You are Here » Headlines » News Chat » Reviews » Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Headlines, News Chat, Reviews
May 29, 2010

Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

— Posted by Rodney

Thanks for checking out our Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time review

Genre: Fantasy/Adventure
Directed by: Mike Newell
Staring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina
Released: May 28th, 2010

THE GENERAL IDEA

Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan grows up amongst royalty and quickly earns his place as a mighty warrior and prince. As his brothers Garsiv and Tus plan battle strategies, a spy sends word that the Holy City of Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Taking matters into his own hands, Tus orders an attack on the sacred city and upon its fall Dastan encounters the beautiful Princess Tamina. When King Sharaman dies under mysterious circumstances shortly after, and Dastan is accused of his murder, he flees with the princess on a harrowing mission to clear his name.

THE GOOD

The action was pretty good for the most part except for some of the close combat. I would have liked to see more of the Parkour they show in the trailer, but what was there was pretty good. And the visuals of the vast cities and landscapes look very good.

There is far more story in this film than even the trailer suggests. And I like how it works. I can’t get to indepth without revealing much of the “badguy” twist but everyone acts within character and acts appropriately given their circumstances. At no point did I question anyone’s judgement or their actions. This is a far rare detail in what I expected to be a light fluffy action film. The story had some hiccups, but the Characters were all spot on. Even the pointless Sheik Amar - Alfred Molina (but more on him later)

Also, the statement carries more weight than this one line but its the best movie based on a video game I have ever watched.

THE BAD

The bad is hard to say because there are things they do SO right in this but the bad is just so glaringly bad. They could have cut out Alfred Molina’s part from this movie entirely and it would have made the movie better. The entire side adventure into the “Valley of Slaves” and their overlord Sheik Amar was pointless. No, it was MORE than pointless. It detracts from the movie. I like Alfred Molina, but he was completely useless in this, and his entire involvement takes you out of the setting. Ranting about “government assassins” and paying taxes to “the man” just took me out of the mysticism and setting of Ancient Persia.

There is also a major plothole that had me rolling my eyes is that the guardian of the dagger, Arterton says the only safe place to keep the dagger is in the secret secondary temple… uh… then why didnt you keep such a valuable artifact of the Gods there in the first place? I don’t know why they added that line there aside from a plot device to have them travel to the secret temple.

And as much as I love a good villain, Kingsley was sadly a prop in this movie and I wasn’t motivated to despise him or even feel for him. Kind of a waste really.

And only when they had some really close combat did they resort to that rapidfire camera angle change to make it look more exciting. Frankly I would prefer one shot instead of trying to trick us with thirty.

OVERALL

Overall the film was fun to watch, and Arterton is beautiful. I would love to see this movie with all of Sheik Amar’s parts edited out, or reducing him to a glorified extra. He didn’t need to be in this movie at all.

Aside from that and a little plot forgiveness its a pretty good movie. Would have rated higher without those flaws, but its easily the best movie based on a video game that I have seen.

And that’s why I give Prince of Persia a 6.5 out of 10

Couldn’t quite justify the seven, but its not quite as low as a six either!

This post was written by :

who has written 8884 posts on The Movie Blog

visit author's website | Contact the Author

  • Tim

    All this movie has done is reinforce the belief that video game adaptations aren’t worth it. Personally, I don’t think the problem is that video games make bad movies. The real problem is that nobody has done a good job adapting a video game. Its going to take one well-done adaptation to get things going. I had hoped “Prince” would be that adaptation, but, alas, it appears that is not so.

    A lot of video games have interesting concepts that would translate well to the big screen, but such adaptations need to be handled competently. To date, video game adaptations haven’t had the right talent running the ship. If there is a good script and a good director, I think we’ll see a good adaptation. But, to date, that has not happened. Here’s hoping things work out well with “Mass Effect” or “Bioshock.”

    • http://www.thestub.ca Rodney

      This was a good (not great) movie, which is still better than any other video game adaptation I have seen.

      Why is this proof that video game movies are not worth it? And yet you still hope for Mass Effect and Bioshock?

      • Tim

        I don’t necessarily think video game adaptations aren’t worth it. Its all the press surrounding “Prince” that has been once again asking if a video game adaptation will ever be good. Movie audiences this past weekend seem to have agreed with the critics.

        Personally, I think video game adaptations are worth it. There are some interesting concepts and stories that have come out of video games. I just wonder if we will ever get the video game adaptation equivalent of an “X-Men” or “Spider-Man” to get things going. So far, we’ve mostly had the equivalent of “Blade” or “Batman Forever.”

Around the Web
ZergNet
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."

— Keir Dullea as Dave Bowman from 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968

    Blogroll

    • /Film
    • FilmSchoolRejects
    • First Showing
    • Greatest Films
    • Menshealth.co.uk
    • MTV Movies Blog
    • Screenrant

    Archives