Steve, I usually always agree with your reviews and I guess with Prince of Persia; Sands of Time, I am a little split. Overall, I enjoyed the story line but thought the casting was just plain awful! If they had cast a convincing actress as the princess and someone more heroic or less modern as Dastan, I might have been hoping for a sequel. I’ll agree that the storyline has a lot of flaws, but I think with the right cast, it might have been enjoyable enough to overlook them all.

“Sure, the Alamutians(is that how you would make Alumat plural???)”
 
I would have thought the plural of Alumat was Alumats. Now if I knew what one Alumat was, I’d be ahead of the game. :)
 
“If they had done it the way you suggested, we would have no story(PoP in 30 seconds is not my cup of team, thank you very much)”
 
That’s is the writers’ problem. “Because otherwise there would be no story” explains the writers’ motivation, not the characters’. Don’t forget: the Alamutites (and Nizam) aren’t trying to “have a story,” they’re each trying to achieve their own ends, ideally as effectively as possible. Complications are the writer’s stock in trade, not the characters’ (unless that’s part of the characterization, which it isn’t here).
 
“Now I am all for having some amount of brains in films, does every film need it to be entertaining? I think not.”
 
I don’t disagree. Jackie Chan’s First Strike is almost completely lacking in brains, but it’s highly entertaining. Not every film needs brains. But every film needs something. In my book, Prince of Persia lacks brains, thrills, dazzle, star power and romantic chemistry, which doesn’t leave a whole lot. Still, I’m glad you found it otherwise, and I wouldn’t deprive you of your enjoyment. Cheers!

Just curious, because I haven’t seen the movie yet, but would it have been better if they’d cast Maggie Gyllenhaal, opposite Jake? Or would that just have been too weird?

@Greydanus

Sure, the Alamutians(is that how you would make Alumat plural???) could have done all those rewinds, but in some ways doing that that would be preventing the inevitable.  If they had done it the way you suggested, we would have no story(PoP in 30 seconds is not my cup of team, thank you very much)

Also, since when does every villain need to explain his exact motivations for his actions.  For example, in the film “The Dark Knight”, there’s that speech Alfred gives about the ruby thief who ends up throwing away all of them in the end.  Alfred says that some people just aren’t logical, and we can’t always understand why.  While Nizam obviously in no way is the same kind of villain as the Joker, I think Alfred’s speech can be applied in some ways to Nizam.  If they had Nizam explain everything, he would have just turned into another monologue-type villain.

Now I am all for having some amount of brains in films, does every film need it to be entertaining? I think not.

And to elaborate a little more on one of my previous points in my last post,  I found the PoP movie to be an incredibly refreshing and nostalgic trip back to the medieval/fantasy epics I used to love as a child.  Plus, I thought the whole opening text crawl at the beginning and end was inspired, and a cool reminder of the fairy tale vibe.

Still, thank you though for your charitable response :).  I look forward to the day we can heartily agree on a film again ;)

@M.B.: “This was exactly my argument against the latest Star Trek ‘alternate-timeline’ reboot and why I didn’t appreciate as much as you did, Steven, though it was otherwise well made.”
 
The difference for me is that with Star Trek the “reboot” was the basis for the premise of a new story that would have its own internal logic and in which consequences would really matter. In other words, it’s not like they’re going to destroy Vulcan in act 2 but then push the reset button in act 3. I think a story gets a lot of flexibility in its premise, as long as it does dramatically interesting things with that premise. A premise in which the whole middle act of the movie is eventually moot is, almost by definition, not dramatically interesting. (I say “almost” because artists are ingenious and I can’t rule out the possibility that somebody could tell a fascinating story in which the middle act is mooted in the end.)
 
@Jeff: “Has there ever been a good video-game adaptation film? I cannot think of a single one.”
 
Not in English. See Beowulf’s comments above.
 
@Matthew Seeley: <i>“I hate to break it to you Mr. Greydanus, but I completely disagree 100 percent with your review and score.”
 
Don’t hate to break it to me, Mr. Seeley! After ten years in this business, I’m 100 percent comfortable being completely disagreed with!
 
For my part, the only thing you say that I think is just objectively wrong is on the editing in the action scenes. This week my kids and I watched Stagecoach, and darned if Yakima Canutt doesn’t really jump off that coach onto the first team of horses, then leap to the second team and the third team. They film it all in one take, so you can clearly see he really does it. Then he goes down on the ground and right under the coach, just like Indiana Jones going under the Nazi truck. Harrison Ford really dragged in the dust from the back of that truck. He wore padding and they did their best to clear the road of rocks and such, but that’s really him on a real road dragging from the back of a real truck.
 
Douglas Fairbanks really did those great stunts in his movies. So did Jackie Chan, and so does the bad guy in that great opening sequence in Casino Royale. Sure, it’s filmed and edited to make it look better than it really is, and they stitch together scenes out of individual stunts, but still there’s something solid you can sink your teeth into.
 
When Dastan does that power dive from a parapet and goes crashing through a screen or whatever, nobody thinks that Gyllenhaal (or even a stunt man) is really jumping from a real parapet on a real set and doing anything remotely like what the character is supposed to be be doing. It’s all digital effects and zero thrills.
 
By the numbers:
 
1) I don’t think I mentioned a secret passageway. I meant a top-secret cubbyhole for hiding the knife in. Knives are little and cities are big; surely it having a prepared place to hide the knife would be a much better contingency plan than giving the knife to some guy on a horse out in the streets after the invasion is a fait accompli, don’t you agree?
 
Also, I notice you don’t comment on the possibility of (a) turning back time and stopping the siege at the undefended gate or (b) the servant using the knife to stop Dastan from knocking him down and taking it. I know, it was wrapped up so he couldn’t get at it. More bad planning, don’t you agree? 
 
On 2) well, we disagree, but it’s not a matter of objective fact. Regarding 3), does the movie suggest that Nazim needed a distraction? It seems clear to me that the real motivation was that the filmmakers needed to jump-start the action. I’m not seeing a motivation for Mazin. Ha ha, just joshing! I know his name is Nizam. :)

I hate to break it to you Mr. Greydanus, but I completely disagree 100 percent with your review and score.  I loved the movie! 

And to address your points about “nobody has time for thinking”,  I’d like to mention to you several points of my own

1)  They never mentioned a secret passageway because their probably was none.  Heck, with that many Persian troops, somebody could have potentially found a passageway anyway, so the guardian entrusted with the dagger could’ve had no other choice but to try and bail out.

2)  Jake Gyllenhal and Gemma Arterton had the spark, though I think it’s a fair argument that it took a little while for them to fully ignite it in the film.

3)  For Nizam to have taken the dagger right away would have been to suspicious, considering the massive crowd around.  I think he did the murder partly because he needed a proper distraction(a.k.a the framing of Dastan and their big chase after him) to make it easier for him to get down to the Hourglass while everyone is in a hullabaloo looking for him.  And if I’m correct, I don’t think the Hassansins who were helping him had been able to find the Sands until the finale.

Also, I just loved the fairy tale aspect of it all(which I think it captured beautifully, especially in the opening shot with the text narration and the ending shots).  The film for me returned me back to those sort of “knights in shining armor” adventure films that I loved so much when I was little that made tonights viewing of Prince of Persia such a refreshing and magical experience.  Plus, the movie did a superb job with keeping faithful to the game while still making itself it’s own(without diminishing people’s fond memories of the games).  And the parkour was absolutely fantastic, and I thought it was edited just fine for the most part.

I urge anyone who has played the game or people who haven’t to go see this film, or to at least give it a try.  I think you won’t regret it!

Anyway that’s my two-cents.

Thanks for the comments everyone (and Steve W, for the correction, I appreciate it!). Carol, David B, Steve W, glad you enjoyed the review, and that I can save you and others the time (and money!) of watching the film ... that’s why I bother with these movies.  The review was fun to write, too. (I have a bet with my wife: Did anyone get the Kokoum joke?)
 
David B, dunno if I’ll ever get around to trying “Lost” ... I’ve always been intrigued but never had the time. Maybe now that it’s all coming on DVD.
 
Beowulf, yes, Galaxy Quest does it better, first because there’s a strict limit on how far back you can turn time, and also because they aren’t 100 percent sure that’s what it will actually do. Of course it still makes no sense, since there’s no way the Therians could reverse-engineeer a device the function of which they didn’t even know!
 
Victor Victor, Ebert would say that the fact that a good video game can be superior to a bad movie doesn’t mean that the video game is art. Oh, and Garsiv Sans is nice, but I prefer Tus Medium myself.

Has there ever been a good video-game adaptation film? I cannot think of a single one.

“In any case, none of it matters… the filmmakers can push the reset button any time they want to… In the real world, of course, there are no do-overs. No matter how many times we joke after a movie that we want our two hours back, it never happens. That’s why our choices matter…”

This was exactly my argument against the latest Star Trek “alternate-timeline” reboot and why I didn’t appreciate as much as you did, Steven, though it was otherwise well made.

Well. At least I don’t get to waste my money on this film. Though as far as video games to movies go.. I have to agree with Beowulf. Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children was very enjoyable. Unlike most video game movies, Advent Children is a sequel to the story that was in FF7.

-The Lego Church Project

I’m still at least marginally interested in seeing this film, only because I have such fond memories of the time spent with the 2003 game “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” (the French-Canadian Ubisoft update to the 1989 Jordan Mechner classic). In the game you actually did get to see all the great parkour moves (like flipping over a flag-pole, landing while running against the surface of a wall, complete with pennants waving in the breeze, then jumping down and hacking some poor unsuspecting demon soldier in half—the demon soldiers are made of sand, so there was no blood) and it was even more fun because you were the one “doing” them. This made the whole “dagger that rewinds time” even more of a narrative element as it encouraged you to do increasingly risky acrobatic moves: if you fell to your death, you could just hold down the R-button and rewind to before when you had the great idea of leaping off that wall. But only if you’d acquired enough sand power; otherwise, you’re dead.

It was loads of fun (and the story in the game was actually pretty good), but I can’t see how this would work in a movie for the reasons you mention in your review: if the filmmakers can rewind time (or if a TV show can suddenly bust out at the last minute that all of its characters are dead and in heaven), what’s the point?

If anything, it sounds like the game is a far superior work of art to the film and this probably should be Exhibit A in the contra-Ebert argument demonstrating that games can be works of art to rival movies. In this case, the story mechanics involved only work if it’s a videogame. When you bring that same narrative to the screen, it falls flat.

(And for what it’s worth, I typed this comment in 12-point Garsiv Sans, but the website converted it to 9-point Verdana anyway).

Great review as always, and I think I’ll end up just dusting off the old video game rather than heading to the theatre for this one. Keep up the good work Mr. Greydanus! Love your site, and you’re an inspiration to me as a Catholic interested in film. God bless!

p.s. Mike Newell directed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, not Half Blood Prince.

Haha!  Well, at least your review was an enjoyable read.  Thanks for letting me know I can skip it.  I was already annoyed with the fact they seem to think Jake Gyllenhaal was a passable Persian and prince for that matter.

Glad to see that the movie answers, or rather, doesn’t answer my query during the trailers of how difficult it could be to protect a time-travel device, especially one as small as a dagger. Even Galaxy Quest did time travel better it would seem.

“Are there five less inspiring words in the English language than “based on a video game”?”

The words might be a bit less depressing in Japanese; Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (of no relation to the first Final Fantasy movie, and no, it isn’t the 7th movie in a series) was actually quite enjoyable.

Very good review. Also, while YOU can’t get your time back, think of all the time you saved ME! :-D

P.S. “I’m not sure I can buy destiny, free will and time travel all in the same story. “

Hmm. You might try “Lost.” If it doesn’t make you like all three at once, then nothing will (IMHO).