MDC – The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

or “Straight-forward Fantasy Storytelling With Two-Dimensional Villains Is Often Great!”

I return with yet another of my Definitive Critiques, and this time of a Disney movie based on an animated Disney Mickey Mouse short from Fantasia – The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. If you have not read one of my DC’s before, I should warn you ahead of time that I structure what I write and that this will both have spoilers and clear biases shown. I will endeavor from the outset, as is my wont, to label said spoilers and biases but you should read at your own peril.

As I hinted at, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is indeed based on the Mickey Mouse short from Fantasia, but in as much as Pirates of the Caribbean is based on the same named ride at Disneyland and Disneyworld. And that’s to say “not very.” There’s one sequence in the film where Dave, the titular Apprentice, has to hurriedly clean his lab and does the iconic “animate the mops and buckets” routine which ends in as much disaster as the Mickey short. In brief the film is about a centuries old battle between the forces of Merlin and the forces of Morgana le Fay which culminates in modern day New York. One of Merlin’s apprentices, Balthazar, has discovered the one Merlin prophesied would finally defeat Morgana in physics student Dave, and while Balthazar trains Dave Morgana’s agent Horvath sets about trying to free Morgana from a prison Balthazar placed her in centuries ago.

As I often do, let me put forth some of my biases so you can read my critique with them in mind. Knowing ahead of time some of my personal views and thoughts can help you understand what I am seeing in the film and will give you an easier time analyzing my points and critically come to your own conclusions on the validity of what I put forth. We all have our prejudices going into a film, and those notions color how we view it – here are mine that I think are relevant:

I have a love / hate relationship with Disney and Disney films. They do tend to put out some excellent quality products, but they stifle competition. Their storytelling is usually solid, but often sappy and overly family friendly. I spend equal times decrying Disney as well as praising their films. It’s my issue, but just be aware of it.
I like Nicolas Cage. I do. And I tend to like movies more when he’s in them.
Fantasy is my preferred genre. I love sci-fi and horror, but fantasy is where I feel most at home. Wizards and magic and fantastical creatures and swordplay… I tend to give media with such aspects more leeway than most.
I want magic to feel magical and unreal, but I don’t mind there being rules. In fact, IMO for a good story the world the story takes place in needs rules.
Entertainment is first and foremost what I want from a film (or game, or book, whatever.) If it entertains me, I forgive a lot else. No matter how technically brilliant or creative or novel a piece of media may be if I am not entertained the rest means little to me. As a result, cliché doesn’t bother me in the least if it succeeds at granting me a good time.
Movies are better for me when the main characters are heroic or at least good, and when the villains are not the stars of the show. Villains need to be good, but if they overshadow the protagonist then the film is failing me as I like experiencing the film through the main character, not through the main character’s obstacles.

So those are the main personal biases of mine that I think will play into my review. I am going to start now by looking at some of what I believe are the biggest flaws with the film before moving on to a more general discussion of aspects of the film. Review spoiler alert – I really liked this film, and that’s why I am starting with a list of flaws to cleanse the palate before moving ahead with what will be a very positive review.

—-

I’m just going to go ahead with a list of main flaws of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice instead of going into detail about them. No film is ever perfect, and even if I like something I can see parts of said thing that I don’t think are quite right.

Balthazar’s and Horvath’s one-liners – Honestly, many of them were funny. And it’s something of a tradition in action / adventure films to give the heroes and villains witty banter. But there are a few too many of these, and some fall pretty flat.
Overrealiance on “force push” / “telekinetic thrust” – Too many live-action films that depict magical combat or super-powered fights rely heavily on the one person sending a wave of force at another person that shoves them against an obstacle. The Jedi force push, if you will. Gandalf vs. Saruman, Harry vs. Draco, Anakin vs. Dooku, Magneto vs. Wolverine… I understand that, especially with characters who are telekinetic like Nick in Push or Jean in X-Men, that this is a legitimate method of fighting. But I do feel that it’s a cheap and easy fx to pull off and therefore gets overused in such films.
Overplay of that one song – It’s Secrets by OneRepublic. Not that it’s good or bad, and there’s a reason for hearing it twice that is story-based, but the third playing near the end… I know, I know, thematically it should work. But it pulled me out of the scene, especially since the two times prior it was actually in the story (on a radio being played on the radio program Dave is listening to and later being played by tesla coils) but the last time it was typical melodramatic mood music and not actually playing in the movie world but for the audience watching the movie. Nitpicky, sure.
Echoes of Fred – I have no idea if the director and writers of this film ever watched Angel, but the science geek using science and magic together rang quite similar to Winnifred Burkle. This is a very minor thing, but I kept feeling “Yep, seen this before.” And while that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, and really wasn’t overall for this film, I hated that I kept thinking of Fred whenever Dave was doing “science”.
Happily ever-after ending – It’s a Disney movie, so I don’t consider that a spoiler. Despite the kind of “everything turns out for the best” kind of ending you get here, I posit that it would be equally as gauche to have the “heroes won, but at a cost” kind of finale that a darker story would have gone with. It’s personal preference which is better. I think this ending fit, it just makes some of the threats that loomed throughout the story seem to have been a bit impotent.

Really, that’s it for me. Moving on to casting.

—-

I’ve already stated that I like Nic Cage. He has a certain style in these kind of action / adventure roles that just works for me. His inhabiting the role of Balthazar Blake (what there was of it) was just right to entertain me. Eccentric yet caring, focused but not above having a little fun, he is just about perfect for this character.

Alfred Molina as the villainous Maxim Horvath. There wasn’t much development of his character, either, but Mr. Molina pulls it off wonderfully. He has an air of Baron Mordo about him mixed with aspects of The Monarch (when dealing with his “help”) – and he takes what little screen time he is given and gives Horvath a menace with panache.

For Dave, the casting of Jay Baruchel was perfect. He certainly is not typical Hollywood, let alone Disney, for the “hero” look. His voice, idioms and mannerisms are unique and give Dave that feeling of being a real person and not a cookie-cutter character that this kind of part of in the story so easily falls into (like Harry Potter, The Seeker, Chronicles of Narnia, etc.) In fact I would go so far as to say that Jay’s portrayal of Dave made the movie for me.

I also liked Teresa Palmer as Becky Barnes (that’s awful close to Bucky Barnes…) so I thought she deserved a mention. She reminded my wife of Scarlett Johanssen, and I guess I can see that (earlier works at least of Ms. Johanssen (or is it Mrs. Reynolds?)) but her voice reminded me very much of a younger Winona Ryder. Futher bias point-out – I really like Scarlett Johanssen and I really, really like Winona Ryder. So the comparisons work well for me – I could have seen either actress giving a similar performance in the film.

And now a more general look at aspects of the film that made me really enjoy it.

—-

This part is spoilery, so be forewarned.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice sets up a story within a story. On the top level is Dave, somewhat traumatized as a young boy by his exposure to the world of magic, working on his physics project while trying to win back his childhood sweetheart. On another level is Balthazar, trying to fulfill his master’s charge to find the Prime Merlinian and defeat Morgana while also freeing his beloved Veronica from Morgana’s control. These are two stories interconnected through Dave’s being the Prime Merlinian, and only at near the very end does Dave fully accept his role in the latter due to his understanding of how Balthazar’s quest is very similar to his own personal (non-magical) one.

The film works on two levels – one for older adults and one for young adults or teenagers. It’s a dual-narrative, something that truly works at satisfying both age groups of audience. I think it is rare to see this attempted (outside of comedies and slice-of-life dramas where you jump between a group of friends or such) and rarer for it to work this well. I fully expected, going in, for this to be either Nic Cage as a background character a la Pat Morita or Jackie Chan in either The Karate Kid or the apprentice (Dave) to be the “son of Indy / son of O’Connell” kind of secondary character, and I was pleasantly surprised to find neither approach used.

End of spoilery stuff for now.

—-

Morgana le Fay has no depth in this film. Horvath is only a bit more developed. And there are some side baddies tossed in who have almost no screen time and could be considered conjured creatures as far as their effect on the story. These aren’t the kind of villains you get in a Batman film – either Nicholson’s or Ledger’s Joker clearly are deeper and more nuanced than the Caped Crusader.

I say good.

While an almost faceless, nameless villain serves to be so uninteresting as to be boring in many stories, I think an antagonist that greatly outshines the protagonist leads to a narrative flipped on it’s side. I want the main character to be one of the most interesting and the one I’m rooting for – if I find out that Beetlejuice is cooler than both Maitlands combined it’s hard to want him to lose – and despite the film being titled Beetlejuice the film’s “heroes” are Adam and Barbara. In my opinion the villain needs to be interesting enough that we enjoy watching the two sides face off – not like, say, watching CGI Gungans fight CGI robots and you care about neither side at all, nor like Ghost Rider fighting the Hidden (such meaningless and forgettable characters that I had to use wikipedia to even remember who it was Ghost Rider fought) BUT not so much more interesting than the hero that we really cheer on the bad guy.

In this sense I say 2D (two dimensional) villains work if used properly. Morgana is something of a catalyst and / or a MacGuffin… that she exists and must be stopped is enough for the plot. Horvath is the nemesis we care about. To go back to the Dr. Strange metaphor I hinted at earlier – Morgana would be Dormammu, Horvath would be Baron Mordo, Balthazar would be Dr. Strange (and Merlin, incidentally, would be the Ancient One.) Dormammu, for the most part, is the source of Mordo’s power. Mordo is the “other apprentice of the Old One who sold out and went bad” and is stopped by Dr. Strange who, for most of their rivalry, are about equal in power but Strange always gets the upper hand. Mordo has no real depth to him – he wants power, is adept at what he does, uses people… but he is a good foil for Strange. Horvath, leaving the metaphor, has a style and when you see him do something you think “yep, that fits him.” He even has a motivation for rivalry with Balthazar (that has almost nothing to do with power or Merlin, really) but it is almost a token reason. Mr. Molina, however, works it very well and 2D is all you need to enjoy Horvath.

I mean this sincerely – sometimes 2D villains work.

—-

Magic is magic, right? It cannot be explained, that’s why it’s magical. For the most part I feel that when a story tries to explain away things that should be mystical or relegated to the fantasy genre, like anytime an author says that magic is just “energy that science hasn’t explained yet” I tend to cringe.

And The Sorcerer’s Apprentice does give a token explanation of sorcerers and magic to Dave via Balthazar. So I should dislike it.

But unlike midichlorians in Phantom Menace, Balthazar’s explanation works for me. For one I think he’s mostly trying to put magic in terms for a physics student like Dave to understand, and in retrospect so the audience can try to understand. Secondly it makes magic a part of the world (of the story) that seems connected yet separate, and by that I mean it weaves in without just being “another type of this.” Finally it does something I wish more stories would – it clearly delineates the rules for which supernatural stuff will operate in this given story for the audience to understand. When a movie like Scanners or The Matrix goes to the trouble of defining terms and setting up exposition on how the world works, I find that a positive – especially if the story follows the rules that have been set up.

This movie followed it’s rules. Even when Dave uses science instead of magic, it fits the rules as established by the story. I may well have missed something (as I did only see the film once) but I found no plot holes regarding the use of magic, and that was a positive for me.

—-

Often in action films, especially sci-fi or fantasy, I find myself having major problems with the fight scenes. Certain characters are shown to have ridiculous powers, being able to do things far beyond what normal people could. They are depicted often with a wide range of abilities, much variety to draw from. And yet fights often boil down to two guys firing beams at each other, the beams colliding and a sort of wrestling match of who can force who down upon their knees occurs. Or bolts (which may as well be bullets) are hurled at each other with much ducking and dodging.

Rare are the stories like Total Recall where Quaid whips out the hologram projector as a decoy in tandem with Melina to keep their opponents off-balance. Or like Predator where Dutch rigs a bunch of traps, including a fake trap, while coated in mud to hide his heat signature. Or (to use a non Arnie example) how in Fantastic Four Reed has the team use their powers in concert to stop Doom. I like strategy and creative uses of abilities. I dislike repetition – and there’s nothing more repetitious than gun fights or kinetic shove matches.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice has interesting and unique magical duels. The film goes out of its way to show us cool and different ways that they can fight, whether it be mirror traps or quicksand rugs or animated pictures of wolves. There are a couple of the obligatory tk pushes, sure, but they are more of “one more vegetable in the stew” than “an entire side dish on their own”. The fights are very interesting as a result. You have metal dragons and eagles and bulls, but also wolves turned to puppies to Polaroid pictures. While you get plasma balls and flame walls you also have frozen manacles and snaking cords. Hurled acupuncture needles, clouds of smoke, shape-shifting… the use of magic really feels magical.

—-

My Overall Reaction

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Going in I knew it was a Disney movie based loosely on a single segment of Fantasia so I wasn’t expecting any deep or original story. I also knew it was from the director of National Treasure, a film I refuse to see (history buff, sorry) so I didn’t expect much from the structure or quality of the film. And honestly the trailers made it look like it would be extremely corny, though I know full well how reliable trailers are for judging a film. It is good going into a film with low expectations as you are rarely disappointed and sometimes pleasantly surprised.

I’ve needed some more straight-forward and entertaining films to rinse the bad taste out of my mouth after watching Neon Genesis Evangelion, er, Inception. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is pretty much right what I needed (as was Predators.) It’s a fun fantasy film set in modern day New York. It is mostly action, but it has touches of romance and comedy in just about the right doses. The film sets up a few scenes that are what you really want from a movie experience (the sound and light shown Dave gives Becky in his lab with his tesla coils; Balthazar trying to train Dave in how to use magic; Dave accepting who he is, melding his old life with his new one) while successfully avoiding some of (IMO) the worst cliches of action movies (the ending being an exploding location that the heroes narrowly escape; the hint that the main bad guy will return; the tragic death that pushes the hero forward).

It did what I want my entertainment media to do for me, in the end. It completely entertained me.

If you enjoy Michael Bay type films, you may well like this. If you enjoy Indiana Jones films or Star Wars films, you may well like this. If the Harry Potter movies worked for you then you may like this. If you in general find yourself being entertained by Disney’s latest big-budget live-action movies, then this one won’t disappoint. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is for anyone who likes an adventure story about a “nobody” who discovers he is special and needs to come to grips with that in a modern day setting with strong fantasy story elements. I’m thinking you’ll probably like it if you enjoyed any of the following: Big Trouble In Little China, Push, The Forbidden Kingdom, X-Men, The Last Starfighter.

However, if you tastes run more along the lines of needing really different or really dark stories, if you need gangsters or realism or dead-seriousness, you aren’t going to like this film. If magic isn’t your cup of tea, avoid it. If you want art house, independent feel, original concepts, or award-worthy dramatic performances, then it will disappoint you. If you are more of a Tolkien than a Rowling, you are probably not up for this kind of fantasy. Specifically if you find your taste in genre film running more along the lines of the following then you are not this film’s target audience: Blade, Dark City, Blade Runner, Conan the Barbarian, Avatar.