Once upon a time there (circa 2005) there was a revolution in video gaming. It was the nexus of computing power and imagination (just as CGI became so seamless in films). Riding that wave of physics accuracy was a game that took the old standard of hitting keyboard keys to jump or… More
Once upon a time there (circa 2005) there was a revolution in video gaming. It was the nexus of computing power and imagination (just as CGI became so seamless in films). Riding that wave of physics accuracy was a game that took the old standard of hitting keyboard keys to jump or roll (going all the way back to Donkey Kong, etc.) and made it all realistic and fluid. That Prince of Persia has now made it to film (like so many of its predecessors) is hardly newsworthy, and the film, while trying hard to include some of the acrobatics that made the game fun, fails in the same way as is predecessors; namely bad acting, weak dialog and an iffy script.
The film duplicates themes we've all seen so many times before - a guy and a gal get thrown together for whatever reason - and they spar back and forth (though hardly at the level of wordplay of say Taming of The Shrew) and ultimately fall in love. As always seems to be the case in these teen oriented potboilers, they spend half the film almost kissing - as if that's supposed to ratchet up the tension and make the inevitable kiss all the more special: note to script writers everywhere - this is not a truism. Kissing does not signify everlasting love, so please, let's dispense with this kind of melodramatic drivel.
The plot line is also something we've heard a million times before: a homeless lad is "adopted" by the king and grows up a "brother" to the royal heirs. Flash forward 15 years (yep, the film does just that) and there seems to be a dilemma where the king in waiting has been told by the king to not lay siege to some mystical holy city. But wait! The king's uncle (played by Ben Kingsley in a bit of typecasting) tells the prince that the city has been supplying arms to their enemies!... hmm. Wait a minute - this takes place in Persia, which is now the Middle East, and there are reports of arms being supplied to "our" enemies. Holy Hand Grenade Batman - could these be weapons of mass destruction? We'd better invade! Oops, wrong century. But, taking the evil uncle's advise (and it's not a spoiler to mention that the uncle is evil, although the film would rather you didn't find this out until much later, even though Kingsley hams it up with dark and sinister glances) - the prince sacks the sacred city and decides he should marry the hotty princess of the city (although she's got those damned botoxed lips - what is it with women in films nowadays? Note to actresses, good or otherwise - those fake Halloween lips are NOT SEXY).
From here the plot moves (sorta) into a murder - the non royal prince gets falsely accused - the aforementioned let's throw a guy and a girl together and watch em fall in love - some chase scenes - some fight scenes (all poorly done), mediocre CGI (man, those scenes involving the sands of time were awful!) and a huge bit of illogic (that's even considering that you buy into a magic dagger that can turn back time - maybe Cher should have starred in this). Said huge bit of illogic involves a character (guess who?) who wants to go back and erase something that happened 30 years ago, assuming that by correcting this single act he gets what he wants and everything else in the universe will remain the same. Uh, guess the scriptwriter never read Ray Bradbury.
The film takes this all way too seriously, and probably would have been better served if they would have taken a cue from Alfred Molina and played it for laughs (especially the entire, tired love story). Molina is truly the only bright spot in the film, playing a shaky sheik calling himself an "entrepreneur". He easily has the best lines in the film and plays his part with bravado and reckless abandon. Especially fun are his rants against the Persian tax collectors, and how the taxes all go towards stuff that he doesn't need - touché!
The characters on a whole are pretty wooden and predictable, though a little more back story would have been a help. For example, at one point late in the film the non royal prince pleads with his brother saying "I know we've had our differences but...". Well maybe HE knows that, but the audience sure doesn't - and perhaps some sibling rivalry would have made a better film (take a page from Lion In Winter, perchance).
In the lead you have Jake Gyllenhaal who could lose an l and an a and do us all a favor.
He spends much of the film sporting a glazed over, slacked jawed look as if he's shocked to find himself in such a film - note to Jake - you've hit your level here fella, get used to it.
Gemma Atherton, queen of botox, isn't given much heavy lifting, and I guess it's neither actor's fault that they have to utter such lame ass lines - (example: the only way we can save the universe is to hide the blade in the secret, sacred, sanctuary - and other such drivel). Again, a bit of logic here - if the blade is the only thing that can pierce the sands of time and thus unleash Armageddon, then why keep it around in the first place? Oh, I know - it's so they can make a crappy film a thousand years later.
I dunno, Hollywood keeps cranking out these kinds of film and people keep paying to see them (not me, I got this on the free Starz weekend). Every one of these blockbuster type heavy CGI films seems to have lousy scripting and iffy acting. Why is this, I wonder? I get the feeling that the studios just give a nod and a wink, saying, yep, good enough to make us some money - instead of even attempting anything artful and above mediocre. Sign of the times I guess - and now I wonder if Molina couldn't have done a rant about that in the film as well.....