The one and only good thing about Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time is that it gave me something to think about all weekend. The question is whether a film with no single good moments is better than a terrible film that has a handful of laughs. While I left MacGruber actively hating the filim, I have to admit that there were some good moments. Prince of Persia? I can't really think of a single one. The film didn't have the greatest plot, which I would forgive since it's a kid's movie, but it also wasn't the least bit thrilling. And then there's the completely WTF? cameo of Alfred Molina. It's like he's coming from a different movie, he's not very funny, and most of his dialogue seems like it's from a tea party rally. What makes that interesting is that the initial plot seems straight from MSNBC - a lot of almost direct metaphors to the WMD in Iraq debacle. Was his characters tax-fetish added to keep the Right wing happy and fend off any complaints that the plot was leftist propaganda?

As for the much discussed, Jake Gyllenhaal as the Prince of Persia, he doesn't really bring anything to the movie. Neither does Gemma Arterton. That's not to say that they are bad; they just are playing rather stock characters. On the bright side, for me, the film didn't make much use of the Sands of Time gimmick. I'm writing a pilot in which one of the characters has limited time travel abilities and was worried this film might use the time travel gimmick but they barely made use of it. In the end, the film just felt tired. They rush through a story that is filled with exposition while the characters don't have much of an arc, and the tension is just "Someone might catch up to you." A great example of the problem with this film is that, in a key moment for the love story, Arterton's character finds out that Jake's going to stick with her and she seems moved, "You're going to help me?" The problem is, he's been helping her the whole time. And he's still a fugitive so it's not like he has anything better to do. Some people complain that this film is like watching a friend play a video game but at least then you can laugh at your friend for screwing up or making a wrong move; in this film, it was like there were no wrong moves to be made.

Back to the original question, I still think I have to go with MacGruber at the bottom of my list. You can argue that the SNL peeps were aiming lower and were trying to be stupid but I still think it missed for me and I think you have to lose points for aiming low AND missing. I don't like the "It's a kid's movie" defense for Prince of Persia for the same reason. Kids were basically sleeping in the screening I went do. The one thing I'll say for MacGruber is that it has more of an audience - people who are fine with five laughs in two hours and love the current SNL might like that film. I wouldn't recommend Prince of Persia to anyone. (Which brings us back to the question, wouldn't that make it the worse film?)

If you couldn't tell from this rambling response, it's a tough question to answer. And since both movies are terrible, it's not a question worth figuring out.