Movie Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
A comatose bore that doesn't strive to be all that good and succeeds
Photo: Walt Disney Pictures
Perhaps my expectations were too high for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I expected a big dumb fantasy epic, but instead got a boring slog in a sandbox. Yeah, lots of money was spent on CGI sand and time-turning mystical daggers, but the money would have been better spent on a script rewrite, an adrenaline injection and character development as the flat narrative goes nowhere and the characters are wholly uninteresting.
As an adaptation of a video game, the Prince of Persia team seems to have concerned themselves with appealing to the scrutinizing eyes of the game's fanbase without much concern for bringing the one-time digital characters to life in a way audiences that weren't familiar with the game could relate. It's a mistake that's becoming more common as of late as some game and comic properties don't directly translate to the big screen and need a little something extra to work in feature film form. It seems filmmakers are falling out of "adapting" and just sticking to whatever it is they started with, no matter its ability to crossover.
The cast includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is a Walt Disney Pictures release, directed by Mike Newell and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action. The running time is 1 hour 55 minutes.
While on the run, the dagger becomes the story. Using special sand to turn back time, once Dastan learns of the dagger's importance he and the Alamut princess Tamina (Arterton) join forces to do everything they can to keep it out of the hands of those that mean to use it for evil. And so the story goes as the dagger changes hands between Dastan and Tamina a number of times, Alfred Molina shows up for a few forced laughs and ostrich races, Ben Kingsley stares menacingly into the camera and a swirl of sand envelopes the film's climax all before ending just as you would expect it to. When boiled down into a paragraph it doesn't sound all that bad, but when stretched into a nearly two-hour feature it drags on and on.
The biggest problem with all of this is the lack of climactic moments. The film flat lines the whole way through and the only reason the trailers even promise any kind of action is because they are able to condense a few promising action sequences only to have you learn they go nowhere inside the actual film.
As a cohesive story this film works better than say the bumbling and stumbling Clash of the Titans from earlier this year, but at least that film tried to inject some energy, which is where I managed to have some fun with it. It had giant scorpions, winged horses, blind witches, etc. while Prince of Persia has this silly dagger and some goofy looking ostriches. There is simply no oomph to the story. It just sits there, sinking into the sand with every minute that passes by.
Gyllenhaal is not a nightmare as an action star, but this wasn't the role to test his abilities and Arterton continues to shine as an on screen beauty, but she lacks any kind of real presence and is yet to truly show much promise. Granted, neither was helped by the screenplay written by Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro and Carlo Bernard based on Jordan Mechner's original video game series as it seemed to play things safe and use only the most generic of dialogue in the process. I also was left to wonder just how much director Mike Newell brought to this feature because, as I have already said, it lacks in energy and excitement with camerawork that just seems intent on making sure everything is in frame rather than bringing the audience deeper into the film.
Prince of Persia is just a comatose bore. Very little is tried in terms of the story in hopes the big action pieces will make up for the lifeless moments in between. Molina's comedic interjections aren't all that funny and the villain never feels like much of a threat, which made for a film I just wanted to have end rather than sit through another scene before the inevitable triumphant conclusion.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 31 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Agree with the dragging part in the middle of the story but I find this film quite enjoyable, I personally think this film was better than Clash of the Titans, Gyllenhaal was fit as "hyperactive" Dastan, and Gemma Arterton was better here than CoTT…
Sure, there were some dull moment but it's forgivable for me…
I will grade this movie C personally, D is quite low for this film…
Robin Hood and Shrek 4 was still stand out for this summer. Sigh, what a disappointing summer…
Regards from Indonesia
It is almost the same with the game, that should be interesting enough for the game lovers, like me. That's why it's a bit disappointing that it didn't attract too many critics, just hope viewers would respond.
Disappointing summer financially too, if you're talking about inflation counts. I didn't even like Shrek 4 and they said it was better than the third.
I disagree with both of Brad's review. I thought Sex and the City 2 was a comatose bore and Prince of Persia a movie "not to be taken too seriously". That's the imperfection of critiques, there isn't really a "right" one, it matters on each and everyone's opinion.
Still, Brad is one of my top critics.
Well I had to make a name to reply to this.
This movie was very enjoyable and totally not a bore, don't pay any attention to this bland review. Brad, were you even watching the movie? Doesn't sound like it.
I went with a large group(11), only 2 of which were fans of the games, we had 4girls, 4men, 3boys/teens, VERY varying personalities here, and every single one of us found it super enjoyable and loads of fun, I can't wait to go see it again in IMAX (yeah, me and a few others in my group considering it worth seeing twice, so don't be turned off the film by this crap review).
So Brad, don't be spreading your slanderous filth, acting as if your "opinion" (as thats what it clearly is, I don't see any legit or real critiques here, just you repeating the same crap over and over, trying to "drill" your thoughts into others) is in some way "correct" or "true".
Also all the people in theater around us were saying they same things, "I really liked that" etc etc, so obviously MANY other people didn't find it one bit boring and would put that word(boring) at the very bottom of a list of adjectives to describe this film.
If you were interested in this film, DO NOT let this false crap dissuade you, the movie was a blast and you will have fun, go in with an open mind and I guarantee you will be surprised.
Just because "all the people in the theater" were saying good things about the does not make a movie seem better in anyway. While in the theater for Avatar a bunch of people were saying that it was the greatest movie of all time. Did that change the fact that it was an awful movie.
I haven't seen Prince of Persia, but I could've assured you it would've sucked just by watching the trailer. I can't really comment on this film, but based on this response, I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about and I can rest assured that Prince of Persia is crap.
WowZer, you are the most easily pleased person in the universe and you live in the most easily pleased town on earth.
I liked the actual game, that was great. I don't get how people in the industry think that movies based on games work – they more often than not don't do very well, just like this one.
Oh also, if you are going to grade a film or consider yourself a "true" moviegoer, then learn to watch ALL types of movies to understand how to properly grade things.
Giving this a D+, are you kidding me?
Compare this to Dragonball Evolution, Speed Racer, Troll2, Shark Attack1-3, Santa with Muscles, Toxic Avenger, Rage of Honor, Undfeatable, Silent Night, etc of bad movies. Learn what D,E, and F films really look like.
Actually compare this all other action films through the years. Theres a vast difference in acting skills and story and dialogue with PoP to movies like "Commando", Steven Segal flicks, Van Dam flicks, Chuck Norris flicks, etc etc.
Seriously, as a TRUE moviegoer and lover of films, I have made it an issue to watch all types of movies, from the horrible to the greats, this way I can have TRUE perspective on grading films and be able to say something is truly "horrible" because I would know what "truly horrible" looks like in films.
Justify your D+(scale 1-10, that's 6.7-6.9) grade please based off stats that matter for its genre.
Action/Fantasy:
CGI/SPX: 8.8-9.3/10(great)
Action Scenes: 8.5-8.9/10 (also great)
Fight Choreography: 8.5-9/10 (great as well)
Dialogue: 7.6-8.3/10 (not bad/horrible-check some of those movies I listed for "truly" bad dialogue)
Story: 8.5-9/10 (It was very interesting, especially the Hamlet-like style of family dysfunction)
Originality(to films): 8.5-9/10 (the story and concepts are fairly original compared to any Hollywood films before it, even ones that deal with "time")
Then we get into other categories less important in an Action film. Like char development, story progression, films overall flow, ,but even these are not below a C grade, so averaging all the stats out with a proper understanding of what justifies "bad" and "horrible" grades in films, this is a solid c+ – B.
Now opinions may/will vary in certain areas, but can you honestly disagree at extreme lengths to my grades, especially to a grade that drops its overall below a c?
If you look at it logically it really can't be a D unless you are lying JUST to make yourself right, or your grade is based purely off opinion instead of the proper things, like Brad's review. That's the only way I can see that D+ grade, he was simple stating his opinion as "fact" or posing it as a "real" review.
You can simple say, "I didn't like it!" or "I didn't enjoy it!" But to give a grade like that based purely off your personal opinion as opposed to a proper layout of the movie's elements is not just wrong, its not really being a critic at all, just someone given to power to force his opinion on a Website to people.
There is no such thing as an objective review, all reviews are subjective. If you agree or disagree with a review then you're free to do so but there is no way of calculating a movie's TRUE grade. Its pointless and asinine, if you liked the film a lot more than Brad then say so but dont try and tell people how they should grade films
I actually support WoWzer on this. There are things that can be done in reviews to make them more objective and informative than the typical reviewer even trys to accomplish these days. WoWzers list is an attempt to do that. If a review is just someone's opinion, maybe we should bring in a two year old to give an equaly valid opinion. Adult reviewers could compare a film to similar films. I recently read from a reviewer that if you liked Bruno, or maybe even Hot Tub Time Machine, you would probably like MacGruber. There are other things that can be tried but I don't want to make this a big, long post.
I would say, though, that coming up with your own short review might be more constructive that explaining why another review is wrong. It's harder, though.
I think we get it you disagree, but if you don't like Brad's way of reviewing movies then why read them? You seem to be taking this personal which is absolutely ridiculous. Obviously you have different opinions on the film, but somehow you went from giving your opinion to insulting the way he writes his reviews, if you really don't like how he chooses to grade his movies then just leave.
Reading them is the point of sharing opinions. I agree with WowZer, but I agree too with Brad's points. Maybe he was just bored after watching Sex and The City. hm…
Go-go Gadget Criticism…
I don't know how long you have been reading this website, but I can tell you for being on here for a while that Brad definately has watched a whole range of movies old and new, so I am sure he knows where he is coming from when grading.
Reviews are always a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong answer which is why critics differ with grading. I have not seen this movie, but it seems like most people appear to think it is mediocre rather than great considering its 40% RT score and 6.8 on IMDb.
I've just returned from watching this film. I thought it sucked. But after reading WoWZer's comments it all made sense and I've come to the conclusion; it still sucked.
But thats the beauty of reviews – its all subjective.
I'm sure you enjoyed the film. But please respect the opinions of others.
Silly Disney plant, Speed Racer was awesome.
I like your ratings category list. It reminds me of how I resolved to start giving tips at restaurants based on a checklist, e.g., brought drinks in a timely manner, etc. I never did develop and apply that idea, but maybe I will someday.
While Brad and I sometimes disagree vehemently on film reviews. He did state that he felt the film was boring. A good case can be made that nothing is worse than a boring film. For instance, I can remember an old western I saw on television as a child that I still remember for how bad the acting was. It was like the star of the movie was just reading his lines in an exaggerated manner. However, the film did keep my interest as far as being fascinated with how bad the acting was while the plot continued on it's way. In contrast, I recently saw Oceans. My mind actually wandered to other things during this movie, and I even started dozing off a little. Something I don't remember ever doing at any movie before. The only similar experience I've had is renting a film because it sounds promising, only to realize while watching that you've seen the movie before, but it was so boring and bad you forgot you had seen it (Mortal Combat 2 (or is it 3?). Maybe only a truly boring movie can be eligible for an F.
Essentially what your saying is that we should be grateful for bad movies because there are worse ones out there? Your the type of idiot that the studios talk about in their meetings when they green-light these shitty movies thinking people will see it regardless.
It seems odd writing a lengthy post to a film that isn't particulary great but I have to disagree with the rather scathing review. I saw this last week and found it enjoyable. Brad is right in some respects, very little is attempted with the story and it is very, very predictable but i wouldn't call it a bore to watch. I disagree with the filmmakers catering towards the gamer audience in any sense. The film is definitely catering for the family audience not the predominantly male fanbase of the game.
It doesn't take any risks and some areas fall flat comedy wise. Molina's character can be as unfunny as he is funny at times. The original score is your usual Arabian sounding music but it is (just a bit) more enjoyable than Clash of the Titans because whereas i felt Clash to be unrealistic (not in terms of realism but in terms of what it did and why), the story here feels much suited to the material and it flows considerably more than Clash's clunky script. I disagree with the lack of ooophm as i don't think Clash's sequences managed to provide much of that because the CGI just took you out of it. The parkour scenes are good but the direction overall is a bit flat, if anything its a bit old fashioned. It does only what is necessary and you can say that for the rest of the film.
Gemma Arteton does look gorgeous in the film and Gyllenhaal is decent in his role (the accents not too shabby either). Its neither a particularly bad or good film but for what it does its an enjoyable diversion.
The original game, the original Sands of Time, would work beautifully as an adventure movie. But from the trailers it looks like this movie fails to capture the essence of the game.
It was just a fairy tale, with a prince tring to save his kingdom with the help of a princess, and that's it. The rest of the charm was up to some breathtaking sequences and the feeling that every single level/scene was a new discovery.
This movie just looks like "hey, let's put the prince to jump high and wall run and we've got a blockbuster!"
That is not what the game was about!
That's what the sequels were about, Warrior Within and The Two Thrones, two really boring games that lacked completely the feeling of The Sands of Time.
What a pity.
Loved the game; the movie isn't quite as good, but, as dumb summer movies go, it's a welcome distraction.
And Jake Gyllenhaal is purdy…
Well, I guess it's up to the Toys and Christopher Nolan to salvage the summer.
Don't forget Airbender!
Its directed by Shayamalan who is Poison to all things he involves himself with. It will be crap.
Um………………..Brad are you okay? Boring? Are you serious? There was so much action. What is not boring to you? People sanding on their heads, eating a bananna, and juggling fire-lit torches with their feet all at the same time? Boring?
Don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. This movie got a 39% on RT, and Brad's review seems to fall in line with the general critical consensus that this movie *sucked*. BTW, this movie looks unbelievably HORRIBLE…blame the marketing, reviews, trailers…like Brad said, looks incredibly BORING…what a pathetic summer it has been so far (save for Iron Man 2) :(
iron man 2 sucked.
Mediocre is the best way to describe it.
While I didn't think it was exactly boring, for all it's beautiful exoticism, it was most certainly charmless and flat. Terrifically predictable, terribly unsurprising, only vaguely exciting, and despite being able to spot the intended humor, it was mostly not actually amusing. It never completely engaged me. I could tell all the elements were there for something better, but it ultimately felt like it was just going through the motions.
(Not to mention that there's that enormous plot hole: why go back in time to gain the throne if you've already killed everyone in the way? To start ruling at a younger age? Sure. That'll work. I'll go along with it since we're so close to it anyway. That, and without the next twenty minutes the movie would REALLY be disappointing.)
But the actors' teeth in this film were very, very, very white. Extremely straight and very white. So that's a plus…
i was dragged to this movie last night by my four teenage sons.and i loved every second of it i did not even want to get up to tinkle if a movie holds your attention and you come out saying wow that was great then why pick it a part
I enjoyed this movie, although I was disappointed by the very predictable ending.
i honestly thought the movie wasn't that bad but i never expected it to end the way it did
Come on, it's not an amazing movie, but it sure is better than that non-sensical parade of monsters and people in shiny armors that "Clash of the Titans" was. The mere existance of "giant scorpions, winged horses, blind witches, etc" and non-stoping action doesn't make a film entertaining, not even a bit enjoyable.
I believe "Prince of Persia" had a lot more sense and was much more interesting and funny, even if it wasn't an amazing accomplishment. At least there was a story, and it made sense; the journey and the adventures of the characters had a point, and that's a lot more than one can say about "Clash of the Titans".
I would have never described it as boring. Foolish, predictable, yes. Just another film of the adventure genre, with nothing new to add, yes. But not at "comatose bore".
It was fun!