Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

The Action and cinematography are well-known from computer games (Assassin's Creed). The plot is empty, unnecessarily filtered, overcomplicated, and overly colorful. Uninteresting. Only the central duo is interesting, with well-crafted dialogue, but that is a bit too little for a 200 million USD film. The people behind it relied on attracting audiences with a similar hype to Avatar, but they forgot that James Cameron, besides excellent marketing and a certain astuteness in setting the boundaries between correctness and his own way, knows how to direct very well. Mike Newell has confirmed with this that he does not. (18/09/2010)

Surprisingly, it exceeded my (to be honest, very low) expectations. Prince of Persia is a harmless summer blockbuster with a very likeable main couple. The story doesn’t try to be smart (any viewer with at least some experience will guess the ending) and the performances aren’t brilliant, but that would’ve been too much to expect. I had fun, so I’m satisfied. 6/10 (19/08/2010)

A brisk film, in which there is practically no room for boredom (almost two hours pass by... like sand in an hourglass), the music was good, the special effects were good, the casting of all the roles (especially Ben Kingsley) was quite successful. I do have reservations about some of the dull dialogue, but considering that Prince is actually a simple summer popcorn flick with the goal of entertaining and not offending, it's not that bad. Perhaps the scriptwriters could have pushed the humor a little harder. And Mike Newell could've saved on the editing. I would definitely enjoy the parkour antics on the rooftops and one hard-to-see "escape" scene in particular more in longer shots. Three and a half. (01/07/2010)

Newell is good with actors – the mischievous and sparkly Gyllenhaal / Arterton duet is a pleasure to watch – but Newell is desperate not to do it with epic sauce. Even in Harry Potter, it was noticeable when some of the conversations were the funniest and most impressive things about the film. Prince of Persia is putting on a sterile crown. Futile fancy magic with a "game-like" camera, parkour walled in by the editing, and duels that are wooden and lack anything. Some of the images are unbearably plastic instead of fabulously magical. Nevertheless, I had a very satisfying time with the film. As a fairytale it works (thanks to the actors), only the feeling of plastic harmlessness of the environment limits the fantasy. The Prince of Persia is such a nice Disney figure who doesn't offend. Sometimes he delights, sometimes he jumps around without even plucking out of lethargy. Too bad, the potential was there, and it was considerable. I will miss Jake's veal conception in action fantasy. (01/09/2010)

Jerry emptied the golden Persian treasury, exchanged it for dollars, and entrusted two hundred million to an English director of conversational films. The trailers warned us, but I really didn't see this fiasco coming. Newell gives you proof that in Pirates of the Caribbean, Verbinski wasn't just a cheap routinist with a bloated wallet after a few minutes, when he shoots all the scenes in detail so that the action is a confused and cluttered show of people jumping all over the castle walls. Then this repeats after twenty minutes without any significant innovation. The film also severely lacks any mystique, so there is no risk of being drawn into the plot (which is more or less non-existent anyway). I was downright ashamed of Jake, but I admired Gemma immensely for two hours. This type of beautiful and beautifully-sarcastic actress has been missing in Hollywood blockbusters for a long time. I’m giving it two stars just for the fact that Clash of the Titans pissed me off a little more than this. I actually left the movie theater for 5 minutes in the second third, thinking I was going to give up... (19/06/2010)