I truly hope the subtitle doesn't imply they're planning a sequel, because this one wasn't very good. It was better than some other things I've seen lately, but still, not great.In my humble opinion, Jake Gyllenhall is one of the most talented actors of his generation. What was he thinking accepting this movie? He wasn't bad as an action hero, but he's much more attractive and convincing as the slender, nerdy boy next door or as a sweet, shy but self-assured cowboy (as in Proof and Brokeback Mountain, two of my favorite performances of his). Who was this buff hero? Also, he had a strange, mild accent of no discernible origin. I guess it was supposed to be Persian, but I don't know. At least you can still say it was consistent though.
There was some good action here, but the plot was a bit hard to follow at times. If this makes any sense at all, part of their failure was the introduction of an object's concept without showing said object (i.e. the titular sands of time). It didn't work.
The music was underwhelming, which was a disappointment to me. A score can make or break a movie, and a good score here would have made it a bit more bearable. (Especially disappointing because I usually love Harry Gregson-Wililams' work.)
I can say that there were a few mildly amusing lines. Alfred Molina was especially funny as an anti-tax, anti-government "small businessman." Almost incongruous in ancient Persia, but somehow it worked for this particular movie. On the other hand, his character and other things meant anachronisms all over the place. If you're looking for anything close to historical accuracy, look elsewhere.
Further faults? Predictable villain. Pretty tepid, weak romance—the movie would have been better off without it at all. Eh. Oh, and then there's the weird déjà vu feeling, a product of the very Aladdin feel at the beginning and the very Gollum at Mount Doom climax. Does that give too much away? Oh well, if you don't see it now, you're not missing much.
Rating: 2.0
No comments:
Post a Comment