"The Sisters Brothers" and "Deadwood" - Children in the Wild West

*As always, I write these articles as if you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

I’ve slowly but surely developed a monthly plan for this site. I begin each month with a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie, and this past month I wrote about a random comedy I own and decided to make that a monthly entry. Then, after thoroughly enjoying Powers Boothe’s performance in Sudden Death, I decided to look back at some westerns I own. (So for the next few months, expect at least these three types [Van Damme, comedy, and western], with other films peppered in here and there.) It would make the most sense to start with Tombstone, which featured a very fun Boothe performance. But it reminded me more to rewatch Deadwood since the movie is coming out this weekend. I didn’t want to write about an entire TV series (perhaps I will one day cover the entire series of Deadwood), so instead I watched The Sisters Brothers, a movie I recently added to my collection. As you’ll read, this choice makes more sense than you might think in regards to Deadwood.

The Sisters Brothers and Deadwood: Children in the Wild West

When I first watched The Sisters Brothers, I was a little disappointed. I was expecting something a little more traditional, but instead I got a very offbeat, surprisingly funny, modern western. Once I realized what the film was, I embraced, and it made my top ten list last year. I was mostly taken with the relationships in the film, mainly between the titular brothers but also between Riz Ahmed and Jake Gyllenhaal’s characters. These were grown men engaged in typically serious adult things (murder, greed, gold mining, etc.), but they treated each other like children, often getting into petty spats and talking of their feelings being hurt.

I found it funny and touching, which is why I liked it so much. Funny and touching is a difficult combo to pull off. I started rewatching Deadwood recently because of the movie, and I remembered what I loved so much about that show. While it also dealt with similar adult things, many of its characters were very childlike. Most of them simply want to make friends. A. W. Merrick getting giddy when he is able to walk and talk with Bullock, Star, and Utter; Calamity Jane and Joanie Stubbs (and Mose) finding friendship. Blazanov finding joy in acceptance in the camp. There are also multiple instances of characters getting their feelings hurt, and letting people know about it. The obvious example is E. B., who spends much of the series angry at being left out. But there’s also Dan, presented as one of the toughest characters, who nearly breaks down in tears when rebuked by Swearengen. And then there’s the fascination the characters have with children in general. Tom Nuttall (tragically) showing William Bullock his new bike. Mose and Jane’s interest in the school children. There’s certainly a metaphor there about how young our country was, especially in that time and place. But I think David Milch was simply using the western as a backdrop to show that no matter how serious our business gets, we are all still children in many ways.

The Sisters Brothers wholly embraces this. Charlie and Eli are killers, but they are also children. The brother relationship is an easy set up for this: teasing, fighting, etc. But it goes beyond that. Charlie basically has temper tantrums and is prone to hitting someone if he gets upset. Eli is more gentle, forming a bond with his horse, and inquisitive, as he is always amazed at new technology such as the toothbrush. With Hermann and Morris, it’s more the Deadwood route, as they embrace friendship over greed, although greed is steal a big part of their plan.

So what is it that draws me to such stories? I suppose, especially now that I have children, I am fascinated with how long a person can hold onto the simple feelings of childhood. I myself have taken to embracing my childhood love of dorky things rather than feeling too old for them. I find it amusing when an adult embraces their inner child, and I always find it touching when someone can admit they are lonely or their feelings are hurt and want to make things better. So a big moment that won me over in this film was the dinner fight between Eli and Charlie, and Eli’s confrontation of Charlie the next day. He was upset because Charlie hit him in public. The scene is emotionally effective, and it ends very humorously when the tension is resolved by Charlie letting Eli hit him for payback. That is why I love this movie so much. It makes me feel something and think about humanity, then it turns things around and makes me laugh.

Much like Deadwood, I think one of the messages of The Sisters Brothers is that despite out deadly serious actions, we’re all just kids playing and being adults. Just look at the ending. The brothers return home to be taken care of by their mother, and the final shot is a visual metaphor for the perpetual children theme: a grown man lying in his childhood bed, his feet now hanging over the end. It’s a very poignant ending, and it makes this western stand apart in my collection.

This is a weird western, but most are these days.

Once I accepted this as a modern, weird western, I enjoyed it very much. I love traditional westerns, but I’m also a big fan of films like this, which take expectations or tropes and shake things up.

The main aspect I like about The Sisters Brothers is how it shows elements of daily life not always shown in westerns. (Deadwood was pretty good about this, as well.) Some things I noticed included showing them cut their own hair, Eli’s aforementioned discovery of a toothbrush and his struggle to figure out how to use it, Charlie actually being hungover from drinking whiskey nonstop, how long it takes to travel from place to place, the dangers of sleeping outside (no scene made me cringe as much as when that spider crawled in Eli’s mouth), experiencing plumbing for the first time, and actually dealing with horses.

The Sisters Brothers isn’t the first movie to acknowledge these things, but there does seem to be a focus on them. Too often, westerns present this fantasy world, so I like it when one takes the time to show the mundane aspects of life at the time.

On top of that, this movie went in a direction I was not anticipating at all when the gold-finding chemical was introduced. The fact that it worked was one off part, but when Charlie dumped it all in at once and nearly killed everyone, the film took quite the turn. That is, in essence, what impresses me the most with films these days: the ability to surprise. More than that, the ability to surprise me without cheating. The Sisters Brothers is able to exist as a traditional western while also naturally going in a new direction with each scene. This is why I hold it in the same regard as Deadwood.

Why do I own this?

I consider this a companion piece to Deadwood, so in the future when I inevitably Deadwood again and again, I will also revisit this movie, so I should own it.

Random thoughts

Okay, the amount of production companies listed at the beginning is insane. Thankfully it's just on a single screen. If they each got their own title sequence the movie would be five minutes longer.

This movie made me wonder: would I instinctively know how to brush my teeth, or would I try it as John C. Reilly does?

I love how Phoenix keeps talking shit about the pretentious (and Western cliche) language of the letters they read.

"We can kill anyone we want here!"

I like how Phoenix announces that they are the Sisters Brothers when they go from place to place to see if anyone has heard of them. It plays on the Western trope of all these gunslingers being famous and known in each town they go to when the reality was most likely that a lot of hired guns and whatnot were never known.

I love the bluntness of Phoenix throughout the movie.

John C. Reilly and Gyllenhaal are toothbrushing buddies!

Jake Gyllenhaal is doing this faux fancy accent, and it works since Charlie constantly complains about how fake and pretentious he is.

This movie is darkly comedic to me because every time it seems like things are going to calmly, some violence ensues, usually instigated by Charlie. His dumping of the chemical that eventually kills Ahmed and Gyllenhaal is the most tragic example. That moment, among many others, shows how unpredictable this movie is.

Richard Brake is given about as much to do as Rutger Hauer.

"Have you noticed how long it's been since anyone's tried to kill us?"

And the most unpredictable showdown with the bad guy: stopping by his funeral to punch his dead body to make sure he's dead.

John C. Reilly punching the Commodore's dead  body is what really put me over the top with this movie. It just caught me off guard and made me laugh. The whole movie is so random, and that's why I love it.

That has to be the ancestor of Carol Kane's character from Kimmy Schmidt.

"With the participation of Rutger Hauer" That is the most accurate credit I've ever seen.

..

Why Watch "Everest"? Because It's There!

Everest

Every few years disaster strikes on Mount Everest and multiple debates about climbing the tallest mountain in the world begin. The most basic question that is always at the heart of Everest is, “Why?” The film, Everest, directly posits this question as well, and the characters, in unison, shout George Mallory’s famous line: “Because it’s there!” The characters give serious answers afterward, but that line gets to the root of most reasons why people climb and also why the film exists. Everest is there, and such an imposing example of nature will always fascinate climbers and viewers alike.

There is no shortage of disaster stories from Everest’s deadly history, but the 1996 climbing season was possibly the most documented making it the obvious choice for source material. Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air is the most famous account of the climb, but Everest went with a more broad scope in an attempt to present more viewpoints of the event. This makes Everest more accessible, but the lack of focus also leads to some characters receiving short shrift. That said, enough character building is done to make the human drama a very effective counterbalance to the visual spectacle of the film.

The draw of Everest is definitely the spectacle, though. Any film about Everest needs to be about the beauty of the deadly mountain and the general experience of climbing it. In that regard, Everest is extremely successful. The shots of the mountain are stunning, but, more importantly, the actors seem to be truly struggling as they make their way higher and higher. The film shows how brutal the climb truly is, even when climbers are paying to be shepherded up the mountain. The climbers are basically dying the last few thousand feet since humans aren’t meant to survive at such altitudes. Director Baltasar Kormákur said in an interview that he’s “fine” with putting actors through “a little bit of pain” and it definitely shows.

It’s important for the film to hammer home the difficulty of the climb to make the major question of the film more pertinent. Why put yourself through this? Why risk your life? This question is doubly relevant when you add in the weather conditions that led to the 1996 disaster. Is it worth losing your life for the glory of reaching the top? Everest does not presume to answer this question, but the characters obviously think that it is very much worth it. It’s important that the film ultimately leaves the answer up to the viewer since it is a real world question that is still relevant, especially since Everest’s deadliest day occurred this past April. The bigger question then becomes about commercial climbing. In other words, should less-experienced climbers be allowed to pay professional guides to get them to the top? Multiple times in the film, money is mentioned, and the guides clearly want to get people to the top so they can stay in business. Would the disaster of 1996 have happened if the guides didn’t feel that pressure to get more people to the top, especially with a journalist in two who was going to write about it? The film’s screenwriters (William Nicholson and Simon Beaufoy) wisely stop short of blatantly demonizing the practice of guided climbing, leaving it ultimately up to the viewer.

The question of Everest then becomes, “Why recreate these terrible events?” That is difficult to answer. Much like any film based on real, tragic events, there is a tricky line that is toed between reverence and exploitation. “Everest” does not come across as exploitative, but there are moments near the end (which did actually happen) that felt too personal to be recreated, much less witnessed by millions of viewers. (This is a slight SPOILER so skip to the next paragraph if you don’t know the true story and don’t want any part of the film spoiled.) Near the end of the film, one of the main characters, Rob Hall (Jason Clarke), has a conversation with his pregnant wife via a walkie-talkie/satellite phone hook-up as he is dying. It felt too personal to read about it in Into Thin Air, and it felt even more personal watching it recreated. The film seems aware of this, however, as there are multiple reaction shots of characters listening in on the interaction. Everyone is crying, and most people watching the film will be crying as well. This moment is so important because this is where the film might lose the audience. It feels a bit too manipulative, but it actually did happen this way. It’s hard to fault a movie for being melodramatic when it’s based on a real moment. The scene proved to be a double-edged sword for me. It made the film much more emotional and powerful than I expected it to be, but it also convinced me that I never wanted to watch it again.

Any emotion created in a scene is also the product of the actors involved. Clarke is great throughout, but he is truly heartbreaking at the end of the film. Keira Knightley, as Hall’s wife, gives an effective performance as well, especially considering that her scenes were just her talking on the phone. The rest of the cast of Everest is equally impressive: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robin Wright, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, Michael Kelly, Sam Worthington, and Emily Watson. Brolin is given the meatiest role as Beck Weathers, a man whose experiences could have been a movie on its own. The rest have their moments, but the only weak point of the film is that some of the cast is underutilized, specifically Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal portrays Scott Fischer, who was known as kind of a rock star mountain climber. This reputation leads to a slightly strange performance as Fischer seems to be constantly drunk and/or angry, but it’s never explained completely. It seems that once Gyllenhaal was cast, the screenwriters wanted to beef up the role, but couldn’t devote enough time to create a fully fleshed out character. That said, Gyllenhaal brings enough charisma to the role to justify his appearance; you’re just left wanting more.

If anything, the main issue with Everest is that you’re left wanting more. It’s a true story with so many characters it’s impossible to feel like the full story has been told in two hours. Thankfully, there are multiple books and articles that delve deeply into the individual experiences. So Everest is more of a snapshot of Everest and all the human drama that comes with it. It is a very effective film that makes you appreciate (and question) the struggle people go through to achieve their dreams. As a short glimpse into the world of commercial climbing and the tragedy it can bring, Everest works on every important level. It won’t (and can’t) answer the question of why people climb Everest, but it does present a fascinating example of people who took up the challenge and paid the ultimate price.

Everest receives a:

Gyllenhaal Gives His Best Performance Yet in "Nightcrawler"

*This is another of those short year-end reviews.

Nightcrawler

Jake Gyllenhaal has quietly become one of the most interesting actors working today. Everyone wants to praise McConaughey (myself included), but Gyllenhaal has rebranded himself as well, recently. The reason this isn't as noticeable is because he still churned out great movies here and there while dabbling with big-budget fluff. His isn't the rom-com to Oscar glory road. It's more like Gyllenhaal took the occasional pit stop (paycheck) on his way to greatness (no Oscar yet, but he will have one soon if he keeps this up). Gyllenhaal was never pigeonholed like McConaughey was in rom-com land, but he did go through an everyman/hero phase in films like The Day After Tomorrow, Prince of Persia, and Source Code (by the way, I'm a big fan of Source Code, but his character is pretty normal). Now, even when he's playing what could a plain part (like in Prisoners), he's amping it up with little quirks that make the character more watchable. With Nightcrawler, Gyllenhaal has finally found a role that is pure character study, and he truly shines in it.

Nightcrawler is about the seedy subculture of cameramen chasing after shocking footage for local news stations. Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal) stumbles across this culture and sees an opportunity. It's set up from the beginning that Louis is off-balanced, and this profession completely fits his personality. What follows is his rise to "fame" in which he shows sociopathic disregard for fellow humans. 

I don't want to dwell on the story of Nightcrawler because I didn't find it nearly as compelling as Gyllenhaal's performance. Sure, it has something to say about our culture and all that, but I don't really see anything presented here that we don't already realize. This isn't blowing the lid off of sensational journalism. If anything, it even feels dated because the morning news is hardly something people care about anymore. It's an interesting world and all, but I don't think anyone needs to be told that people who glory in the injury and death of others are horrible. I feel like we all know that. My lack of engagement in the story isn't a fault, however, because the film is more interested in showing us the character of Louis Bloom than it is in teaching a lesson about society. Bloom is the story here, not morning news shows.

Gyllenhaal has always been able to portray slightly off-balanced characters, but he really inhabits this one. Louis Bloom is a constant opportunist, and you can see that in Gyllenhaal's crazed eyes. It's a great performance from the small moments (reprimanding an assistant) to the big ones (going full crazy in the mirror). What makes it truly great is that it is entertaining. This is a darkly hilarious film, and Gyllenhaal's deadpan delivery of some creepy dialogue is perfect. For instance, he shifts from talking business to his (coerced) relationship with Rene Russo instantly and without a change in tone. Sure, it's a disturbing portrait of a troubled man, but it's hard to deny that it isn't attempting to be funny many times. It's just refreshing to see a dark character study that has some humor to it instead of dwelling on misery. By the way, my favorite line from Louis has to be: "What if my problem wasn't that I don't understand people, but that I don't like them?"

This is possibly Gyllenhaal's best performance yet. Some think it might get him an Oscar nomination (it hasn't been mentioned all that much, so I doubt that it will unfortunately), and it truly deserves some attention. At the very least it has shown just how good Gyllenhaal can be. Something tells me we'll be seeing more and more work like this from him in the coming years.

Nightcrawler receives a:

"Source Code"

Source Code - Directed by Duncan Jones, written by Ben Ripley, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Vera Farmiga, Michelle Monaghan, and Jeffrey Wright - Rated PG-13

I just love any movie that has a plot element built in that allows a character to die multiple times.

Writer-director Duncan Jones made a splash with his 2009 debut feature, Moon (it made my top ten of that year). It was an interesting and entertaining sci-fi film and made many people eager to see what project Jones would make next. Thankfully, Jones stuck with the sci-fi genre with Source Code and while he didn’t share a writing credit on this one (it was written by Ben Ripley) it is still an engrossing film with a bit of visual flair.

Source Code is about a secret government project that allows a soldier, Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal), to take over a person killed in a Chicago terrorist attack for the last eight minutes of the victim’s life. This is not a time travel movie, though. Stevens can’t stop the attack; he can only search for the bomber so the authorities can stop future attacks. This makes Source Code a sci-fi mystery film for the most part and it is a compelling mystery. Stevens can go back as many times as need be to find the bomber so the same eight minutes plays out quite a bit.

This doesn’t mean that the eight minute segments play exactly the same way, of course, but it is populated by the same characters and because of that, the viewer gets to play the part of the detective as well. This is a film that challenges to viewer to watch every part of the screen, searching for clues and/or suspicious behavior. It really makes the movie fun to watch.

At this point you might be wondering about the same time period playing out over and over again. Haven’t we seen Bill Murray in something like this before? And what about this Stevens guy taking over someone else’s body? Is Scott Bakula in this? Yeah, there are similarities between Source Code and Groundhog Day and “Quantum Leap,” but it’s not that big of a deal. If you go back far enough, everything has borrowed from something over time. A film is only a rip off if it doesn’t attempt to be its own film, though. Source Code is certainly its own film with its own ideas and many of those ideas will lead to after-film discussions.

There is one other similarity to Groundhog Day, though: this film has a bit of comedy to it. First, there’s the gimmick of seeing the same thing over and over again. The main character can start to play around with that. Second, and more importantly, these are eight minute segments and Stevens has infinite lives so he can play it out a bit differently each time and sometimes his attempts are a bit humorous.

Some of the humor in Source Code is thanks to the script, but a lot of the credit belongs to Gyllenhaal. He has the flustered part down in the beginning when his character is constantly confused. But he shines once his character catches on and gets into detective mode. Gyllenhaal’s improvised interrogation scenes are very amusing.

Source Code is not a straight up comedy, though. There are a few elements that pack a real emotional punch in the film. First off, there’s Christina (Michelle Monaghan), who Stevens makes a connection with after multiple first meetings. Stevens also has issues with his father. And you start to feel for Stevens himself, who it basically trapped in the titular Source Code until he completes his mission. Side characters have a bit of an arc as well with Vera Farmiga playing Stevens’s handler who develops a bit of a connection to the beleaguered soldier. Jeffrey Wright rounds out the cast as the off-putting boss of the operation.

A sci-fi film with lofty ambitions like inhabiting another person’s existence and traveling to other realities has the potential to be loaded with impressive visuals, but Source Code holds back a bit, to the betterment of the film. The lack of in-your-face visuals allows the focus of the film to remain on the mystery and the emotions of those involved. That’s not to say there are no interesting visual flairs. There are a few cool slow motion scenes and an interesting freeze frame. The show stealer (skip to the next paragraph if you want this to remain slightly unspoiled), though, involves a smooth camera movement followed by someone jumping off a moving train while the camera stays with the character who gets scuffed up in real time. Sure, CG was involved but the scene still had a wow factor to it.

Source Code has ambitions beyond visual flair, though. Not to spoil anything, let’s just say the definition of reality is messed with a bit. This has left some people to bash the film’s ending for attempting to get into deeper issues, but some (including me) will applaud it. This is a movie that could play it safe and stay normal, but dares to go deeper. That’s a rare thing, so you should check out Source Code while you can. It’s easily one of the year’s best films so far.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

The ending brings up some major ideas. First off, the idea of creating these alternate realities. Which reality is the "real" one? Or is there such a thing? After watching plenty of "Fringe" I just accept that there are multiple relalities all happening at once and I can only assume that the Source Code just kind of throws a wrench into the works.

Another thought I had about the ending was that since the reality keeps going after Stevens "dies," then perhaps the film is making a claim about the existence of an afterlife. If you fall into the school of thought that the afterlife could potentially be very much life real life, then Stevens may have entered a kind of personal heaven.

Is the idea of a heaven for a character "too happy"? I can see that argument (I can imagine having that very argument in the past), but it worked for me and I found it to be quite daring rather than an attempt at a crowd pleasing "happy" ending.

Of course, there may be a better argument about this idea of destiny and fate since Stevens had visions of the film's final moments every time he entered the Source Code. But let's say his traveling in and out of the Source Code is basically soul transfer. If so, then maybe he was dabbling in the after life a bit during his trip from Stevens to Fentress. If so, that would explain the ending as the afterlife since he was already seeing glimpses of it.

But hey, these are just theories. I just think it's cool to have a well made film that lends itself to multiple theories.

Finally, the fact that Stevens is dead the whole time may feel like a Shyamalan-like twist, but I felt that it was revealed early enough to remain effective. It didn't feel like a gimmick, either. It really added to the seriousness of Stevens's situation.

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - Directed by Mike Newell, written by Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, (screen story by Jordan Mechner), starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, and Ben Kingsley - Rated PG-13

Prince of Persia is just a bland mess of a film.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the latest videogame adaptation, is not likely to change anyone’s mind regarding the videogame-as-movie genre. I actually enjoy a few of the hated videogame adaptations, but this film was just a bland experience. It’s not terrible, but it’s certainly not consistently entertaining.

Prince of Persia takes place in, you guessed it, ancient Persia. But don’t expect some kind of history lesson with this film, especially since the majority of the cast do not even resemble someone of Middle Eastern descent. This was an issue I had after seeing the first preview. I wondered why an American actor was portraying a Persian prince with a British accent. To be fair, said character, Dastan, is an orphan, so it’s feasible that he is not of Persian blood. But what about Gemma Arterton, Alfred Molina, and Ben Kingsley, all of whom are British? Sure, Kingsley played Gandhi, so why can’t he be Persian, too, but it would have been nice to have an actor or two of honest descent to add a bit of authenticity. This may be a petty argument for some, but I know that other people have a major issue with it.

The casting isn’t very realistic and I guess that’s okay because the story isn’t, either. I’ll spare you a lengthy summary. The main points are that a prince, not of royal blood (Jake Gyllenhaal), is framed for a murder. He sets off with the clever Princess Tamina. Along the way he realizes she is protecting a magical dagger that can turn back time (hence the sub-titular sand). Of course, the dagger is a part of an issue that threatens the entire world.

The story wasn’t fantastical enough for me, though. I haven’t played many of the Prince of Persia games, but the ones that I did play featured a more supernatural plot. The Prince was killing strange sand demons rather than regular soldiers and “hasansins.” I wanted to see more creatures, especially since the fight sequences in this film were serviceable at best.

The enemies are not the only game connection that I felt was lacking. The Prince of Persia games have always been about the Prince jumping from ledge to ledge and swinging around as he makes his way through complex architecture. This film features a few moments that showcase the Prince’s abilities, but it’s not part of the film’s focus.

The focus is on the relationship between Dastan and Tamina, which is unoriginal to say the least. It’s the standard adventure love story we’ve been getting for decades. Man is forced to drag woman along for a journey. They seem to hate each other and constantly bicker. Then, against all odds, they realize they love each other. Only this film can’t stick to the formula. There is an overload of “near kiss” scenes and the relationship jumps back and forth from humorous to serious too often and too quickly. I don’t mind the banter between these two, but it should be more focused. Have them crack wise at each for the first half of the film, but get a bit more serious near the end.

Perhaps the inconsistent relationship wouldn’t have been so noticeable if it hadn’t been for the inclusion of Alfred Molina. He is here purely as comedic relief and I didn’t find him funny at all. He’s a sheik who puts on ostrich races (what?) and also goes from funny to serious multiple times and it never seems natural. I heard others laughing at his every word, though. He just seemed out of place to me, constantly spouting anti-government dialogue that felt out of place.

Molina’s complaints about taxes added a modern feel that I thought weakened the film. It didn’t help that part of the plot dealt with an army attacking a city based on faulty information concerning weapons. Hmm, going to war in the Middle East on the assumption of a weapons stockpile? Sound familiar? That’s the problem. I didn’t go into Prince of Persia wanting to see some thinly veiled statement on the war in Iraq. It doesn’t add up that a film that features so much goofy comic relief would have such a serious undertone.

But it truly isn’t all terrible. The production value is great. Persia is created in a visually interesting way and all of the sets were impressive. The camerawork is interesting at moments, as well. The acting is fine. The plot actually has a decent payoff, mainly due to the sequences that feature the dagger. It’s a shame there weren’t more scenes that put the time travel to good use because it is an amusing concept. It’s just that none of these positive points make up for the negative. They just make the film bearable and, occasionally, slightly enjoyable.

The best part of the film, though, is Jake Gyllenhaal. His physical presence alone may be enough for the more obsessive fans (mostly ladies) out there. Regardless of whether or not you find him sexy, it would be hard to argue that he can’t carry a film. He usually plays more awkward, borderline nerdy characters. This film proves that he can play the normal hero. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, though, since his best performances (Donnie Darko, Zodiac) are awkward, nerdy characters.

I wanted a more serious, supernatural action film that was more like the videogame. What I got was an action-comedy that provided merely decent action and, more often than not, annoying comedy. Maybe my expectations were messed up. If all you want from this film is a buffed up Gyllenhaal flirting with a princess, then you’ll come away pleased. If you expect more from this film, you’ll walk out of the theatre like me, saying, “Well, that kind of sucked.”