maybe it works as a video game (I cannot say, for I've never played it), but "Prince of Persia" doesn't quite work as a movie

Rating: 6/10 (26 June 2010)

Maybe the reason why I didn't quite get into "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is because I am completely unfamiliar with the video game upon which it is based. Confession: it was not until after I saw the movie that I even learned of the game's existence. Perhaps if I had been, and I took the time to play the game, I might have gotten a little more involved in this incredibly hokey story. But I didn't, and did not.
But one can assess that the movie was based on a video game since it has a very videogamey quality. Let's begin by examining the physical presence of the movie. "Prince of Persia" is crammed end-to-end with digital and CGI effects. Heck, half of the action scenes in this movie, even physical fights that could have been easily accomplished (and with more conviction) with stunt doubles and actors are full of CGI characters. There are numerous eye-rolling moments such as a repeated effects shot of a CGI double of star Jake Gyllenhaal jumping more than fifty feet through the air, jumping bounds that exceed human capacity, and the slow-motion is so crisp and clear that it reveals the shoddiness of the graphics. The movie is also full of CGI cities and landscapes, some of which are credible, others a little dicey.
But let's delve into the videogamey part that really bugged me in "Prince of Persia": the hokey quality of the story. Jake Gyllenhaal is the titular character, an adopted son of the Persian tyrant, who is framed for his father's murder, and is hunted down by his brothers and people. Gyllenhaal escapes with help from the princess (Gemma Atherton) of a city he just recently conquered. During their fight-ladened trek through the desert, Gyllenhaal discovers that the mysterious dagger stolen from the city is actually a mystical weapon used to change time. In essence, it's a medieval time machine. Imagine the Flux Capicator inside a priceless gem of a blade and you've got the central figure of the story.
I guess it was just the story that didn't grab me. I didn't find the blend of science-fiction and medieval settings appealing or interesting. Nor did I find either genre particularly compelling when one was strictly being played and the other ignored except in ostensible terms. Another problem I had was the same problem I had with the remake of "Clash of the Titans." It is storyboarded like a video game. There is no bond or connection between characters, there isn't very much motivation behind their actions (it's all very primitive), and the only purpose of the journey to get from point A to point B. Thus, I found it very hard to get involved and to follow Gyllenhaal, who hilariously doesn't try to shave his accent and who didn't stress the makeup department in trying to make him look like a Persian. But Gyllenhaal's performance is good enough in its own right. In regard to other performances, Gemma Atherton is once again compelling as the tough spitfire, although it's basically the same character she played in the remake of "Clash of the Titans" and just as shallow. She's a competent and charming actress and I look forward to seeing her in a good movie. But the two best performances come from Alfred Molina as a comical, tax-hating Arab trader and Ben Kingsley as the prince's uncle.
The movie had me sighing and looking constantly at my watch through the first two-thirds of its running time. But I will admit when the third act came around, along with more action sequences, the tempo did pick up a bit. The action sequences were hokey, but uplifting from the previous hour of tedium that I had to suffer through. Still, it was not quite enough to save the picture as a whole. But in the end, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is rather forgettable and it will not be remembered a year from today. Make that six months from today.
Nah, make that next week. Or, heck, how about tomorrow?