"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" has an uphill battle from the get-go. If you do not know, the movie is loosely-based on the widely successful 2003 game of the same name. So why an uphill battle? Because historically speaking, movies based on games usually go straight to the trash bin. Games and movies just do not mix well. Now we are not experts on the topic but we personally believe that the narrative style of games is very different from movies, which causes the huge disconnection between the two mediums. In any case, we still have high hopes for "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" with Jerry Bruckheimer and the studio that made the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series at the helm. This movie might turn out to be the exception. Can it break the negative mold for movies based on games? Read on to find out our verdict.
Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) was a child living on the streets until the Persian King adopted him due to his courage and good heart. Fifteen years after that fateful event, Dastan is now a Prince of Persia. Together with his two brothers Tus (Richard Coyle), Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and their uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), the Persians plan on attacking the holy city of Alamut in the belief that the city is supplying the enemies of Persia with weapons. The Persians overrun the city and Dustan gets a peculiar dagger from one of his fights during the attack. However though, the Persians are hard-pressed to find the hidden weapons they are looking for. The King is not happy with the haphazard decision of his son and heir Tus (Richard Coyle)and deem him still unfit for the throne. The next day, the King is presented with a holy robe by Dastan. Unfortunately, the robe is poisoned and the King dies. Dastan is accused of assassinating the King and he must now find out who framed him up. There to help him is Princess Tamina, the guardian of the dagger.
"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" was a good movie but that was about it. The film lacked uniqueness and polish to be really more than your typical fantasy-adventure film. We really cannot pinpoint where exactly the film bombed because there were a lot of areas where it was just barely okay. First, the acting was sub-par - not his typical showmanship for sure. Jake Gyllenhaal was bad playing Dastan and it was made worse by forcing a bad British accent. Much can be said when it comes supporting cast as well. The plot development was also too much for us. The story just moves on without explaining how they get from point A to point B. Things are being introduced into the story suddenly - to be frank, it was more like shoving and forcing these elements to the viewer. They surely forgot the definition of subtlety here. The last time we felt this way was with "Clash of the Titans" and that film did not rank well with our tastes. Just a head's up, although the ending was pretty good, there was a huge plot hole that was never explained. We won't say much but it did confuse us and eventually affected how we perceived the film's ending.
Overall, the film felt more like a B-movie interspersed with first class effects. it does not have that special something that could have catapulted it to greatness. Even with all the bad things mentioned above, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is still a good film to pass time but we won't be remembering this a few months from now.
Rating: 3.5 reels
Why you should watch it:
- has an interesting story and could surprise you with its plot twists
- action-packed with outstanding effects
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- Jake Gyllenhaal was bad in this film and it did not help that he had a hard time doing a British accent
- the film lacks proper plot development with things being shoved into the story or really not explaining how characters got into a scene
- the quality of the film is good but not great - it's your typical fantasy adventure film without any special qualities to be proud of
Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) was a child living on the streets until the Persian King adopted him due to his courage and good heart. Fifteen years after that fateful event, Dastan is now a Prince of Persia. Together with his two brothers Tus (Richard Coyle), Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and their uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), the Persians plan on attacking the holy city of Alamut in the belief that the city is supplying the enemies of Persia with weapons. The Persians overrun the city and Dustan gets a peculiar dagger from one of his fights during the attack. However though, the Persians are hard-pressed to find the hidden weapons they are looking for. The King is not happy with the haphazard decision of his son and heir Tus (Richard Coyle)and deem him still unfit for the throne. The next day, the King is presented with a holy robe by Dastan. Unfortunately, the robe is poisoned and the King dies. Dastan is accused of assassinating the King and he must now find out who framed him up. There to help him is Princess Tamina, the guardian of the dagger.
"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" was a good movie but that was about it. The film lacked uniqueness and polish to be really more than your typical fantasy-adventure film. We really cannot pinpoint where exactly the film bombed because there were a lot of areas where it was just barely okay. First, the acting was sub-par - not his typical showmanship for sure. Jake Gyllenhaal was bad playing Dastan and it was made worse by forcing a bad British accent. Much can be said when it comes supporting cast as well. The plot development was also too much for us. The story just moves on without explaining how they get from point A to point B. Things are being introduced into the story suddenly - to be frank, it was more like shoving and forcing these elements to the viewer. They surely forgot the definition of subtlety here. The last time we felt this way was with "Clash of the Titans" and that film did not rank well with our tastes. Just a head's up, although the ending was pretty good, there was a huge plot hole that was never explained. We won't say much but it did confuse us and eventually affected how we perceived the film's ending.
Overall, the film felt more like a B-movie interspersed with first class effects. it does not have that special something that could have catapulted it to greatness. Even with all the bad things mentioned above, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is still a good film to pass time but we won't be remembering this a few months from now.
Rating: 3.5 reels
Why you should watch it:
- has an interesting story and could surprise you with its plot twists
- action-packed with outstanding effects
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- Jake Gyllenhaal was bad in this film and it did not help that he had a hard time doing a British accent
- the film lacks proper plot development with things being shoved into the story or really not explaining how characters got into a scene
- the quality of the film is good but not great - it's your typical fantasy adventure film without any special qualities to be proud of
Comments
Post a Comment