Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Review

Next up on my movie review hit-list is Jerry Bruckheimer's action adventure based loosely on Ubisoft's 2003 video game of the same name. The film is directed by England's own Mike Newell who also did Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The film stars BAFTA award winner and Academy Award nominee Jake Gyllenhaal as Prince Dastan the story's protagonist, fighting alongside him is English rose and star of this year's Clash of the Titans Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina. Together they must obtain a gift from the god's, the Sands of Time. A dagger, which as the title suggests can manipulate time itself. However, as you would expect this tale does have its villain as the legendary Sir Ben Kingsley (a personal favourite of mine) Kingsley plays Nizam, a nobleman who wishes to possess the sands for his own nefarious deeds. In 2004, Jerry Bruckheimer Productions tried to acquire the rights to the Sands of Time so it could be released under Walt Disney Pictures. Eventually, in 2007 Disney announced it would be made and it would be a flagship film for them, in late 2007 Newell was called in and negotiations for him to direct began. The film also feature elements of other Prince of Persia games including Warrior Within and The Two Thrones. The film has a release date of May 28th unless, like me you are a UK resident. We got it May 21st.

"Only the Dagger can unlock the Sands of Time. And there are those who would use this power to destroy the world." Princess Tamina


Going in I had this sinking feeling that this film would simply be awful. Maybe it would be fun but still awful. I was both right and wrong as it was indeed horrible but it lacked any real sense of mindless, adventure film fun. People seemed to think that this could be the new Pirates of the Caribbean but it was not a patch on those films. It lacked any real likeable characters, had absolutely no humour at all and had one of the worst scripts and "plots" I've had the misfortune to witness.
Ok, maybe I'm being a touch harsh. It did have a few epic battles scenes that were nicely done and some of the effects were ok but they seemed too fake. Each time the dagger was used and time was reversed you could see the effects were really rather poor, that it was obviously a computer generated person and that should not happen. We should be wowed by the idea not sitting there thinking how fake it looks!

The cast, while somewhat impressive they just all played really average roles. Gyllenhaal was the worst I had ever seen him, his character Dastan continuously narrated what was going on, as if the audience could not work it out for themselves. Maybe there might be a small minority of morons sitting there saying "oh, so the dagger turns back time does it?" But we really did not need a constant narrative! Now we have Arterton, I personally can't stand her at all so automatically I hated her character. Her lines and background were just too cheesy. Alfred Molina played your textbook wise cracking character, the one out for himself but then has a change of heart. All his attempts at humour fell flat on their face. And finally Kingsley, I admire that man and think he is a wonderful actor but in this he was well below par. He just didn't seem to care at all, as if he was constantly thinking why am I in this film?

The script had been knocking around for about three years and it damn well shows. I've never had the pleasure of playing the games but a friend and the person I saw this with has played the entire franchise and he said this was pretty much identical to the game. They give you a feeble plot that really leads to nothing and you can just jump about a lot and mess with time. That is exactly what this film did. Flimsy and ultimately pointless and incredibly lame plot but you see a lot of impressive jumping about.

I liked the way they seemed to incorporate elements of the game Assassins Creed into this aswell, when we see Dastan stand on a high ledge before diving off the camera pans around him much like it did in AC. So thanks for that Ubisoft.

In conclusion, this really was not a shock to me. I knew it would be lame but foolishly thought I'd get a little bit of mindless, cool action with a bit of humour. All I got was incredible boredom and a numb arse!

2/5

Robin Hood Review

Well, after my first review of A Nightmare on Elm Street I decided to continue reviewing the "must see" movies of 2010. Next up is Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. This film sees a fairly star studded cast with Russell Crowe, who as we know has worked with Scott many times in the past in such huge films as Gladiator, A Good Year, American Gangster and Body of Lies. Crowe takes on the role of Sir Robin Longstride or as we know him Robin Hood the legendary outlaw of 12th century English folklore. Alongside Crowe we have Cate Blanchett as Lady Marian, Oscar Isaac who also starred with Crowe in 2008's Body of Lies as King John, Mark Strong as the king's henchman Sir Godfrey and other legendary faces such as William Hurt, Max von Sydow and Kevin Durand of TV's Lost who stars as Little John.
The film has been in production since 2007 when Universal Studios bought the rights to the script which was originally to be called Nottingham. The original idea for the film saw Crowe as the Sheriff on Nottingham but the role had the Sheriff as the film's protagonist. Scott became unhappy with both that idea and the script so in 2008 it was to be rewritten into a film about Robin Hood and how he became the outlaw we all know today.
The film, set at the turnof 12th century England is based in Nottingham, which at the time was just a village. Longstride returns under the guise of Robert Loxley to return the crown of the dead Richard the Lion Heart and finds its people are being suppressed by the king's new Sheriff of Nottingham (English actor and star of BBC's Spooks, Matthew Macfadyen). In light of what he sees he, along with his band of Merry Men set out to free his fellow villagers from the tyrannical reign of King John. But as it turns out King John is not the villain at all, his trusted friend Sir Godfrey is a traitor conspiring with French King Phillip, attempting to turn Englishmen against Englishmen so the French can swoop in and take over.

Crowe really went all out to really nail the the man of the legends. He began reading many historic books that took him a total of ten months to really get under the skin of the character and tell a decent tale, he was quoted saying "This has got to be the best ever done, otherwise I should be doing something else." But Crowe's enthusiasm did not end there, he hired a fitness coach to help him lose the excess weight he had gained for his role in Body of Lies and even took up archery for four months and can now hit a target from 45 meters. Both he and Cate Blanchett also had an accent coach so both could pull off a believable East Midlands accent for their roles.
"Cometh the hour, cometh the man. The time for pretence is over" Sir Walter Loxley.

I was a bit dense going into this. I actually thought it was a tale of the man who "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" but it's not that at all. It is in fact a tale of his origins, some of you probably knew that but I did not. And the fact that I put info above explaining what it was makes me appear even stupider.

My first real qualm was the film's running time. It is a Ridley Scott film and a lot of his film's are really long but I must say on finally standing up after two hours and 20 or so minutes my arse was numb and my legs were jelly. Although Crowe had an accent coach to help him with this role at times his accent was a mixed bag of Geordie, Scouse, Irish and his native Australian. I do not really know what a person from Nottingham sounds like but I am sure it's none of the above. And while I am on the subject of accents, Kevin Durand's attempt at what I can presume was Scottish was pretty damn dreadful too. Ah well, can't win them all boys.
The film had a few battle scenes but the majorities were rather brief. The opening scene where the English led by King Richard stormed the French Challus Castle was rather impressive but also very short as were the scenes with Sir Godfrey and his secret French army attempting to collect for the king. We see them quite easily take Barnsdale but the rest is not shown in any real capacity aside from the trail they took on an on screen map. Although there is a fight scene involving Sir Godfrey and a blind and very old Sir Walter Loxley was both a little comical but rather good.
Crowe had his trademark monologue to inspire the masses much like his speech in Gladiator did the trick and he managed to gain huge support for the following battle against Godfrey at Pepper Harrow.

I thought Oscar Isaac as King John gave easily the best performance followed by Max von Sydow. The king was both clever yet clueless aswell as being incredibly arrogant and petty. Cementing him as the film's best character by far. Having Mark Addy as Friar Tuck was also a nice touch. And again, on the subject of casting. Mark Strong gets his face in everywhere these days, he has worked with Crowe and Scott before in Body of Lies and just last year he was in Sherlock Holmes and then Kick-Ass and now he plays yet another bad guy. I am not complaining because he is a great actor but damn overkill or what!

I also love how Crowe supposedly took up archery fully to flesh out his character, I think he fires about two arrows in the entire film. One of which you see coming a mile off. Sadly though the film's big final fight scene with Godfrey, the French, the English and even King John himself was over rather quickly too and very anti climactic. I said to myself, the incoming French ships housing King of France, Phillip will see the carnage on the beach and retreat…they did. Phillip and Godfrey's diabolical plan to screw over John and cause a Civil War in England so the French could come over and take control was an epic fail.

In conclusion we get rid of the French but King John, out of envy and pettiness over the fact that Longstride was the real hero and not him declare Robin and his Merry Men to be outlaws who must be hunted down by the rather comical Sheriff of Nottingham. Thus giving us the story we actually do know.

My verdict, rather disappointing and incredibly slow. It galloped along (pun intended) at rather an alarmingly slow pace and seemed a little convoluted in places. I kinda had it pegged as the first real "blockbuster" of the summer but it fell miles behind my already low expectations. As I left the cinema the entire film just instantly vanished from my thoughts, not the desired effect Scott was going for.

2/5

A Nightmare on Elm Street Review

Well, I thought I'd kick off my blog with a review of a film I have anticipated for a very long time indeed. It's a fairly common thing these days for certain classic slasher films to be remade or re imagined. Michael Myers had his turn in 2007 when heavy metal superstar Rob Zombie decided to give audiences a new take on 1978's classic Halloween followed by Halloween 2 in 2009.
And lets not forget that Friday the 13th also got it's turn when it to was rebooted in 2009, giving us a new look and backstory of our favourite hockey mask wearing, machete wielding, sex crazed teen killing phenom Jason Voorhees. So, in light of those two maniacal characters being revamped it was only a matter of time before my personal favourite movie psycho and brainchild of horror genius Wes Craven sewed up his red and green striped sweater, dusted off his fedora hat and sharpened up his trusty glove 'o' death to once again take centre stage in our dreams. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the bastard son of a hundred maniacs…Freddy Krueger.


So, as we all know this is a remake of Wes Craven's 1984 horror classic of the same name, specifically designed to reboot the franchise. The original was based in a small, fictional town in Ohio called Springwood where child murderer Fred Krueger (portrayed by Robert Englund) resided. One night, the townsfolk of Springwood took it upon themselves to do something about Krueger after he was set free from prison on a technicality. The residents went to Krueger's lair in the abandoned power plant, his infamous boiler room and proceeded to set the building ablaze with Krueger trapped inside, burning him alive. But somehow he returned as a supernatural entity and began exacting his revenge on the town that murdered him by entering the dreams of any teenage offspring the citizens would later have. In the dream world Krueger was king and could manipulate and kill the kids in all kinds of horrendous ways. We all remember a young Johnny Depp, pulled through his bed and being reduced to a torrent of gravity defying claret. Armed with his glove of razor sharp blades he proceeded to stalk several teenagers who were the sons and daughters of the mob who killed him. Most memorably of course was Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) Krueger's one true foe and the unfortunate soul to reside at 1428 Elm Street. We all know how that went right? That's why you are here! To look at the new version of this tale.


This 2010 remake, released on Friday May 7th 2010 as I am in the UK follows the same general plot of it's original counter part with a few minor changes. The film directorial debut for Samuel Bayer, who up until now mainly directed many famous and popular music videos for a hell of a lot of various artists. Most notably Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and was produced by Michael Bay's production company Platinum Dunes. The film features Watchmen star and Academy Award nominee Jackie Earle Haley. Haley steps into the shoes of horror icon Robert Englund (who I have met by the way) to portray the infamous Krueger. Alongside Haley is a cast made up of a few familiar young faces such as Supernatural and Harper's Island star Katie Cassidy, Kyle Gallner of The Haunting in Connecticut, Thomas Dekker from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Aaron Yoo who also starred in 2009s Friday the 13th and of course Highlander's Kurrgan (the not so young) Clancy Brown. The story is again set in the same fictional town and features another heroine, this time named Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara) as opposed to the 1984 Nancy Thompson who, along with another band of sleep deprived and haunted high school students must do battle with the gloved menace in their dreams. The one real difference in plot is that this time Krueger is a supposed child molester where as in the original he was a certified child murderer and darn proud of his nickname "The Springwood Slasher".


"Did you know, after the heart stops beating the brain continues to function for seven more minutes? We got six minutes left to play" Freddy Krueger to Jesse.

Now, going in I was apprehensive due to the fact that I really disliked the new Halloween's and Friday the 13th remakes and everything I read and heard put this film in a very negative light. However, I was pleasantly surprised as I rather liked it. I'd decided to re-watch the entire franchise again in the week leading up to my seeing this so I noticed a few little things that made me smile. I have tried to limit spoilers, but I felt to fully convey my opinion there were things I needed to mention.

I love how they try to get away with casting people who are blatantly in their early twenties (Cassidy) to play high school students. I felt that Katie Cassidy's character Kris was by far the weakest link, her lines of dialogue were sloppy and whilst that is not her fault at all the way in which she delivered said lines was done rather poorly and to her detriment. This film, like most horror's nowadays does try to make the viewer jump way too many times, which might be fun if you're a seventeen year old guy on a date with a girl but at my age it's just trying too hard. I guess that this is just something we will have to expect from any modern day horror. I picked up on the fact that the three characters from this film shared names with characters from other films in the franchise. We obviously had Nancy but also Jesse (the protagonist of the second film) and Kristen (a girl in both part's three and four) probably just a coincidence but maybe not.

Jackie Earle Haley did rather a good job as Krueger, he has that eerie, raspy voice that echoes around you and both his costume and make-up looked rather cool. The make-up job was especially well done as it is the kind of look you would expect a serious burn victim to have. Compared to Englund's mask which began to look a little silly. Haley is naturally rather a creepy looking and scary sounding guy so he really did Freddy justice I thought. Even threw in a couple of cheesy one liners and a quote from the fourth film "How's about that for a wet dream".


The film also included three iconic scenes used in the 1984 film. The scene in which Kris is dragged and thrown across the ceiling before finally being slashed, the blink and you'll miss it Nancy in the bath scene where Krueger's glove emerges from the water and of course the scene in which Nancy witnesses a body bag containing Kris being dragged down the school corridor by an unseen force leaving behind a streak of blood. There's also a scene which I find to be Johnny Depp's death (from the original) in reverse. He was dragged through his mattress which then became a gusher of blood that spattered his ceiling, where as this film features Nancy running up a corridor which suddenly becomes a huge river of dark blood, she sinks and it pushed through the floor only to explode out of the ceiling (unharmed) on the other side via a similar gusher of blood before landing on the bed. The only real head nod back to the 80s that I failed to get was this film's constant use of the infamous boiler room. In the 80s version it was symbolic as it was Krueger's lair. He took children there, murdered them and disposed of their bodies in the furnace, but in this film he didn't murder kids. He abused them in his "secret cave" but there was no use of a boiler room. I guess they just used that for old times sake.

The effects of the film are also rather good. When Kris falls asleep in class and her classroom dissolves around her leaving her in a much darker classroom with Freddy clawing on the chalkboard and the scene where Nancy is in the supermarket which suddenly begins to flicker into the boiler room and then back to the supermarket were both very well done.

The story itself changes a bit and in a kind of clever way. in 1984 Krueger killed the kids to get back at the parents who killed him, here he kills the kids in order to first make them remember what he did to them as children and then to get revenge on them for telling their parents which led to his death. I also liked Quentin's little theory that Krueger was kind of like the Pied Piper, taking the kids to get revenge on a town that betrayed him, never thought of that before. And before I completely forget, I also adored the use of The Everly Brother's song "All I Have to Do Is Dream" the song features in the trailer and I just love how tongue in cheek it felt.

All in all, I say if you're really into the franchise you might like it. Or, you might think it's utter balls and despise it. I can't and don't want to make you think either way. But I liked it and give it a generous:

3/5.

P.s Although it is unclear if a sequel will emerge, whilst reading the June issue of Empire Jackie Earle Haley was quoted saying.

"I remember that the first one started off much more seriously, from there it started going more for the humour and irony. That's why right now I'm working on my tap-dancing lessons for the sequels".