia’s Arabian theme, unique puzzle-like level design, and likeable, charming protagonist helped the games stand out from the generic franchises crowding the shelves at Gamestop and gave the series

a rather sizable following. And of course, if something has a big following, eventually someone will make a movie based on it. Disney has done as such and the result is Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. But the question remains: is it any good?

The plot of the film draws heavily from the 2003 entry in the videogame series, The Sands of Time (in fact, it even shares the same subtitle). It involves a young man named Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is adopted by the King of Persia for being brave…or something. Dastan grows up into a mighty warrior hero, leading the King’s forces into successful battles, but this status does little for his esteemed reputation when he is framed for his father’s sudden assassination. Dastan goes on the lam with a beautiful princess named Tamina (Gemma Arterton), and together the two try to stop the evil machinations of the real culprit behind the King’s death- a nobleman named Nizam (Ben Kingsley), who possesses a powerful weapon called the “Dagger of Time.” This dagger, whose hilt contains the magical “Sands of Time,” has the ability to rewind time for short periods so that its wielder can change the past. In the video-game you could use this novel ability to dodge attacks or recover from a mistaken plunge into a

bottomless pit or a bed of spikes, but in the hands of Nizam the Dagger of Time’s powers can also be used for more sinister, destructive purposes as well. Dastan must clear his name and stop Nizam before he uses the Dagger of Time to…I don’t know, maybe play the stock market or something. That’s what I’d do with it.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a solid but not mind-blowing entry into the summer action/adventure movie market. It actually reminds me a lot of the recent ho-hum Clash of The Titans remake (co-star Gemma Arterton was in that one, too), although PoP does have a wee bit more charisma than the completely wooden, soulless characters that populated CotT. But still, Prince of Persia is yet another example of a movie that tries to win you over you with over-the-top stunts and excessive computer graphics (which, considering the film’s insane 200 million budget, aren’t nearly as impressive as they

should be) instead of well-rounded and developed personalities for its leads. Hollywood keeps forgetting that, in the race to create the next biggest and best CG effect, it’s the characters the people walking out of the theater take home with them, not all the stuff that explodes or shoots missiles. Don’t get me wrong- there’s some witty banter between Dastan and Tamina going on here and there to try and round out their relationship and establish who/what they are, but it’s rather sparse. But hey, it’s something, at least.

As far as the actors go, Prince of Persia is getting some flack for the all-too-common

Hollywood practice of “White Washing” its films. That is, movie studios don’t think America wants to see anything other than buff white dudes in leading roles. Now, Jake Gyllenhaal is many things- a talented actor, being one of them- but he is in no way, shape or

form Persian. Not even close…and, come to think of it, neither is Gemma Arterton. Or Ben Kingsley. And while we’re on the subject of White Washing, even the upcoming M. Night Shyamalan-directed “The Last Airbender,” based on a hit Japanese Anime series about a boy with elemental powers, has cast a white kid when it should be an Asian. Another example is the 2008 film “21,”

which was based on the real-life story of Asian American card players but cast with mostly whites instead. Is ethnic diversity in leading roles such a bad thing? This is an unfortunate practice that Hollywood needs to start addressing seriously, but you know them…they probably never will.

But, mis-casting aside, the acting when judged on its own is decent, although much of the cast seem to be phoning in their roles. I mean, no one really seems to be taking things seriously or really trying to immerse themselves into their characters. Could it be because of the stigma associated with this being a video-game movie? Who knows? Also, I’m getting a bit

tired of period movies like this that are littered with modern English lingo and phrases. I’m not saying Prince of Persia should have been in Arabic with subtitles, but at least make some effort to talk sort of like you’re in the time period you’re supposed to be in, okay (or, at least, how we’d expect them to sound)? However, now that those gripes are out of the way, I should point out that Gyllenhaal and Arterton do get on well together and Kingsley is a solid bad guy.

The action scenes are well-shot and well-choreographed, and the Parkour-inspired play-style of the video-game is translated well into the live-action stunts. The film is rather fast-paced and contains some impressive sword fights, and the story that drives the plot, while not amazing or anything, is…well, okay, it’s a bore, but it does keep things moving, and that’s all we can ask out of a 200 million dollar movie. After all, only pennies of that sum went to fashioning a compelling script.

Overall, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a fairly good yet extremely generic action flick, but not a bad way to spend $10 or so. So, if you’re looking for a new movie to watch this weekend and are finding yourself having to choose between Prince of Persia and the instant death that is Sex And The City 2, I think the choice is clear. Unless you like the unending pain of four over-the-hill women desperately trying to prove that they’re still “sexy,” that is.