Generic fantasy film seen through the "popular game franchise"-glasses

Rating: 5/10 (19 November 2016)

I had such high hopes for this film. The computer game it was made after is awesome, so I guess I was expecting something along those lines. But as always films after video games rarely live up to expectations (well, the expectations of gamers anyway). Maybe that is really the problem: you play a game that you really enjoy and you expect the film to be just like that. However, they won't just take story and characters and make them into a film one to one. They want to produce something new. That's how misfortune usually takes its course.
I would even concede that for someone who doesn't know the game this may be a decent film. It has flawless visuals and a high calibre cast. I do strongly disagree with casting Gyllenhaal and Arterton as male and female leads. I know especially Gyllenhaal was a hot name at the time and I know this is common practice in Hollywood - but what would have been wrong with casting young actors from a Middle-Eastern background to be *Persians*?
Casting choice aside there are several things that I miss in the film. These are things that I say in comparison to the game. I do, however, also believe that any viewer (familiar with the game or not) would have benefited from them. The plot is one. In the game the prince feels responsible for unleashing the power of the Sands of Time and he sets about fixing things. In the movie we also get a generic "usurper to the throne" plot line - or was that a hint at the plot of the original Prince of Persia? Next up are the stunts. Why did the sleek parcours style moves from the game not feature much more prominently in the film? The only hint at them is at the very beginning but they are not seen again. That would have made for some epic fights! What else? What about the eerie time monsters that made the game memorable? Were they considered too scary for the target audience? They were certainly not too scary for teenage gamers. Finally, what happened to the game's strong female lead? She could hold her own and even saved the prince more than once while at the same time becoming his love interest part of his motivation to succeed. The relationship felt equal with some funny banter between them. Pretty as Arterton is I don't remember that kind chemistry in the film.
So, if seen as an independent film Prince of Persia is probably an only slightly generic and entertaining enough fantasy epic. But then why even name it after the game if the ties are loose at best? I know the answer, of course: hot, young actors + popular game franchise = $$$.