Jumbled Thoughts: The Last Jedi

“This is not going to go the way you think.”

It’s hard to find a more succinct primer for the The Last Jedi than Luke’s line from the trailer. Rian Johnson knew what he was doing, at least insofar as he was aware of the shakeup he was introducing to Star Wars. I’m not sure he anticipated the extreme response that shakeup would prompt, which was, probably, a bit naive; the toxicity of “fandoms” has been injected with some kind of asshole growth hormone and is out of control these days. And while the vitriol is, as ever, a profound overreaction, it’s pretty undeniable that The Last Jedi is… weird.

Note that “weird” does not mean “bad”. It means disjointed, poorly paced, awkwardly written, and sometimes just head-scratchingly *bizarre* but it does not, even with all of that, mean “bad”. I didn’t love this movie, but I actually enjoyed it, probably more than I did The Force Awakens. I didn’t hate this movie, but I walked out feeling very, very odd about it. Star Wars fans have informed me that I need to react with either white hot rage or slavish devotion and I, as an insufferable contrarian, am rather smugly pleased with my current middle-ground feelings regarding the film.

Continue reading “Jumbled Thoughts: The Last Jedi”

REVIEW: Skyfall

While I haven’t talked about it here on Nerdwatch, for the last six years I’ve been annoying the ever-loving crap out of friends, family, and anyone who’ll listen with my overly-verbose opinions on why the Bond franchise has gone down the crapper. Ever since the end of the Brosnan years and the transition to Daniel Craig the writing for the ongoing series has taken a noticeably sharp change in direction. One-liners were practically nonexistent, classic Bond-isms (his shaken Martinis, his Rolex watch) were not just absent but were deliberately eschewed by the writers. Some of this was certainly meant to showcase the fact that Craig’s Bond is a younger, different character than what we’re used to. While some of that is fine, the lack of these things robbed the series of some of its charm and quirk, things which have defined the franchise since 1962. There was a very slight attempt to return to form in Quantum of Solace, what with Bond returning to his original Walther PPK and a few more attempts at one-liners and women with impossibly suggestive names, but it was all wrapped up in a substantially worse film, and it seemed to me that Bond was buried deep in one of its rough patches.

And so we arrive at Skyfall, the 23rd entry in the James Bond franchise and the third to star Daniel Craig in the iconic role. I went into the movie with some trepidation (I actually went at the behest of others and only after they offered to pay for my ticket) and waited without much anticipation for the film to begin. But as the movie played out I realized something: I liked it. I was genuinely engaged throughout the entirety of the film and substantially fewer things seemed out of place for a Bond movie than have in the previous two entries. Bond might not be back in the truest sense that we’ve known him throughout the years, but with Skyfall he takes the biggest step towards beloved familiarity since Craig entered the scene.

I missed the PPK.

Skyfall opens en media res, in classic Bond tradition, and within minutes we’re thrown into a long, complicated chase sequence that traverses seemingly the entirety of Istanbul, from market streets to rooftops to a moving train. It’s a very well put together action sequence that then flows seamlessly into a beautiful Bond intro, with Adele delivering one of the best intro songs we’ve heard in a while for the franchise. The next bit of the film is mostly setting the stage, establishing the film as a low point for Bond and gearing up for what is probably one of the more personal stories we’ve seen in the history of Bond movies, and we’ll get into whether or not that’s a good thing a little later. But at any rate the story then kicks into gear and before long we’re tagging along as Bond hops from one exotic locale to the next in search of the MacGuffin device of choosing; in this instance a hard drive containing the names of all undercover MI6 agents in the field.

In a lot of ways the various filming locations are the real stars of the movie. Bond has always placed a lot of emphasis on glamorous or otherwise unique scenery to serve as a backdrop to the action and Skyfall is definitely up to par in that department. The aforementioned Istanbul bazaar, a high-class gambling house in Macau, the misty hills and valleys of Scotland, and a skyscraper in Shanghai with neon projections constantly changing the look of the surrounding environment all serve as visual feasts and your eyes will be working on overload to take it all in.  Pretty much all of these play host to at least one extensive action sequence, and the one in Shanghai deserves special attention for being very artistically shot. While I’ve become rather bored with action movies in the past few years, I found myself practically enraptured with this sequence, and it might be the first time I’ve been genuinely impressed with a fight scene in the better part of a decade.
This being a Bond movie, however, most of these sets do explode.
And it’s not just isolated to the action bits either: the entire movie boasts some great cinematography, with the camera work always making sure that every shot is engaging for the audience, either by making use of interesting angles or framing or through extensive crane or steadicam shots. In conjunction with the scenery the entire movie grabs hold of your eyes and never lets go until the credits start to roll, and at over two hours in runtime this is no small feat. The excellent technical skill displayed by the crew in combination with good pacing ensure that you’re unlikely to find yourself getting bored, unless of course you happen to dislike great moviemaking.

But the most well-shot, well-choreographed movie in the world still needs something worthwhile to display, and talking about the plot of a Bond movie is somewhat tricky to do. I don’t believe you can hold the stories told in these films up to other movies and expect them to come away unscathed: even Goldeneye, easily one of the best Bond movies ever made can’t hold a candle to other more plot-focused films. Bond films are very much designed to be “fun movies”, the kind of thing that you watch simply for the experience of doing so. They’re not really meant to challenge the viewer like 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, or Full Metal Jacket (note: it should probably say something that the top three movies that came to my mind were all made by Stanley Kubrick). So I feel like I can’t really give this thing much of a literary critique. In fact, if anything I probably come down a little hard on Skyfall for trying to take itself perhaps a bit too seriously. This is almost certainly my nostalgia and minor fanboy-ism toward the franchise showing but I can’t help it: I’m a Bond fan.

As mentioned earlier, the movie allegedly focuses on the pursuit of a hard drive which threatens the security of active MI6 agents. The hard drive itself isn’t really important for the plot, however: what is important is the position it places our main characters. Bond, disenchanted with MI6 after an order given during the en media res sequence, has to deal with his authority issues and history with M as he decides to return to the service of Queen and Country. M, for her part, is faced with the bureaucratic backlash over the leak and her slipping position of respectability, as well as her own history with Bond. Together they face an enemy with a host of similar problems, but who has taken a different stance than they and channeled his frustrations back at MI6 and at M specifically. Javier Bardem plays this villain wonderfully and adds the quirk and character to the part that’s necessary to really pull off a great Bond villain. I genuinely can’t remember the motivations or nuances of the villains of the last two movies, but Bardem was a great casting choice and brought a lot of life back into the role of a Bond antagonist.

If you’re evil and you love it clap your hands.


All of these MI6 and past-specific elements and plot points create a Bond film that is much more personal than we’re used to. We’re more accustomed to villains building a superlaser and using it to threaten the world, and Bond, through ingenuity, charm, and a heavy dose of British patriotism shows up to save the day, usually with a smirk on his face, too. This is not the case in Skyfall. Instead we’re treated to a more involved story that deals with conflicted loyalties, regrets, and the struggles of growing old. That last bit falls a bit flat, however, as this is only Craig’s third film and he’s still among the youngest of the Bonds. Additionally that theme was explored before in Never Say Never Again, which I suppose technically falls outside of the regular Bond continuum, but even so. The Bond timeline is so muddled anyway after 50 years of movies, actors, and changing technology that it can’t really be called a “timeline” at all anymore.

Yet despite this somewhat more serious approach, Skyfallalso shifts a bit closer to the Bond formula that we love so much. The one-liners make a return, though if anything I think they could do with being a bit cornier (and delivered with a bit more of a sly tone by Craig, who seems like he’s trying to make a Bond witticism still somehow dramatic which is entirely the wrong way to go). Also back are the shaken martinis, a greater sense of suave confidence, and the almost callous way Bond seems to interact with women (disclaimer: this is specific to his character and should not be taken as being in line with my own views or those of Nerdwatch). Also, for the first time since the Brosnan years, Q-Branch finally makes a return, though it’s a rather lackluster one. While I don’t believe anyone can ever measure up to Desmond Llewelyn, the new Q comes off as the clichéd technological “boy genius” being quite young and seemingly far more adept with a laptop than any kind of actual production of field equipment. He also delivers one of the lines that seems like a complete slap in the face to the history of Bond films, saying that Q-Branch “doesn’t go in for that sort of thing anymore” when it comes to gadgets. Gadgets are an inextricable part of Bond, and if you’re going to shun them then you might as well not even have a Q-Branch at all. I was holding out hope for a return to the exploding-pen days of gadgetry but it seems that’s not to be. There is one further betrayal of Bond tradition but it’s a bit of a spoiler so I’ll leave it alone for the purposes of this summary and let you all be disappointed on your own (or not, depending on your personal perception, I suppose).

Dr. Q, working on his next project: the TARDIS.

And so with a return to form for a lot of the classic Bond quirks I have to turn away from my approach of “blame the writers” that I’ve taken with the previous two films. With a script that embraces the Bond formula more readily I finally have to look more closely at Daniel Craig and his portrayal of 007 to truly judge his competence in the role. And against this decidedly more Bond-like backdrop my impression has to be that he still isn’t a very good choice for the character. There are a number of reasons for this, but I think ultimately it boils down to one. Take a look at all of the Bond movies produced since 1962. If you’ll notice there is at least one common element shared by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan:

They all smile.

In slipping into the shoes of cinema’s most prolific secret agent, these actors understood that Bond was a man who was exceedingly confident and largely happy in his line of work (barring a few issues here and there). He’s often times an assassin, yes, and one who will kill without a second thought but in his missions to do so he enjoys himself. He smirks when he catches the femme fatale in the shower, he grins when he beats someone at Baccarat, and he exudes smugness when he delivers that final one-liner to the big bad. In any other movie this would be deeply disturbing, but because Bond lives in a fictional, fantastical world where moon bases and cars with rocket engines are parts of everyday life for the characters, we know we’re just supposed to have fun with it and indulge in a bit of quirky, if albeit somewhat dark, humor.

Kudos for the car, but I just can’t buy that dour face as James Bond


Craig unfortunately lacks that same charm. His one-liners aren’t said with a smile, but with a grimace as he punches someone out with Jason Bourne-like dryness. It’s true that this was a story that delved more deeply into Bond’s character and his past (a story that I don’t think really needed to be told, quite honestly), but it still doesn’t seem like Craig has really caught on to what makes Bond Bond, and I think the legacy of the character suffers for it. It’s not due to bad acting or anything of the sort, it’s just not the portrayal of Bond that a lot of us are looking for.

In the same way, that was my impression of Skyfall as a whole. It’s a movie that doesn’t quite understand itself, struggling with an important legacy and a recent shift in tone and interpretation as it tries to bring the two together. People looking for the vaguely campy, charm-filled Bond can’t find it due to the grim tones of the plot, and people looking for a grittier spy movie can’t find it due to the jokes and over-the-top setpieces. Normally this would result in a movie that pleases no one but Skyfall somehow manages to miss the mark for both audiences yet still hit just close enough outside the black that we can still be fairly happy with it. Bond or not, Skyfall is probably the best action movie I’ve seen in a very long time and it gives dinosaurs like me some hope that the future of the Bond franchise still shows some promise of returning to its glory days.

REVIEW: Toy Story 3

Let’s just get this out of the way right now: Toy Story 3 is the best movie I’ve seen in a long time, and is possibly the best in the trilogy.

We’ve all known for years that Pixar made good movies. But with this, their eleventh release in fifteen years I think it’s perhaps not uncalled for to declare them one of if not the most successful film company of all time. Eleven films may not seem like much, but when you consider that not one of them has performed poorly (Finding Nemo alone has raked in over eight hundred million dollars) and that they pretty much pioneered the computer-animated movie, and then pile on top of that their twenty-four Academy Awards, six Golden Globes, and three Grammys, you realize how incredible this studio is. I can say with all certainty at this point that if Pixar makes a movie, I will indefinitely be there to see it… multiple times.

But if I could now remove my lips from Pixar’s collective ass (they’re not paying me, I swear), maybe I could get around to telling you about this particular theatrical triumph.

Toy Story 3 makes you fall in love with it from literally the first few seconds of the film. With two successful installments before this one, it’s one of those rare moments where you feel like standing up and cheering when you see the familiar characters make their entrance, and oh what an entrance they make. I won’t say too much, because I really do believe that this movie is too special for me to say much of anything about any one particular moment; you honestly do need to see it for yourself. And while that will make my job of demonstrating my love of it a bit harder, I’ll do my best. Just for you. Feel grateful, darnit.

“Back in Black” seems simultaneously very appropriate and very out of place

While the first movie dealt with themes such as jealousy and friendship, and the second movie was a lesson in self-worth with a not-so-subtle jab at the collectible toy market, the third film is a story of loyalty and enduring love. Andy has grown up, and he’s leaving for college in a matter of days. With most of his old toys gone, those that remain are faced with a crisis: will they earn the attention of their owner again, be banished to the attic, or cast out as trash? As the toys grapple with their emotions over their uncertain fate, they are unceremoniously thrust into the first plot point, which sees them donated to a local daycare center, where everyone but Woody believes they can make a new life for themselves.

Of course, if it were as simple as that, we wouldn’t have a movie, now would we? Of course, the daycare center soon sheds its joyful façade and is revealed for the dystopia that it is. Now, younger children probably won’t get the same kind of fulfillment that myself and my friends got from this section, but from the time they enter the daycare the entire thing began to feel very much like The Great Escape, with a purple fuzzy bear (who reminds me very much of a conglomeration of the pigs from George Orwell’s Animal Farm) serving as the warden. It’s another prime example of how Pixar is able to make a children’s movie that appeals just as much to adults. If I may reiterate: these people are bloody brilliant.

However, this also presents what might be my only gripe with the movie, and it wasn’t even one that would affect me personally. The fact is, I’m not sure that I would show kids Toy Story 3 at the same age I would show them Toy Story 1 or even Toy Story 2. While it is still acceptable on the whole for children, there are definitely a few segments that give the film a decidedly darker feel than its predecessors. Yes, perhaps Sid and his army of mangled and tortured toys from the first movie was a bit bizarre, but several scenes in this movie, including one with a very, VERY disturbing cymbal-monkey (I can’t make this stuff up) perhaps would have been a bit extreme for me when I was four.

Holy crap, I was four when Toy Story came out?

Proof that you can build an ensemble cast out of CG characters

But apart from that, I honestly can’t think of much that I didn’t like about this movie. Oh, I’m sure there’s plenty of stuff that I could pick apart if I tried hard enough, but this is a kid’s movie, so it doesn’t really need to hold up to the same standards as films aimed at thoroughly-educated adults. It just happens to be a fantastic bonus that it does. There was one scene in particular (which I still can’t talk about to you that haven’t seen it and its driving me a little bit crazy) where I felt deeply moved by the actions of the characters onscreen. This was immediately followed by a moment where myself and the rest of the theater felt compelled to actually break into applause. I have not done this since I saw Return of the King. Just think about that for a moment. This movie made us respond to it in a manner that can be compared to the Lord of the Rings movies: which pretty much swept the Academy Awards at the time of their release. And to badly paraphrase Woody: THESE! ARE! JUST! TOYS!

Attention Hollywood: you now have to compete with children’s entertainment to gain my adoration. I don’t know if that’s a testament to Pixar’s genius, or a horrible insult to the rest of the industry. Probably a bit of both.

At any rate, there is really no excuse not to see this movie. You can watch it in 3D if you want, but while it’s probably the best use of it I’ve seen (simply using it for depth of field techniques and not cheesy “jump out of screen at face” kind of garbage) it’s not really necessary. But however you choose to view it, you will walk away satisfied.

Unless you have no soul.

REVIEW: The A-Team

Remember the A-Team? The action TV show that embodied the 80s in our minds… and Mr. T in our hearts? Well, it’s back, and like just about everything else from childhoods past it’s getting its own movie marketed towards the adolescent hyperactive in all of us… as well as actual adolescent hyperactives. And in that appeal, it very much succeeds.

Make no mistake, when you walk into the theater to watch The A-Team, then you will do well you leave your brain at the door. Don’t worry, with the stuff Hollywood has been putting out in recent years they have special bins for that kind of thing now; your brain will be safe. So while your cerebral cortex is enjoying some down time, you can be free to bask in the all-out absurdity that is this movie. And oh what a plethora of absurdity there is to bask in. If you’ve seen one of the trailers for this movie, you’ll have a pretty good idea of what’s in store for you: guns, explosions, Mohawks, more explosions, and a freaking flying tank. This stuff is crazy, and we all know it. The next step is to relish in it.

The only problem with these sequences is that we saw a pretty good amount of them in the trailers already. This isn’t a dig at the movie, this is just a problem that sometimes presents itself through advertising. Look, I know that the scene where you drop an armored vehicle out of an exploding C-130 and start using the guns in mid-fall is a major selling point; heck, it was one of the biggest factors that got me in the theater to see it. But the novelty of it is tarnished when you see it on the big screen, simply because you’ve already seen it on TV dozens of times. Luckily, there’s enough stuff we haven’t witnessed ad tedium before to keep you entertained, if not completely surprised. One of the earlier segments in Iraq involving a high-speed chase, a V-22 Osprey, and B.A. Baracus punching fools in the face stands out as a very passable action sequence, which even manages to throw in a few laughs for good measure… actually, the whole movie does a pretty good job of throwing in some laughs for good measure.

Admit it, you’re humming the theme song right now.

However, beyond those points the rest of the movie isn’t nearly as satisfying. While the actors on the actual A-Team do a pretty decent job, you get the impression that they weren’t necessarily implemented right. While Hannibal, B.A., Face, and Murdock (especially Murdock) are all characterized appropriately, it feels as if the writers didn’t know what to do with them. B.A. becomes a pacifist halfway through the movie, which basically screams “we’re only doing this so we can reverse it for a dramatic kill shot in the finale”, Hannibal completely fails to come up with a plan to finish out the movie, and Face takes over all the planning for the last 45 minutes of the film.

Just… what?

I understand completely that they have about four years worth of episodes to try and address in the space of 2 hours, and I also understand that there were certainly moments where Hannibal couldn’t always come up with the plan and others had to have their moment of glory on our living room television. But in something as short as a Hollywood movie, we don’t have quite as much time to cement the norms of these characters in our minds. And so by the end of this film, the audience is left with the distinct impression that Hannibal is washed up; that he can no longer be the planner, and that Face has now taken over as a new leader of the team. Keep in mind now, that this is supposed to be an origin story, and that Hannibal still very much has years of being the competent boss ahead of him. Combine this ending with the fact that Face was much more thoroughly explored than the other members of the team, and you get the idea that the whole thing was just a way for the producers to capitalize on the fact that Bradley Cooper has been in the spotlight recently thanks to The Hangover. Though why on earth they would play that up when you’ve got Liam Freaking Neeson on the cast is beyond me. Though I suppose movies about booze do go over better with this kind of audience than Schindler’s List. Regardless, Cooper still does a decent job as Face, so it’s not all bad, just a bit odd.

Don’t be too intimidated by the guns: they never hit anything

The rest of the cast, however, did not have nearly the same charm. Jessica Biel plays a prominent role, but really only feels like she’s there to provide incredibly boring sexual tension for Face. One of the main villains is characterized only by his trigger finger and who exists for the sole purpose of making what might be the least subtle stab towards Blackwater I’ve ever seen. The real villain (who’s motivations never seem to be very clearly outlined) is better characterized… but only as an incredibly obnoxious tool. Look, I understand the necessity of presenting an antagonist who we may not necessarily like, but you’ve crossed a line when I actually start becoming personally annoyed with his portrayal. It gets to the point that you’re not just happy the good guys succeed when he gets his at the end, but you’re just relieved that he won’t be getting more screen time.

There are various other issues with horribly convoluted plot, sub-par CGI, and the ever-annoying shaky cam, but I think I’m actually just going to cut this review short. Let’s face it: I already told you everything you need to know about the movie in the opening paragraph. However distorted the story may be, there is enough A-Team here to keep most people happy. Hannibal is still a genius, Face is still funny, B.A. is still pitying fools, and Murdock is still delightfully insane. The elaborate plans and improbable builds make an appearance, and yes, the iconic van makes at least one jump. Regardless of how little I enjoyed some of the elements of this movie, that is ultimately my problem. I fear that I’m beginning to lose some of the enjoyment I once had in these summer action flicks, and that’s depressing to me. But as I discussed with a good friend of mine on the way to the theater, there is a divide between “good film” and “simple, enjoyable film”. My problem is that I have difficulty telling my mind to sit down and shut up during movies, but I can still recognize the value of a movie that goes “boom”. If you like explosions and balls-to-the-wall action, go see this movie. It’s as simple as that.

REVIEW: Prince of Persia

Hollywood (and to a greater extent Wermelskirchen, Germany) have long been the culprits of butchering, belittling, and sometimes outright desecrating our beloved video games in their attempts to adapt them to the silver screen. These attempts have left us first heartbroken, then indignant, and now finally bitterly cynical about any game that we discover to be bound for theaters. Unlike comic books that have movies such as Spider-Man (1 and 2) and Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, video games have not been graced with a truly good film. So does the new Prince of Persia movie provide vindication for our virtually interactive pastime?

The short answer is no.

BUT don’t go away yet, there’s more to it than that.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is not a movie that will be taking home any awards. It will not be praised by critics for its deep and moving narrative. It probably will not even justify its 200 million dollar budget. But one thing it will do is keep you entertained. This is a fun movie; nothing more, nothing less.

Water healed you in the game. I don’t think it does the same thing here.

For those of you looking for a true-to-the-game adaptation, it’s difficult to say what your reaction may be. Some will be satisfied with its adherence to the source material, while others will nitpick that it didn’t follow precisely the same story line as the Sands of Time game did. For the sake of this writing, I’ll address the former with continued examples and tell the latter to get over it and go back to your fanfiction. Prince of Persia does not follow every step of the Sands of Time game; which it really shouldn’t, because 2 hours of climbing up walls and stabbing sand demons would get old really quickly. So instead they changed the plot structure, ditched the sand demons in their entirety, and gave everybody a new name and backstory. It’s a bit different, but that’s okay, seeing as how the plot for the original Sands of Time wasn’t really useful for anything besides establishing gameplay elements.

Of course, seeing as how this is a movie that has no gameplay elements, most of the plot bits from the game are used as Macguffins. All you really need to know is that there’s a prince, a princess, a dagger that can rewind time, and a power-grabbing villain who’s a bit too obvious simply because he’s played by Ben Kingsley. For the sake of simplicity you really shouldn’t care too much about the story here. This is a Bruckheimer film, after all, and the man excels at marketing very predictable stories in very enjoyable packages. Ultimately, this is no different: not a lot of substance, but masked by a good amount of well-presented flash.

The enjoyment you’ll get from this film is only attainable when you pretty much abandon all hope that you’ll be getting anything meaningful. Instead, you should sit back, not analyze, and just let yourself have fun with it. The parkour scenes are where the bulk of the entertainment comes from, and while they’re not as impressive as some of the large-scale foot chases we’ve seen in recent years, they’re still fun to watch, and they evoke some memories of our own wall-runs and ledge-grabs while playing the game. And while a great many of the environments and sets are obviously (sometimes painfully) computer-generated, most all of the actual running and jumping is done by actual stuntmen, which is nice. The sword fights intermingled with the running are entertaining enough, even if the quirks given to some of the combatants are a bit too generic, and the time-warping powers of the dagger are always fun to watch, even if they are implemented somewhat sparingly and not to their full potential .

Every good attack needs to be accompanied with a face-twisting battlecry.

Apart from the action-flick appeal, there’s a surprising amount of entertainment present in the characters themselves. Now, I realize that there’s been a lot of bullsh- er, that is controversy over the casting decisions for this film. But this isn’t about that. The point is that the cast did a pretty decent job with their respective roles. I will say that regardless of the fact that Jake Gyllenhaal was supposed to be the star of this picture, his performance is dwarfed by that of Alfred Molina, who’s character further undermines any hint of seriousness the film may have had… but is damned funny doing it. It’s a somewhat unusual performance for the generally more high-profile actor, but he certainly boosted my opinion of the film a significant degree. Apart from Molina there are some fun moments of interaction between Gyllenhaal’s character of the Prince and the Princess Tamina, which was plainly modeled after the relationship between the Prince and Farah in the game. There are a few amusing tidbits of humorous bickering between the two and a moment near the end which borders upon the genuinely touching, but a good deal of their interactions sound a little too much like the 1989 Zelda cartoon. It’s not terrible, it’s just not quite as good as the dynamic exhibited in the game.

It’s not what it looks li-
Okay, actually, it might be. 

When you get right down to it, Prince of Persia is not a fantastic movie. It’s not even a very good movie. It’s just passable summer entertainment that’ll give you a good time for the duration of its 116 minutes, but you probably won’t remember too much of it after that. It’s quickly forgettable, but given how notably bad so many of its video game movie predecessors have been, perhaps this is a good thing. High-profile names like Gyllenhaal and Bruckheimer contributing to this project also indicates some hope for the future of game movies. Will we get a truly good one next time? Maybe the long-debated and long fought-over Halo or Metal Gear movies will be our next best hope. But in the meantime, just go see Prince of Persia. It’s the best we’ve got so far.