Author: Alton Williams

Tooth Fairy *

When he first made the move from the world of wrestling to the world of filmmaking, Dwayne Johnson (then known by his wrestling name The Rock) showed great promise as a new generation of action movie star, so much so that he even had the personal approval of Arnold Schwarzenegger – the long time king of the action movie – who viewed Johnson as his sort of successor, even putting in a cameo appearance in Welcome to the Jungle as a passing of the torch if you will. Showed great promise, Johnson certainly did but it didn’t take long to realise that he perhaps didn’t quite have what it took. The underwhelming performance of several of his action films seemed to put an end to a promising action movie career before it had even begun. But, then Johnson did a little film called The Game Plan and he had found a new calling – not as an action star but as a family film star. So, rather than being a successor to Schwarzenegger, Dwayne Johnson is instead the new Tim Allen or Eddie Murphy, the go to guy for family films requiring an adult actor who has to deal with a bunch of kids. However, what was amusing with The Game Plan – the tough guy being thrown into the most improbable of scenarios – is now more tiresome, having being done to death in countless similar family movies and no longer having the same appeal it once did. Consequently, the arrival of Tooth Fairy on cinema screens is likely to be welcomed by a collective yawn from moviegoers and even the association of Walden Media – usually known for their high quality family films – is not likely to win many viewers for this film.

Ultra-aggressive ice hockey player Derek Thompson (Dwayne Johnson) has a nasty habit of bashing opposing players in the mouth, earning him the nickname ‘The Tooth Fairy’. Derek’s not really a bad guy, but his days of greatness were ended by an injury and now he has to settle for drastically lowered expectations. But when Derek’s blunt-talking ways dash a young fan’s dreams and get him on the wrong side of his girlfriend Carly (Ashley Judd) for almost revealing to her daughter that there is no such thing as the Tooth Fairy, the hulking athlete gets a highly unusual punishment – he’s transported to Fairyland where no-nonsense matriarch Lily (Julie Andrews) sentences him to two weeks as a Tooth Fairy. An officious administrative fairy named Tracy (Stephen Merchant) is assigned to make sure Derek serves his sentence to the letter. Armed with his Wand (with All-Purpose Magic Generator Button), Invisibility Spray, Shrinking Paste, Dog Bark Mints, ‘Cat-Away’ and Amnesia Dust, Derek becomes the most unlikely tooth fairy ever…

It is really hard to believe that Tooth Fairy is made by Walden Media. To date the production company has prided itself on making family films that are more sophisticated and original than the norm but here it just seems like they have sold out. While this film has a good message at its heart, it is lumbered with a weak script, the plot essentially being a rip off of the superior kids flick The Santa Clause (the first one, not the mediocre sequels, which were incidentally from the same director as this film) and its tale of redemption being predictable and obvious. These things wouldn’t be a problem if the film at least scored big in the laugh out loud department but, unless you are a very undemanding viewer, you will find laughs to be few and far between, the dialogue being weak and the gags lame. Only a few things raise any giggles here, the funniest scene probably being one that features during the closing credits, and the sight of Dwayne Johnson sporting a tutu and fairy wings raising a few titters. The problem is that the film just seems stupid at times and so-so effects do little to change this. The only thing that prevents the film from being completely abysmal are the scenes with Stephen Merchant, who provides the film’s few glimpses of genuine humour but even these are hardly laugh out loud moments. Dwayne Johnson’s performance is packed full of his usual energy and charisma and he is extremely game for the many humiliating situations he has to endure throughout the duration of the film but he really has next to nothing to work with and the supporting cast do little to help matters. The likes of Julie Andrews, Ashley Judd and Billy Crystal (in a small role as Jerry, the Tooth Fairy gadget guy) are completely wasted while a cameo appearance by Seth MacFarlane just seems bizarre. So, Tooth Fairy is just one family film too far for Dwayne Johnson. It may keep undemanding youngsters mildly amused but anyone else will just be bemused as to why Johnson would do such a film as this. There is nothing magical about this fairy.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ***½

For Walt Disney Pictures, the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is quite possibly one of the best things that has ever happened (financially speaking of course). A hit movie series of mega blockbuster proportions, and one that found its inspiration in a theme park ride of all places, the series has generated tremendous revenues for the Mouse House, but, as is the case with most film franchises, there is only so much life in it, and the people at Disney are well aware of this fact. Consequently, they have been looking for what they hope to be the next Pirates of the Caribbean style success and, in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, they may just have found it. An adventure in a similar vein to the Pirates movies and produced by the same person – Jerry Bruckheimer, who also gave Disney the hugely successful National Treasure movies – as them, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time finds its inspiration in a somewhat more tangible source, that of the the Prince of Persia video game series. The track record for movies based on video games to date is sketchy at best, in terms of both box office takings and actual film quality, with even the best video game adaptations – the Resident Evil films standing out in this regard – requiring you to leave your brain at home and the worst being examples of perhaps the very worst kind of filmmaking there is – the Uwe Boll kind. But, with a director who has a great track record – Mike Newell, who previously helmed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Four Weddings and a Funeral among other things – and a producer who consistently delivers entertaining popcorn fare, could Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time be one of the best ever video game adaptations, both at the box office and in the raw quality department?

Adopted by King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup), ruler of the Persian Empire, as a young boy, the good hearted and strong willed orphan Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows up to become a rogue prince, alongside his adopted brothers Tus (Richard Coyle), the next in line to the throne, and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell). Following a misguided attack on a city ruled by the mysterious princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), King Sharaman is murdered and Dastan is framed as his father’s murderer. Dastan finds himelf on the run and in the possession of a magical dagger. Releasing the sand the dagger contains has the effect of turning back time for a period in which only the dagger’s holder is aware of what’s happening. Reluctantly joining forces with Tamina, Dastan learns that to find such a treasure means the Gods have a plan for him. Also seeking the dagger’s power are the evil forces led by Nizam (Ben Kinglsey) that want to use it to destroy the world. Tamina persuades Dastan that the only way for them to halt this Armageddon is to take the dagger to its secret guardian temple. Together, and with some help from the opportunistic Sheik Amar (Alfred Molina), they race against time – and the terrifying Hassansins who pursue them – to stop the dagger from falling into the wrong hands and thus save the world from destruction.

Despite many differences in theme and style, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time really does try to establish itself as the next Pirates of the Caribbean. In this regard the film is a failure, proving to be not nearly as entertaining as any of the three Pirates movies. Also, Jake Gyllenhaal, while a very good actor, is definitely no Johnny Depp. On its own terms, however, and by comparison to other movies based on video games, this film is a well crafted popcorn movie that, while no masterpiece, makes for a very enjoyable viewing experience. There is much more visual and creative flair in this film than you would find in the average videogame adaptation and, for once, it seems that a movie has been based on a game that had genuine potential for adaptation to the screen. While some will argue that the film is essentially a succession of action sequences linked together by a servicable if unspectacular plot, the writing here is quite sufficient for this to work as blockbuster entertainment. There is sufficient story here for us to actually care what happens to the characters and while the characters are not all very well developed, they are mostly pretty three dimensional, each complete with their own distinctive personality, and while the dialogue they speak is sometimes a tad obvious it is never bad either. Additionally, the film successfully blends in a number of pretty funny, if rarely hilarious, moments of humour, ensuring that this film is well grounded in the same kind of popcorn style as the ‘Pirates’ movies. These aspects, though, are, of course, successful in part thanks to the performances. The acting is generally of a high standard and, while no one will be winning any awards for their performances here, everyone entertains. Jake Gyllenhaal has enough charisma and cocksure swagger to ensure that female viewers in the audience will be charmed by him and that he convinces as the action hero type, and his chemistry with co-star Gemma Arterton is electric. Arterton herself is also very good, if a bit too similar to her role in Clash of the Titans. Additionally, Ben Kingsley is suitably sinister, although admittedly very obvious, as the villain of the piece and Alfed Molina is hugely entertaining in a role that is essentially comic relief but still sees him chewing scenery at every opportunity. The film is also well done in the visuals department. The visual effects are good but not quite great, the imagery obviously computer generated but not so much that it doesn’t still look good, and the locations that are realised throughout are quite beautiful in their presentation. The action sequences often make pretty good use of the visual effects but some of the best action comes courtesy of practical stunt work in a number of Parkour style free running sequences featuring some truly excellent stunt work. These scenes embody an almost old fashioned style and surely anyone fond of the original Indiana Jones movies will have some appreciation of them. The action sequences, both of the practical and visual effects variety, are well crafted and enjoyable, even though they are never truly awe inspiring. So, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time may not be the next Pirates of the Caribbean but, from a technical standpoint, it is one of the better made films to be based on a video game, and it is an enjoyable, if not especially memorable piece of popcorn cinema that will ensure that you won’t want to turn back time after leaving the cinema.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

StreetDance 3D ***
StreetDance 2D **½

Over the past year, 3D has become a major part of the moviegoing experience, with more and more films being released in three dimensions. Yet, thus far, 3D has been very much the perogative of Hollywood with only films coming out of America being released with that extra dimension. Now, with the release of StreetDance this is about to change. The first British film to be shot in 3D (and I mean shot in 3D, not converted in post production as is the trend in Hollywood right now), StreetDance is in a perfect position to potentially change the nature of British filmmaking forever for its pioneering of the 3D technology in its first non-Hollywood use. 3D aside, however (as will be the case for anyone who only gets to see the 2D version of the film), there is little revolutionary or pioneering about this film, as it is essentially a British take on the popular American Step Up film series (which itself is getting a 3D instalment later this year I might add) and the concept of combining the modern dance style of street dancing with the classic dance form of ballet is also not exactly a new idea, again essentially taking its cue from the aforementioned American film series. But, regardless of whether StreetDance brings much new to the table, dance movies are always popular in the UK and with the addition of a third dimension, StreetDance may well have what it takes to be one of the most popular dance movies yet, even if it may not be one of the best.

Jay 20 is a London dance crew training for the UK Street Dance Championships. When their leading member and choreographer Jay (Ukweli Roach) leaves them to focus on other aspects of his life, he leaves the feisty Carly (Nichola Burley) in charge. Things soon go badly when she forgets to book rehearsal space and struggles to find the money necessary to find somewhere new. An interesting opportunity arises, however, when Helena (Charlotte Rampling), an instructor at the prestigious Royal Dance School offers to let Carly’s crew use her dance studio – if Carly includes Helena’s ballet dancers in the crew’s routine. Led by Tomas (Richard Winsor), the ballet squad are perplexed and resentful. For the street dance mob it’s like entering a strange new world. Tensions ride high for these two teams with seemingly no common ground but soon they realise that if they truly work together they can achieve greatness and that they may just have what it takes to win.

The trailer for StreetDance promises heart stopping, eye popping 3D and this is exactly what the film delivers. If you are seeing the 2D version of the film what you will get is something extremely average and that offers nothing that is special. The 3D version, though, is a completely different story. While the extra dimension certainly doesn’t make up for the film’s many shortcomings, it does provide something that is visually spectacular and truly worth the added cost of a 3D cinema ticket. You really can tell that the film was shot in 3D and, aside from a couple of gimmicky uses of the added dimension, it really does heighten the viewing experience. London locations are so vividly captured that it seems as though you could reach out and touch them and the dance performances genuinely seem like they are happening right in front of you, it feeling as if you are watching them live rather than just watching a film. All of this, of course, is absent in the 2D version of the film. The 2D version, does still boast the same impressive and sometimes ingenious – the combination of street dancing and ballet is brilliantly executed – dance choreography which, accompanied by a fantastic pop music soundtrack, is superbly translated into stunning dance moves by the film’s performers, who clearly have a talent for dance (this being particularly true of the much touted appearances by ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ contestants George Sampson, Diversity and Flawless, who are much more than glorified cameos here, being secondary characters that serve a purpose in the plot). The same cannot be said, however, of the performers’ acting ability. The acting here is not quite awful but a lack of passion and charisma on the past of the cast members means that they are definitely not good either. Even the likes of Charlotte Rampling isn’t very good here although this is perhaps more due to poor writing than lack of ability on her part. The storyline is mediocre, obvious and predictable, copying countless other – and better – dance movies that have preceded it, the characters are undeveloped and two dimensional – which doesn’t exactly help the performances – and the dialogue is weak and unmemorable. Consequently, while the dancing scenes are undoubtedly impressive, the scenes that fit around them tend to be rather dull. Style over substance is definitely the order of the day here. So, overall, StreetDance is a film that has some entertainment value but fails to nearly as fun as the American films it is so obviously influenced by. A bit more attention into the non dancing aspects of the film could have made it stand out but, as it is, it is a film that the Britannia High generation will probably love but that may leave other viewers without their breath being taken away.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)