Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl Review

A good twelve years ago Disney threw us a curveball of a movie. No one seemed to know it was coming until the trailers hit the internet, and no one had seen a movie quite like it, so there were no preconceived notions or expectations to live up to. Not only did this movie wow us with a great deal of fun and creative action, it reignited interest in pirates and once again made them a romanticized notion that people surprisingly flocked to. I am, of course, referring to Pirates Of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003).

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) arrives at Port Royal in the Caribbean without a ship or crew. His timing is inopportune, however, because later that evening the town is besieged by a pirate ship lead by Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). The pirates kidnap the governor's daughter, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), who's in possession of a valuable coin that is linked to a curse that has transformed the pirates into the undead. A gallant blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), in love with Elizabeth, tentatively allies with Sparrow in pursuit of the pirates.

As far as I can tell, this was the first time Disney had attempted to make a feature film based on one of their park rides. There have been other attempts which can best be described as bad. I suspect part of the appeal of Black Pearl was to see exactly how a notorious kids theme park ride transitioned into a movie. Really well, as it turns out.  There are lots of nods to the ride in the film, but none are so overt that they beat you over the head with them. For example, the ride's song "Yo Ho "A Pirate's Life for Me" was sung three times in the film; twice by Elizabeth and once by Jack in the final scene. The jail scene where prisoners try to tempt the Prison Dog who held the keys to their cells with a bone is taken directly from the ride. Even Jack's line, "the dog is never going to move" referenced the fact that the dog in the ride never actually moves. If you know what to watch for, you can see many actors behaving like the puppets do on the ride for a second or two on screen or in the background. This movie was so influential that it sparked interest in going on the Disneyland ride. Kids who grew up watching the movie ended up disappointed by a trip to Disneyland when they didn't see Jack Sparrow in the ride. Disney ultimately had to change the ride up a bit to resemble the movie due to its popularity. The ride now features Jack Sparrow, Barbossa, and Davey Jones (who appears in later films).

This was the first time in ages a legitimate sea epic had been filmed. Parts of the sea-faring scenes were actually filmed on location in the Caribbean oceans. Real sea ships were used in many of these scenes, while meticulously decorated barge "stunt doubles" with computer-generated imagery filling in the details were used in other scenes. This gave the movie a realistic feel to it that wouldn't have worked as well if it were all CGI visual effects. But what CGI effects were used were fantastic! Even twelve years after its release, it still looks good; the movie has aged very well.

Objectively, the story here isn't great. It's decent and fun, but isn't great. I truly don't think this movie would have done nearly as well with anyone else cast as Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp was encouraged to adlib and improvise a lot in this movie, and he does. Depp's outstanding, unforgettable, and charismatic character often takes center stage and steals scenes he's in. He effortlessly shoves the cliché love plot out of the way and makes the film his own. Jack Sparrow is so charming, funny, and likable that you can't help but enjoy the movie as a whole. I'm not sure how the cast and crew were able to keep a straight face when Depp was hamming it up as the character he created. Even Jack Sparrow's catchphrase, "Savvy?" was improvised by Depp.

The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is a great movie. It's not perfect, but there truly is very little that can be said about this film in a negative light. It is clever, witty, and sharp. One of the true achievements, however, is that it isn't too witty and sharp; it knew its boundaries, unlike the sequels. The seriousness of the situations these characters were put in feel real, which caused us to care about what was happening to them. This movie became an instant cult classic and reignited film fans' love of pirate adventures. The fact that it had no expectation contrasts with its sequels, which is why it was probably so successful. The movies that came after this first one had their good and bad attributes, and even with a fifth installment coming out in 2017, I cannot for the life of me imagine it topping The Curse of the Black Pearl. In fact, I can't see any pirate film surpassing this landmark film for some time to come. This is absolutely worth owning a copy; I've got my own copy already comfortably resting on a shelf next to some of my other favorites. If you haven't seen this movie, you're missing out. If you have seen it, it's high time you saw it again.

If another theme park ride (Disney or otherwise) were made into a movie what would you like to see? Comment below and let me know!

The Lone Ranger Review

I'm still convinced that Disney is searching for another cash cow like Pirates of the Caribbean was. Prince of Persia didn't quite cut it and John Carter was a flop. The Lone Ranger (2013) is their latest attempt. The movie was dragged through the mud by other critics, but I ended up seeing it anyway. Frankly, I think it's a whole lot better than the media made it out to be.

In the 1930's, an elderly Tonto (Johnny Depp) tells a young boy the tale of John Reid, The Lone Ranger (Armie Hammer). An idealistic lawyer, he rides with his brother and fellow Texas Ranger in pursuit of the notorious Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Ambushed by the outlaw and left for dead, John Reid is rescued by the renegade Comanche, Tonto, at the insistence of a mysterious white horse and offers to help him bring Cavendish to justice. Becoming a reluctant masked rider with a seemingly incomprehensible partner, Reid pursues the criminal against all obstacles. However, John and Tonto learn that Cavendish is only part of a far greater injustice, and the pair must fight it in an adventure that would make them legend.

The Lone Ranger has a few things going for it that other Pirates of the Caribbean-success attempts didn't have. First, it has Johnny Depp. Depp is type cast a lot of the time, but still excels in comical roles like he did in Pirates of the Caribbean. Second, The Lone Ranger has the same director as Pirates did; Gore Verbinski. He did the first three Pirates movies, Rango, and Mousehunt. He's a very visual director that has made some outstanding family films. It's the fact that both of these Hollywood personalities are present in The Lone Ranger. I'm certain it was the decision of studio executives and film producers to have them involved in The Lone Ranger in hopes that it would be as successful as Pirates was.

The Lone Ranger started out as a radio show way back in the 1930's. There have been a number of television shows and movies based off of it. I've never seen or heard any of these, but I am familiar with the cultural icons. All are present in this movie and they are well incorporated. The catchphrases, well known characters, Even the music from the William Tell Overture, which was used as a theme song in the old radio show, is present.

A lot of the exterior shots were filmed on desert locations in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Gore has captivated an excellent Old West feel with gorgeous widescreen spectacles that owe a lot to classic “spaghetti westerns” of the 1960's. Even the action heralds back to Buster Keaton-style stunts. As far as visuals and action goes, this really is great movie to watch since it draws inspiration from a lot of old successful western movies. There had to be at least as many stunt men as there were digital effects artists working on this movie.

Depp and Hammer were great together. Hammer is a ridged, comically straight laced, sheltered, naïve city boy who is completely out of his element. It's kind of fun to watch him learn how the world really is and how he decides to take a stand and make things as good as he believes they should be. Depp is basically the same wacky character he often plays. This rendition of Tonto is similar to Captain Jack Sparrow but with a Native American motif. He's funny, weird, and serves up wacky humor.

The Lone Ranger is certainly not without it's faults. The most blaring of which is having a very white guy portraying a Native American. I love Johnny Depp, but it's so awkward when actors who are obviously of European decent, are playing characters of other ethnicities. Why not just give an actor of the character's ethnicity an opportunity to shine? I think that Tonto's character acts so comically weird that he becomes a politically incorrect depiction of Native Americans, and might offend some viewers. On the other hand, the Native Americans in the movie (actually played by Native Americans) all agree that Tonto is crazy and doesn't represent them. Still, the character makes me cringe a little.

Another problem is the spiritualism theme. It's repeatedly established that “nature is out of balance” and is causing animals to behave strangely. This is occasionally funny such as the scene when John's horse is found in a tree, and sometimes creepy. What causes this is not really established. Is it all the corruption from the outlaws? The western civilization taking over the American wilds? I have no idea. While the idea is repeated several times, it's neither resolved nor explained. It seems that it was haphazardly stuck into the movie here and there in an attempt to create a sense of larger stakes than what was originally thought, or to establish a sense of urgency. The story would have made more sense without it.

Finally, I thought the length of the movie was too long. It's fun, but long. The first forty-five minutes of the movie are excellent. It's easy to get lost in the second forty-five minutes. There ends up being multiple groups of villains that take too much time to explain. By the time it's all sorted out we've stopped caring and we're ready to see our heroes duke it out with the baddies. I think the movie would have been stronger with just one central villain.

The Lone Ranger is fun. Everyone told me it was crap, but I genuinely enjoyed it. There's tons of deadpan comedy and witty humor, lots of exciting action, some impressive visuals, and fun characters. It runs a bit long and might lose its audience from time to time, but that train scene at the end makes any confusion well worth enduring. I don't think it's quite as good as the first Pirates of the Caribbean was, but it is by far much better than critics were saying it is. I highly recommend renting The Lone Ranger, you may even consider purchasing a copy if you enjoyed other Gore Verbinski films.

Did you see The Lone Ranger? What did you think? Would you be up for watching a second installment? Comment below and tell me why or why not!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Movie Review

Disney started off with a strong with a film franchise that was based on one of their theme park attractions; Pirates of the Caribbean. The trilogy as a whole ended up being pretty weak, At World's End was a bit too far out there. Disney has released a fourth installment to keep the cash cow franchise alive, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) and you know what? It wasn't too bad.

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) crosses paths with Angelica Teach (Penélope Cruz), a woman from his past and he's not sure if there is still love there, or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge, the ship of the formidable pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane), Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't' know who to fear more: Blackbeard or Angelica. En route to find the Fountain of Youth, they discover a Spanish armada as well as Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), Jack's nemesis, hot on their trail. All parties bent on being the first to take advantage of the Fountain of Youth.

I loved the first Pirates movie; Johnny Depp is what made it so good. He was encouraged to improvise. The script basically had what the point of the scene was and  Depp was supposed to fill it in with his own material. That gave the character Jack Sparrow and the whole lot more spontaneity and gave the movie a comical quirkiness that made it so endearing. It ultimately influenced Pirates as a pop culture icon. The second and third movies were fun, but they pushed credibility too far and had a hard and fast script (no improvising here) which wasn't as good as Depp's improvisations. On Stranger Tides brought us back to what made the first movie good, but still had some of the bits that made the second and third movie weak.

Johnny Depp is without a doubt Captain Jack Sparrow. No one else can play that role the way he does. Depp uses improvisation and his signature quirkiness to bring comical spontaneity to On Stranger Tides. He's got some witty lines and hilarious delivery. He says things like, " Captain, I wish to report a mutiny. I can name fingers and point names." and "You know that feeling you get when you're standing in a high place... sudden urge to jump?... I don't have it." If for no other reason, seeing Johnny Depp play Jack Sparrow again makes the movie worth seeing.

As was the case in the third movie, At World's End, there isn't really a good guy to root for. Sure, you want Jack Sparrow to win just because he's so fun, but the movie consists of a few anti-heroes and a whole bunch of bad guys. By the climax of the movie, there are about five different groups convening and they start fighting with one another. They could have realistically taken out at least two of those groups out to simplify everything without actually losing any plot points. The story gets convoluted and hard to follow the closer we get to the end the movie.

Blackbeard was a great villain! He's downright evil. He's at least as nasty as Barbossa was in the first Pirates movie. He's got some great lines, he had a menacing presence, and he is simply someone you don't want to cross.

There was a theme of religious faith and redemption that seemed out of sorts when juxtaposed against the mermaids, voodoo zombies, pirates, and floating water. The Queen Anne's Revenge has a young clergyman on it for some reason and he and Blackbeard are often at odds about the value of faith and whether or not hell is actually something to worry about. While the theme is ultimately put to reasonably good use in terms of character development, I felt the whole religiosity thing was taken a bit lightly. I doubt that even the most devout Christians would find reason to be offended by any of it, it just felt ill-suited for a movie about pirates having a supernatural adventure.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was a fun movie, though not necessarily a good movie. It had lots of fun, but improbable fight scenes, some supernatural action, a few new faces, and some familiar faces from the previous films. Keith Richards even makes another brief appearance as Captain Teague, Jack's father. It's still a bit weak as some of the characters were completely unnecessary and the story gets convoluted later on. It's more of what made the first movie good, and more of what made the other ones not so good. In the end, it's a fun movie that you'll probably only enjoy if you liked the previous movies. It's a renter, but since I already own the first three, I feel obligated to get this one to complete my collection. Holding true to Pirates of the Caribbean tradition, make sure you stick around for the post-credits scene.

Apart from Captain Jack Sparrow, who is your favorite Pirates of the Caribbean character? Comment below, and tell me why!

John Carter Movie Review

Way back in the early 1900’s an author by the name of Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a series of pulp fiction stories. It was originally serialized as Under the Moons of Mars and was later published as a novel called A Princess of Mars. Ten sequels followed over the next three decades. Disney had bought the rights to make a film version of this book series back in the 1980’s. After being abandoned many times, Andrew Stanton (director of Pixar’s Finding Nemo and WALL-E) stepped up to the plate. Finally we received the John Carter movie in 2012, on the centennial anniversary of the first publication.

John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a world weary Civil War veteran who is tired of fighting other people’s wars and for their “noble” causes. While escaping being drafted into another battle for the military, he seeks refuge in a cave where he finds someone holding a strange medallion. When Carter touches it, he finds himself transported to a strange place where he can leap incredible heights and distances, as well as possessing amazing strength. Carter becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict among the inhabitants which include an alien leader Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and a human-like Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). Carter learns from Dejah that he is on the planet earthlings call Mars and that his superhuman strength is caused by the lower gravity on Mars. Their world is on the brink of collapse and only John Carter has the power to end the conflict.

Something to take into consideration is that the setting in John Carter is based on now-obsolete ideas that were popularized by astronomer Percival Lowell in the early 20^th Century. This is why there is life on Mars and a breathable atmosphere in this sci-fi/fantasy story. It’s also based on pulp fiction, which is known for its over-the-top ridiculous action sequences and unrealistic settings. If you take all of that into consideration, John Carter is a more enjoyable movie.

Even when taking that kind of source material into consideration, the physics were a bit silly. Carter leaps 20 stories into the air because of the low gravity on Mars, but he still falls at the same speed he would on Earth. You’d expect his legs to break once he hits the ground falling that fast, but of course that doesn’t happen. Furthermore, Carter and the tribal aliens he teams up with bring swords and spears to go into battle against flying ships with laser cannons, and they still somehow manage to put up a decent fight. I’m going to use the “pulp fiction source material” excuse for that, too. It’s just visually a bit hard to swallow.

I’ve now seen Taylor Kitsch take on three different characters; Gambit in X-MenOrigins: Wolverine, Lieutenant Alex Hopper in Battleship, and John Carter. Yes, they are all action movies, but he really does an impressive job portraying different personalities. He’s far from a favorite of mine; I haven’t always liked the roles he’s played (such as Gambit), but he is a pretty good actor and did a fine job as John Carter.

John Carter didn’t seem to know if it was for kids or adults. On the one hand it has plenty of humorous scenes. I liked the part where he’s trying to adjust to Mars’ gravity. But on the other hand, it’s also kind of violent; decapitation and heavy-duty sword play aren’t uncommon here. I suppose that since the alien’s blood is blue, Disney assumed it wouldn’t be off-putting for younger viewers. Really, it’s not too bad, but I don’t think I’d want anyone under the age of 8 to watch it.

John Carter is a fun movie. The editing is a bit choppy and the pacing is kind of slow. It’s exciting, funny, and its visual effects are not bad. It is pure, joyous, escapist adventure cinema. You really have to take it for what it is; a fun action movie that requires very little thought. Edgar Rice Burroughs is best known for writing the Tarzan stories, but you can see how this sort of material (circa 1912’s) influenced a lot of science fiction, fantasy, and superhero adventures. If you like those kinds of stories, you’ll probably enjoy John Carter on at least some level. You just have to take some of it with a grain of salt. I enjoyed it, but not enough to want my own copy to watch over and over again. I recommend seeing it, even if it is another attempt for Disney to strike gold like they did with Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s worth the cost of a RedBox rental, but not the cost of the Blu-Ray.

Do you have a favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie? Like, where you're not sure if it's one or the other? What is it? Comment below and let me know!

MouseHunt Movie Review

Dreamworks Studios was started in 1994 by Steven Spielberg, Jeffery Katzenberg, and David Geffen to create a new Hollywood studio of which they would own 72%. Dreamworks has gone on to make movies, video games, and television programming. In 1997, they released  their first family film, MouseHunt directed by Gore Verbinski.

 After the death of their father, Rudolph Smuntz (William Hickey), Ernie (Nathan Lane) and Lars Smuntz (Lee Evans) inherit the family business, an old string factory. Ernie wants to sell it immediately in hopes they can get any kind of profit from it. Lars wants to keep the business running in honor of their deceased father’s wishes. The brothers also inherit an old mansion their father never mentioned before. Upon getting the house apprised they learn that is the last house built by Charles Lyle LaRue, which was until then thought to be a rumor. The house dubbed “The Missing LaRue” draws the attention of architectural enthusiasts and LaRue collectors. The Brothers agree to restore the house and put it up for auction in hopes of earning millions of dollars. But the house is inhabited by a very intelligent and mischievous mouse. Fearing another vermin-related incident that caused Ernie to lose his restaurant job, the two set out to get rid of the mouse. This proves to be an insurmountable challenge, pushing the Smuntz brothers to more and more extreme tactics as the auction draws ever nearer.

MouseHunt is unquestionably a comedy; it’s full of physical humor and slapstick. Part of the appeal of MouseHunt is that it uses common physical gags that you would normally find in an old cat-and-mouse cartoon in a live action movie. It’s like Home Alone (1990) meets the Tom and Jerry cartoons with a dash of The Money Pit (1986) thrown in. A cat the Smuntz brothers purchase chases the mouse into a piano, playing musical notes as they run around inside it. Lars gets a mousetrap caught on his lips.  Ernie is fired out of the chimney like a cannonball due to a gas leak. Various characters are hit with frying pans. There are also explosions involving a septic tank; what family comedy is complete without potty humor?

The characters in MouseHunt are amusing, but simple. Normally simple characters are a weakness in a film, but not in this one. MouseHunt really is going for a simple Saturday morning cartoon quality. Having deep, dynamic characters that end up falling downstairs, out the front door, and sledding down a snowy hill in a Jacuzzi tub would just be stupid. While the characters are simple, they are not annoying or pointless. Often times child characters are thrown into films in an attempt to appeal to child audiences. There aren’t any major child character in this movie, and there doesn’t need to be. Kid characters are always depicted as being more intelligent than the adults and manage to avoid any pratfalls. That would have weakened MouseHunt considerably. The characters are all adults, but they are expressive and interesting enough to keep child viewers interested.

Kids may recognize Nathan Lane’s voice as Timon from The Lion King (1994). MouseHunt makes a couple of subtle references to this role. Ernie Smuntz bows to a sheik who is attending the auction of the house. In doing so, he greets him with “Hakuna Matata,” referencing a song he sings in The Lion King. The actor Ernie Sabella, the voice of Pumbaa, makes a cameo appearance as the pound owner where the Smuntz’ purchase “catzilla” to help rid them of the mouse. Young viewers probably won’t catch these details, but it’s worth noting.

The only weakness in MouseHunt is a lack of a villain. You’re never quite sure who to be rooting for; The cute little mischievous mouse or the down on their luck Smuntz brothers. There is plenty of conflict, but who do we want to win? The movie itself doesn’t seem to know, and by extension, neither do we. This is a fairly trivial detail, the movie doesn’t take itself any more seriously than a Tom and Jerry cartoon, and neither should we.

MouseHunt is a fun movie. It has funny characters, wacky comedy, slapstick, and some amazing visual effects. Kids will want to watch it again and again. It is directed by the same director who did Rango (2011) and the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies, if that is any indicator of MouseHunt’s quality. There are a couple of scenes that might be a bit scary for younger viewers; the cat is pretty funny, but might scare some youngsters. It’s probably good for about ages six and up. If you have kids, this is worth purchasing. If not, it’s still a fun movie to watch sometime.

Did you see MouseHunt? Did you like it? Was it too “cartoony” for your tastes? Comment below and tell me why!

Movie Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Generally, when a non-movie media become popular some Einstein in Hollywood thinks there needs to be a movie based off of it. These have varying degrees of success. Movies based on books usually do okay; comic books tend to be hit or miss; and TV show movies tend to be pretty bad. They have yet to make a good movie based on a video game, with the worst probably being the Super Mario Bros. movie (1993). Disney had some success with making Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl(2003) which was based on the Disneyland attraction. Evidently, Disney thought that with the success thatPirates of the Caribbean brought them, a similar production based on a long running video game series would be good idea.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) is set in a romanticized ancient Persia. In the prologue, King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) adopts an orphaned street urchin, Dastan, to rear along with his other sons. King Sharaman thought Dastan was worthy of becoming nobility because Dastan defended another boy who was being beaten and then escaped by running around on rooftops. Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows to become a reputed warrior and prince. After receiving information that the Holy City of Alamut is supplying weapons to the enemies of Persia, Dastan’s adoptive brothers Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and Tus (Richard Coyle) prepare to attack the city. While attacking the city, Dastan comes into possession of a strange dagger. King Sharaman stops the attack and arranged for the marriage of Tus to Alamut’s princess, Tamina (Gemma Arterton). Dastan is later framed for the mysterious murder of King Sharaman. Dastan escapes with Princess Tamina who tells him about the dagger’s power to send its wielder back in time by a few seconds. Dastan and Tamina set out to discover who is behind the false rumors about Alamut, the murder of King Sharaman, who is after the time-altering dagger and why.

Similar to Pirates of the Caribbean, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is full of silly characters, over the top action scenes, and special effects. The only Prince of Persia game I’ve ever played was in 1989 on an Apple II computer. The storyline there wasn’t any more complicated than that of Super Mario Bros. game in 1985: save the princess. Other Prince of Persia games have been released, but I don’t know how the movie compares, as I have never played the more recent ones.

Dastan is a painfully generic hero character. He’s inherently good and incorruptible; he isn’t challenged by moral dilemmas, he just does the right thing because he’s good. This makes him very uninteresting. He’s also a carbon copy of every Persian hero to ever grace the silver screen; Disney’sAladdin (1992) and The Thief of Bagdad (1940) come to mind. He’s really not any different at the end of the movie than he is at the beginning. He’s just boring.

Tamina drove me nuts! There’s hardly a single line that she speaks to Dastan that isn’t somehow insulting, demeaning, or challenging of his capabilities or competence. She was bratty, untrusting of anyone, and would stab Dastan in the back at her earliest convenience. Why on earth were they in love by the end of the movie!? I would have tied her to a cactus half way through the movie and left her for dead. The romantic interest between Dastan and Tamina had no basis or logic behind it. The meager romance was included for the sake of having romantic scenes in the movie. Towards the climax of the movie Dastan has Tamina by the arm over a cliff, keeping her from falling to her death. I actually shouted at Dastan to just let go and put her out of his misery. She is pretty, but I’d like to think there should be more requirements to being a princess than just being pretty. Tamina is one of the worst damsels in distresses I’ve ever seen.

The action scenes were rather confusing. A lot of the movie was filmed in front of a green screen. The backgrounds occasionally didn’t match up with the movements of the camera very well, which gave the viewer a vague sense of space. On top of this the camera was often doing close shots of the actors fighting. This gave you a good sense that something was happening, but not a good sense of what was happening. Yes they are fighting, but what is it they are doing and who is winning? I felt like I should be on the edge of my seat, but I wasn’t sure why since I couldn’t tell what was actually going on.

At one point, Dastan is sinking in huge sinkhole of sand. I’m not really sure how he got there and it certainly doesn’t show how he got out. One moment he’s in the sinkhole, the next moment he’s on this cascading waterfall of sand tumbling down towards a cliff. It doesn’t show Dastan falling through the sinkhole and onto the sand-waterfall; it doesn’t show him escaping the sinkhole only to fall again into the sand-waterfall. This is more an issue of bad editing than confusing action scenes.

Not only were the characters uninteresting and shallow, but I wasn’t really sure what they were fighting for. Sure, keep the Dagger of Time away from the evil Uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), but what happens if he gets it? They could just reset time they way they want it. No one has a risk of dying; they just go back in time a few seconds and prevent the death. They do this several times in the movie. So, if you can just correct anything with the dagger, who cares of Nazim becomes King of the Persian Empire? Who cares if anyone dies? It can just be corrected.

Disney seemed to be trying to make another swashbuckler action movie with Prince of Persia, but the movie just ended up being really underdeveloped and shoddily done. If you look at it in the context of being a very simple fairy tale with some over the top action scenes, it becomes slightly more palatable. The movie is also such light viewing that you could put it on as background noise while cleaning the house, catch glimpses once in a while, and still not miss anything. It’s a pretty clean movie, too. It would be alright for a family movie night with kids, but really there are much better movies you can watch as a family.