%2B%231.jpg)
Rated
PG-13 (Intense Sequences of Violence and Action)
Running
Time: 1 Hour & 56 Minutes
Cast:
Jake
Gyllenhaal-Prince Dastan
Gemma
Arterton-Princess Tamina
Ben
Kingsley-Nizam
Alfred
Molina-Sheik Amar
Steve
Toussaint-Seso
Toby
Kebbell-Prince Garsiv
Richard
Coyle-Prince Tus
Ronald
Pickup-King Sharaman
Gísli
Örn Garðarsson-Hassansin Leader
Directed
by Mike Newell
 |
| Guess this isn't the right time to take a bath with a beautiful woman? |
Despite
the fact that video game-to-film adaptations have been critically reviled,
Hollywood still insists on making them, hoping something will make a profit.
The “Resident Evil” series has enjoyed some measure of success and both “Tomb
Raider” and “Silent Hill” manage to capture the spirit of the games, although
as films, they’re entertaining but ultimately forgettable. As for Uwe Boll,
it’s mind-boggling how he continues to make movies when they’re all total
garbage, and that’s a fact. “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” based upon
the video games created by Jordan Mechner and published by Ubisoft, hopes to break
the never-ending cycle of terrible video game adaptations. Personally, I’ve
never played the original “Sands of Time” trilogy, though most fans seem to
hold the original in high regard. Despite high ratings from gaming journalists,
the game didn’t sell. To reach a ‘wider audience,’ Ubisoft made the next two
entries over-sexualized. Since then, they’ve been trying to recapture the magic
of the first game, coming close with 2008’s reboot, simply titled “Prince of
Persia,” which I own for PC. To coincide with the film’s release, Ubisoft
released “Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands”. However, it is not based on
the film. It is an interquel between “Sands of Time” and “Warrior Within.” As
for the film itself, “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” may arguably be one
of the best—if not the best—video game adaptation ever; as a film, it’s
entertaining but offers little in the way of actual substance. The characters
are never developed due to its rushed pacing and the overall direction feels
too generic and lifeless.
In
Ancient Persia, King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) adopts a young street urchin
named Dastan when he sees him defending a helpless boy. Fifteen years later,
the grown up Prince of Persia (Jake Gyllenhaal)—who is traveling with his
brothers, Tus (Richard Coyle) and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) to the Holy City of
Alamut, is suspected of giving weapons to Persia’s enemies, according to the
king’s brother and advisor, Nizam (Ben Kingsley). Alamut is home to the
beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), who guards an ancient dagger that
grants its user the ability to go back in time for short periods. During the
battle to take the city, Dastan finds the dagger and takes it as trophy,
unaware of its powers. Sharaman arrives at Alamut to celebrate the victory but
he is soon murdered, with the suspicion falling on Dastan. With Tamina in tow,
Dastan must now find a way to clear his name and return the dagger to its
rightful place before it falls into the wrong hands.
It’s
not obvious to see that producer Jerry Bruckheimer wants “Prince of Persia” to
turn into a franchise like “Pirates of the Caribbean” but it lacks a
charismatic or memorable protagonist like Jack Sparrow. The story suffers from
predictability and some of it can be attributed to its marketing campaign where
it’s obvious that Nizam is the main villain, although it takes Dastan midway
through the film to actually figure it out. With a premise involving a weapon
that controls time, the writers end up cheating in the end and it doesn’t take
a blind person to see how they do it. Although the games themselves try to
invoke an “Arabian Nights” feel, the film seems like it was made for kids,
while most people who played the games are older. There’s no sense of danger or
suspense since you know who the villain is and the good and bad guys are
clearly defined without any moral ambiguity. The writers try to throw in a few
swipes at the Bush administration when the Persian army invades Alamut, only to
find that there are no weapons there. Certain characters also grumble about
paying taxes and though they provide a few chuckles, all this ends up being
irrelevant and dated. Video games can tell great stories. BioWare does it time
and time again and Quantic Dream’s recently released “Heavy Rain” on
PlayStation 3, which offers an intense, emotional tale of love. However,
Hollywood seems to settle for the pedestrian. Ultimately, that’s what makes
“Prince of Persia” forgettable: it plays it too safe with the story.
The
acting is adequate for the most part. It’s unusual to see Jake Gyllenhaal in a
mainstream action-adventure film but he makes a likable Prince, though his
British accent comes off as a little forced. Unfortunately, he doesn’t do
enough to make him memorable. Gemma Arterton is Princess Tamina and looks stunning
with her exotic looks. She plays a similar role as in “Clash of the Titans” by
offering up small bits of exposition. As for the romance, she and Gyllenhaal
just end up staring at each with doe eyes, about to kiss but suddenly,
something interrupts them! They do share some good chemistry with their quips
and barbs. Playing Dastan’s uncle Nizam is Ben Kingsley: glowering around with
his mascara-laden eyes, it’s a wonder no one figures out that he’s the villain
early on. Finally, Alfred Molina provides some comic relief as Sheik Amar,
dodging taxes and holding ostrich races!
The
action scenes capture the platforming that the games are famous for; however,
you can’t help feeling that you would rather go home and play the actual game.
The quick edits and pacing often makes these scenes blend together—nothing ever
stands out despite the money being spent on the effects. Dastan utilizes
parkour when moving around and fighting a group of generic, knife-wielding
assassins. One action scene that is somewhat memorable has him dodging an
assassin using two razor-sharp whips, but that’s about it. “Prince of Persia”
also spares no expense on the visuals and while they are impressive, it’s
nothing we haven’t seen before in other blockbusters. To be honest, I don’t see
anything that will surpass the revolutionary effects of “Avatar” anytime soon
unless that film is being made by James Cameron himself.
Released
into theaters on May 28, 2010, “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is one of
the better received video game adaptations with 44% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics
agreed that the film lacks substance, but found it to be an ‘entertaining
swashbuckler—and a substantial improvement over most video game adaptations.’
It is competing with the highly anticipated sequel “Sex and the City 2,” which
will end up dominating the Memorial Day weekend as there haven’t been many
event films catered to female audiences. “Prince of Persia” will settle into
second place with around $50 million. So far it has earned $28 million
internationally. The response from the audience was unusually enthusiastic and
they applauded multiple times. I may be just the snobby film critic but there
wasn’t anything there that warranted that type of response. “Prince of Persia:
The Sands of Time” offers some light fun and entertainment for two hours and
the film is competently made with nice visual effects, but in the end, it’s a
soulless and forgettable experience.
Final
Rating: 3 out of 5
"I've
seen its power with my own eyes! Releasing the sand turns back time. Only the
holder of the Dagger is aware what's happened."
Posts
