The first good thing about The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is that it isn’t called The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Oath of the Dragon Ring or The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Nesting Dolls of Doom.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer’s penchant for turning unlikely source material into high-concept supernatural action-comedy-romance popcorn movies with unwieldy, franchise-friendly two-part titles is well established. Already he’s done theme-park rides (Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl) and more recently video games (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time). Now he’s given us what is surely the first-ever supernatural action-comedy-romance popcorn movie based on a classic Mickey Mouse cartoon. I’m trying to think what even unlikelier source material he might turn to next.
If it doesn’t rise to the level of the first Pirates of the Caribbean — for several reasons, among them that there’s no recapturing the bottled lightning of Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow — The Sorcerer’s Apprentice gets right almost everything that Prince of Persia got wrong. It’s nonsense, but it’s entertaining nonsense, just like Prince of Persia wasn’t. The stars are charismatic and likable, and the romantic leads have real chemistry. The special effects are visually splendid. Alfred Molina, the best thing in both movies, gets to be the big bad guy instead of a minor supporting character.
The screenplay, much abused for its multiple writers, is peppered with laugh-out-loud humor and eccentric charm. I love the moment when the villain appears in the hero’s apartment after escaping a 10-year imprisonment during which his afflictions included sharply curtailed reading material. What it was, and his pitiless commentary on it, is a goofy ray of wit that’s not atypical of the movie’s sensibilities. A throwaway line in a scene in which the villain and a sidekick try to get information about the hero from a college administrator contains what is now my all-time favorite allusion to Star Wars in another movie.
The Star Wars reference is, of course, apropos, since, like everything from Harry Potter to The Matrix to Avatar, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is yet another retread of the messianic hero’s journey, the story of a chosen one who must save the world. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice cheerfully acknowledges its derivativeness, though a nod to Harry Potter would have been even more appropriate.
Nicolas Cage is Obi-wan Morpheus Dumbledore, aka Balthazar Blake, an ageless wizard from the eighth century who was trained by Merlin himself and is locked in a centuries-long battle with a treacherous former colleague, Maxim Horvath (Molina), whose goal is to bring back Merlin’s great enemy, Morgana le Fay (Alice Krige). (Pirates reached back to Cortez and cursed Aztec gold; Apprentice reaches back to Arthuriana. Downside: Apprentice spells out its back story in a prologue, so we aren’t figuring out stuff along with the hero, as in Pirates.)
Jay Baruchel is Harry Anderson Skywalker, aka Dave Stutler, an awkward young physics geek whose hobby is building Tesla coils and playing with 50-foot plasma filaments in an abandoned New York subway turnaround that he uses as an urban-gothic mad scientist’s lab, which is nice if you can get it. (Baruchel recently voiced the similarly geeky hero of How to Train Your Dragon.)
Teresa Palmer isn’t Princess Trinity Granger, but she’s definitely the next best thing as far as Dave is concerned. A gorgeous coed in one of Dave’s college classes, Becky isn’t into physics (or magic); her interests run to music and hosting a music program at the local college radio station.
I appreciate having a hero who’s more than a typical Potteresque blank slate — a hero with an actual interest — as well as a heroine with a completely different interest. Rather remarkably, on two different occasions, the movie allows the hero to take an interest in the heroine’s interest while simultaneously impressing her with his interest. The first time is only a conceit, though even there it’s nice for the girl to have an actual reason to be impressed with the guy. (Lots of movies seem to feel the heroine should fall for the hero just because he’s the chosen one or something.) But the second scene, involving music and electricity, is unexpectedly endearing and moving, an offbeat set piece that raises the bar a notch.
Actually, Dave first made an impression on Becky 10 years earlier on a third-grade field trip by drawing a cartoon on the school bus window in Sharpie so that if you looked out the window with the New York skyline in the background, you’d see an iconic scene from a classic special-effects movie (another nod to the movie’s roots). Later on that field trip, Dave slipped Becky a sly love note that was better than probably two-thirds of all pick-up lines, even in the movies. For third grade, he was quite the character.
Of course, that was also the day that fate led young Dave into the midst of a terrifying magical smackdown between Balthazar and Horvath over a magical MacGuffin with the key to restoring Morgana and a number of other wizards — all evil but one. That childhood trauma led to a decade of therapy and medical attention, during which he learned to say that his experiences were just hallucinations. He probably never really believed it, though. After all, he still has the dragon ring Balthazar gave him — the ring that marks him as a wizard-to-be (and more, if only he knew).
Now, though, it’s all coming back to him — literally. Once again, Balthazar and Horvath are at magical loggerheads, and Dave’s right in the middle of it. And, of course, he has to learn to master his magical potential in time to save the world from certain annihilation — as well as learning to balance study of magic with his love life, against the stern protestations of his all-business mentor that love is a “distraction.”
There’s little effort to spell out magical rules or limitations, other than the general weight class of each adept, so the battles are somewhat random. On the other hand, the magical applications are often imaginative, and the filmmakers didn’t skimp on visual effects, so for once the eye candy is actually worth looking at.
What holds it all together? The characters. In addition to the main players, British actor Toby Kebbell has a very funny supporting role as a junior-grade evil wizard who makes a living as a Bowiesque stage magician.
Despite the one-step title, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice ends with a typically Bruckheimerian after-the-credits tag suggesting sequel potential. I like the movie, but I like it how it is. The world doesn’t need The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Past Merlin’s Circle or The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Dance Magic Dance. If it does well with audiences, that might be in part because, as derivative as it is — and despite an entertaining homage to the eponymous Fantasia sequence — The Sorcerer’s Apprentice isn’t really a franchise film based on something else. Audiences, I think, are ready for new material. That’s what Hollywood should be gearing up to deliver.
Steven D. Greydanus is editor and chief critic at Decent Films. He also blogs at NCRegister.com.
CONTENT ADVISORY: Fantasy action violence and mildly frightening scenes, some mild rude humor and brief cursing. Fine for older kids.
Dan Burke: The Truth About Movies and Les Miserables
SDG: In 60 Seconds: ALL THREE Iron Man Movies! Pain & Gain! More!
Comments
Post a Comment
Wow! It sounds like this movie is definitely not what I thought it would turn out to be. It sounds like it might be more “Raising Harry-zona” than “The Wizard Man”, just in terms of the quality of past Nic Cage films.
But then, I’m trying to find a film on the DF site with Monica Bellucci in it that got less than three stars… looks like I have to go all the way back to the Matrix sequels for those.
Anyway, probably not one I’d spend $20 to take my kid to see (not with “Despicable Me” still out), but definitely one for the Netflix queue. And I think I have to redact my Totoro-spolier comment on the “Toy Story 3” review because now I’m dying to know if the NYC special effects movie referred to here is “Ghostbusters” or not.
Steven,
It sounds better than I would have thought.
However, while I know you’ve been through the “magic and fantasy” spiel many times with Harry Potter and other reviews, I was still surprised you didn’t give any mention to the acceptability of the movie’s portrayal of magic for Christian audiences.
I mean, I know we’re awash in this kind of vague movie “magic,” but this review is still for the Register and may be the first review of yours that a particular individual picks up. Or are you writing now mostly for your regular readers like me?
Thanks,
John
Some people are never satisfied! I literally ratcheted up my spoiler sensitivity just for you, Victor, and this is the thanks I get?
The answer is that while Ghostbusters is indeed a relevant touchstone here, it’s not the creature-feature movie in question. (Think older.)
As far as Nic Cage movies go, uh, this is no Raising Arizona (if it needed to be said). I think it’s best seen on the Bruckheimer scale, somewhere between Pirates of the Caribbean (better) and Prince of Persia (worse).
I know! I even felt a little bit guilty reading the review, as it was obvious you were taking pains not to reveal any major spoilers. I guess the lesson learned here is never, ever, under any circumstances take writing advice from me (or feed me after midnight. Especially not onions). Or at least give spoilers freely, but not when they might potentially upset any Miyazaki fanboys in the audience (though having recently watched “Lupin the 3rd: Castle of Cagliostro” I will say that even the great master erred by not featuring Fujiko more—and even then, sticking her in jungle camo fatigues).
In terms of spoilers, I guess the only other one I’d want to know is which poor Southern-U.S. community had their distinctive regional accent murdered by Cage in this film.
But none of this is to hijack the review of “The Socerer’s Apprentice”, I just wanted to see if we could get to comment #5 on this post before someone condemnd the movie as evil because it dealt with witchcraft, even on a Bruckheimerian level.
John M:
Good question. My sense is that the urgency of addressing the magic issue in a given review varies from film to film, and in this case the controversy level seemed low enough to focus on other things in the review and address the topic in the combox if it came up. One could ask the same question about my review of Percy Jackson (and Clash of the Titans): Should I have addressed the moral issues around narratives that depict classical (pagan) gods? Logically, one could even ask whether the magic issue shouldn’t be addressed in a review of Cinderella or The Wizard of Oz. I guess the answer is you can’t do everything all the time. If someone wants to know about the magic issue, they can ask!
Victor:
Don’t feel guilty! You only reinforced my own native disposition to avoid spoilers as much as possible. I don’t regret anything I didn’t put in my review (with the possible exception of not addressing the magic issue, as per John’s comments).
I don’t think “The Magic Issue” (TMI?) needs to be specifically called out in the review, though. The name of the movie is “The SORCERER’s Apprentice” and your review DOES contain the words “magic” or “magical” no fewer than 10 times, which might also be a clue for those concerned about such things.
Maybe, for particularly sensitive audiences, we should call out in our “Toy Story 3” reviews that the since toys are capable of SELF-LOCOMOTION and SPEECH they have either obviously been ENCHANTED by a Shaman or are POSSESSED by some form of animal or demonic spirits—though conceivably they could also be mini-golems, tiny robots like in that one movie about the small soldiers, or (as I believe) they have never really existed at all and are just Purgatorial manifestations of all the people Andy loved in his lifetime.
Sorry to be snarky here, but if you don’t want your kids to see movies with magic in them, don’t take them to see “The SORCERER’s Apprentice” You can probably also rule out “The WIZARD of Oz” and “The MAGIC School Bus”, too, while you’re at it (though I would rule out “The Magic School Bus” for my kids anyway because Mrs. Frizzle is TERRIFYING).
Victor,
I don’t appreciate your derogatory comments about my wife (Mrs. Frizzle).
More seriously, could we avoid the snarkiness, at least till we get to know each other a bit better?
I may have been asking for TMI but I thought it worth mentioning because
I thought this might appear in print without the comments, but maybe not?
Anyway, it’s an entirely different thing to inventively hunt for sin in Toy Story than to look for a little guidance on the depiction of magic in a movie where sorcery wielded by a (mostly) average kid from our world is center stage. I mean, it’s probably redundant, given the moral rating is 0.
Indeed, I agree, were I avoiding magic for my family, I wouldn’t go see a movie about sorcery. It’s precisely because I wouldn’t take an all-or-nothing approach that a sentence or two comparing/contrasting with other films might be helpful, even if this is light popcorn fare.
I wouldn’t go see Sorceror’s Apprentice anyway since I haven’t even gotten to Toy Story and am saving up for Harry Potter, but I was just trying to be helpful.
Cheers,
John
“Harry Anderson Skywalker”
That is the funniest thing I’ve read in a review in a long time. I ‘bout snorted water out my nose! I loved Night Court!
There’s nothing I like better than taking credit for making people snort water up their nose. (Well, maybe a few things.) Unfortunately in this case it was an accident: My allusiveness ran along a different axis.
BALTHAZAR =
Obi Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)
Morpheus (The Matrix)
Dumbledore, Albus (Harry Potter)
DAVE =
Harry Potter
Anderson, John “Neo” (The Matrix)
Skywalker, Luke (Star Wars)
BECKY ≠
Princess Leia Organa (Star Wars)
Trinity (The Matrix)
Granger, Hermione (Harry Potter)
Sorry for any confusion!
Hi John! Apologies: I wasn’t venting my spleen at you in particular, but rather at the fantasy-haters in general (of whom you are clearly not one).
I agree with Gene that the time is right for a Richard Moll comeback, though.
PS @ SDG: Loved your (spoiler-free!) review of “Inception” and happened to have Al on the radio during the drive home when you were on. My only question, and perhaps you can’t answer it, is: why am I not seeing this movie tonight?!
Hey John: Here’s my take on TMI (The Magic Issue) with respect to The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, over at the “Reel Faith” website. You can also check out this week’s episode, if/when they archive it on the website! Cheers.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.