Jake Gyllenhaal gets all sweaty in Persia!

When I sat down to watch Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time this evening, my only real expectation was that Jake Gyllenhaal had better be hot, and he better be doing some LOVELY looking twists and turns and possibly even flexing. On that level, the movie was SPECTACULAR, and Jake Gyllenhaal should never put a shirt on again as far as I'm concerned (the cape, however, he never has to take off). I'd have loved to spend the entire movie focusing on nothing but this, but sadly there was in fact a female in the movie, and it was a speaking role, meaning that it did drag on at parts. This is where I started to actually THINK about things, and Jake Gyllenhaal has a hot brother in Persia is not a THINKING movie, it's a Jake Gyllenhaal I want to stroke you late into the night movie. So with thinking came this really terrible thing that just wouldn't leave my mind. This thing is known as REASON.

The ENTIRE main plot of the movie makes absolutely no sense. If any one of the characters were to just sit down and put their penis' aside, then this whole movie wouldn't have happened. I'll start at the beginning, which means spoilers for anyone reading this who hasn't seen Jake Gyllenhaal takes his shirt off in Persia.

So you know that part, at the beginning, where Jake Gyllenhaal is supposedly "framed for murder"? Yeah, see, that's the part that is in every way, BULL.

First off, he's the one who gives this "poisoned robe" to the king, yeah? So under what circumstances would they NOT have assumed it was him? He's supposed to be a cute little ruffian isn't he? Not INCREDIBLY stupid, right? If HE was supposed to be the one killing the king, then he would have done what the brother did, which was pass it on to someone else to give to him. Or he could have been SUPER clever like the bald guy, and pass it on to someone else so that they could pass it on to someone ELSE. Yeah, they'll never see that one coming. Of course, none of them DID, so what I am saying...

Secondly, as the third ADOPTED son of the king, he had nothing to gain from killing him, except offing the one person who seemed to like him. He wouldn't have gained the throne, there were two brothers who were up to bat before him. Later on in the movie, they seemed to realize this fail and tried to make some sense out of it by saying that he was "stirring up a rebellion" and that he therefore wanted to take the crown. But couldn't he have stirred this rebellion comfortably from his palace when he WASN'T walking around with a price on his head? They already showed in the beginning the good relationship he seems to have with his men, the 'common folk' so really, starting a rebellion (if he was so determined to do so) wouldn't have been out of his grasp. So I ask again, WHY KILL THE KING?

This is why I feel that in that scene there when the king gets killed and everyone freaks out and tries to kill Jake Gyllenhaal, if ANY ONE OF THEM had just thought for a moment about whether or not it makes any sense for HIM to kill the king, then maybe they would have realized that the plot of this movie was shit from the very beginning. The nice thing is that at the end, the whole movie didn't happen, so yeah... that was pointless...

However, this doesn't mean that I didn't like the movie. Jake Gyllenhaal has Long Hair in Persia was an AWESOME movie. For cereal, there's OSTRICH racing (and STROKING!). It was so incredibly hot that I will no doubt watch it again, but I'll know better than to let myself start thinking next time. Because really, this movie wasn't made for my brain, it was made for... other parts. And right there, it succeeded. : ) And now I wanna watch Brokeback Mountain.