One word to sum it up: Unsurprising.Jake Gyllenhaal: Academy Award nominated actor, a critically sought after actor and also a very good looking one. So what the hell was he doing in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? Was it just an excuse for him to get beefier and get some more lady admirers? Or was it so he could fight a snake (because everyone wants to do that)? Or was it because he wanted to go into unknown and what should be condemned territory: the video game adaption? Because as far as I am concerned, this Jerry Bruckheimer action/fantasy mish-mash should have really been left in the Xbox console.
Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) 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 (Gemma Arterton). 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. Learning from Tamina the true motives behind Alamut's invasion, Dastan must embark on a perilous quest to stop an evil mastermind's plot for ultimate power with a mystical weapon that can control the very fabric of time.
Ah...yeah. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was almost death-defyingly bad for me, only saved by whimsical performances from lovely leads Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton. But even then, Gyllenhaal missed the mark, as in many places his over-blown muscles became the saving grace when his strange British/American/African/Asian accent fell through. This movie was kinda like a generic daytime soap stuck in the middle of a desert a few hundred years ago. Everything said is unfortunately badly written and passes off as something out of a Michael Bay movie. In fact, Michael Bay could have directed this. It was just another summer blockbuster which had money thrown at it instead of true thought.
Remember Clash of the Titans? Well, this movie ain't too unlike that one. It's filled with some 'what-the-hell is happening now?!' moments. It has a fight sequence which involve Jake Gyllenhaal and a snake (I think at this point I was pissing myself laughing. I mean, a snake? Seriously? That kind of stuff is for those outback snake wranglers). It uses sets which are totally computer generated that they still have the glow from the computer screen setting the brightness up a notch. It has Gemma Arterton. One thing this film doesn't have in common with Clash of the Titans is the fact that it is adapted from a video game and therefore doesn't succeed. I will keep this belief until somebody can recommend me a video game adaption which is really good. And that is just about as impossible as making me like Twilight.
THE VERDICT: Gives A Nightmare on Elm Street a run for it's money in being the worst movie of 2010.
Agree with you 100% on this one. Couldn't understand where the good reviews came from. I was as bored as I've ever been in blockbuster (no mean feat) and really struggled to care about pretty much anyone in the film. Your 'daytime soap' analogy is entirely accurate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you too. In fact, this movie could have been 'incomprehensible' for me because I was too bored to care about what was going on in front of my eyes.
ReplyDeleteFor me it was average, and I didn't really feel that I wasted my time.
ReplyDeletehmm can't say i like games to film adaptions much either (even though the only one i saw was laura croft: tomb radier). i would like to see a director attempt one which cuts of most affiliation with the games and manages to make everything look lifelike, not game-ish with all those computer effects. that'd be impressive!
ReplyDeleteJordan