Source Code is meant to be director Duncan Jones' mainstream follow-up to Moon, 2009's existential sci-fi critical darling, and though it has all the hallmarks of the work of a previously proven director transitioning into blockbuster territory -- plot holes galore, bad dialogue, flimsily supported themes, a sci-fi premise supported by nonexistent science, a crack screenplay written by someone hot off of direct-to-DVD sequel Species III -- the majority of critics are still filing positive reviews for it. Back-handed ones, but still, predominantly positive reviews. Personally, though I liked Moon a great deal and am rooting for Duncan Jones just as much as the next critic, Source Code really didn't work for me. No hard feelings, Mr. Moon-maker.
Depending on which commercials you've seen for this movie, you may not realize that Anne Hathaway's character has early-onset Parkinson's disease. It's not a secret, except in the sense that the studio apparently didn't want to scare away audiences -- she mentions it the first time we meet her, and it's a constant talking point throughout the film. But that's only one of three different movies going on here. The second movie is an insider's look at the drug industry, specifically the tactics used by drug reps to get their drugs into doctors' hands, or at least their eyeline. And the third movie is a raunchy Judd Apatow comedy. Any two of those movies would have been plenty, but three causes way too many tonal shifts, and it gets a little hard to figure out how you're supposed to be feeling at any given time.
Just a few days ago at Comic-Con, the video-game-turned-movie Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was being talked up as a June 2009 release. Note the date on the promotional poster which, without a picture of princely star Jake Gyllenhaal, might as well be an ad for a Pier 1 sale. Variety is now reporting that Walt Disney Pictures has pushed back the release date nearly a full year to Memorial Day weekend 2010. Hey, maybe next year at the con Disney will hand out little "10"s you can stick to the posters they gave you this year!
In the movie Brothers, Natalie Portman is faced with a tough choice -- Jake Gyllenhaal or Tobey Maguire? Maguire plays her husband, a soldier who is believed killed in the war in the Middle East, and Gyllenhaal plays Maguire's brother, who comforts his sibling's wife and daughters. Gyllenhaal and Portman fall in love -- naturally, because, look at them -- but when Maguire is discovered alive, he returns home and finds that his family has moved on without him. Portman has kids with Maguire, and Maguire may have a little bit of post-traumatic something-something going on, which makes the decision a lot more complicated than a simple one-or-the-other choice, but seeing the two in romantic competition with each other got us thinking: Who would we choose, given the choice between all of the characters each actor has played? We paired up logical competitors from Tobey's and Jake's resumes and called out their pros and cons for a romantic, cinematic battle for the ages.
Dear Sir. You must really like to work. You've been in 17 films in the last five years, and you seems to take the good roles as readily as the bad ones. They don't all have to be Gandhi, Sir Ben, but think about what you're doing! Suspect Zero and You Kill Me weren't bad. Bloodrayne and Thunderbirds weren't good. We assume you made The Love Guru to be in a blockbuster and The Wackness to make out with an Olsen twin, but The Prince of Persia? Really?
Oh man, this movie is boring. You don't even know yet, probably, but it is. I can't believe I made it out of there awake. For the first six hours I was pretty focused on my fear that I would go into one of those really deep hibernation comas, like a bear, and that I'd have to be dragged out by the AMC staff and end up on the news, which would be very embarrassing and not at all worth it. I guess it's for kids? Is that the problem? Last time I checked, though, kids hate being bored, so if this is for kids, they have done it wrong.