Mike_Devine Video game-based films have mostly suffered at the box office, with only a few bright spots - namely the 'Lara Croft: Tomb Raider' series (and a lot of that was due to the "Jolie Effect"). 2010 brought us Disney's attempt in 'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,' which was directed by Mike Newell and produced by none other than Jerry Bruckheimer.The $200M big-budget action blockbuster was a blistering blunder at the box office, which explains why there was never a follow-up effort. At one point, Disney was hopeful that 'Persia' could follow in the footsteps of successful franchises like 'Pirates of the Caribbean' or 'National Treasure.' So what went wrong? For one, while Jake Gyllenhaal is generally a good actor, he didn't fit the part of Prince Dastan, the protagonist who stumbles upon a magic dagger that can turn back time, as well as a feisty princess (Gemma Arterton) who becomes quite a handful for him, given the rest of the situation he's in. Gyllenhaal is as wooden as a park bench and has an accent that is pretty much indistinguishable.In a nutshell, 'Persia' is a total mess. It's not entertaining, feels unintentionally comical at points and is just ridiculously campy. Whether it's the fighting scenes that look like a 12-year-old designed them, complete with slow-mo and over-the-top sound effects, or characters who add little-to-no value, there's plenty of that to go around here. Even talented actors like Sir Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina have their talents wasted in this film. The only good thing about 'Persia' is it's not too long, at just under two hours.No doubt, 'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Times' was a big gamble taken by the Mouse House, and like most video game adaptations, it crumbled under its own weight.

Filipe Neto This movie seems to be based on a computer game, which I never tried and didn't know until I watched the movie. Past in the late period of the Persian Empire, with absolutely fictional characters, its not a historical film and has no relation with historical truth. It's all an invention, a fantasy. The script is interesting, promising entertainment and fulfilling this promise in a very positive way. Jake Gyllenhaal gives life to the film in the lead role, standing out in well-constructed action scenes. Ben Kingsley is a convincing and well-built villain, though it's a bit obvious he's, or will be, the film's big antagonist. Gemma Arterton was OK in her role, which mixes a bit of "Xena, Warrior Princess" and "lady in distress". The remaining actors are in supporting characters but they do their work well enough. The ending, however, is a bit sudden and unsettled from what was happening as if, in the middle of the movie, the protagonist became Indiana Jones and everything turned into a game of deadly, utterly boring, mazes and traps. Either way, this movie is good enough to entertain the audience, it's fun, it has very good action scenes, good CGI and a regular cinematography.

Mckenzie Boyle When you convert a story to a different medium, the most difficult, but nonetheless most important aspect to get right is preserving the tone, the atmosphere of the original piece. That is something that this film almost entirely fails to do. If you were a fan of the the original game, you will remember what it felt like to play. It was the first game, for me, that elicited a kind of reverence from me. The way your footsteps echoed through the empty halls, dust hanging in the air, listening to the narrator (the main character) recant his story as you slowly worked your way through these decrepit ruins which, despite their condition, still had a certain beauty and grandeur. Apart from the enemies and occasional NPC's, it was just you, alone, trying to find your way home. It was a solemn experience. The film, however, with it's Mummy-esque, jarringly juxtaposed slap-stick comedy, it's lively marketplaces full of people, and it's romantic tension-infused banter, bares almost no resemblance whatsoever to the game which it is based on. It's a film that can't decide if it wants to be Indiana Jones or The Mummy Returns, but one thing it certainly isn't is a true representation of The Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.

Wuchak Released in 2010 and directed by Jim Mike Newell, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" stars Jake Gyllenhaal as an adopted son of the king of Persia and Gemma Arterton as a princess of a nearby kingdom. They team-up after the former becomes a fugitive with a magic dagger. Ben Kingsley, Richard Coyle, Toby Kebbell, Alfred Molina and Steve Toussaint have supporting roles.Based on the video game, this was supposed to be the start of a franchise in the mold of the Pirates of the Caribbean flicks, but it was not to be due to disappointing box office results. The first 45-50 minutes are great, reminiscent of the various Sinbad movies but with no-seafaring, way more action and all-around superior production values. It's like the Conan the Barbarian films, but less dour and brooding; sorta akin to "The Mummy" (1999) and "The Mummy Returns" (2001). Like my title blurb says, "Prince of Persia" is spectacular as far as production quality goes, but after the first 50 minutes it goes downhill with a needlessly convoluted plot and one action scene after another. There are a lot of amusing and 'exciting' things going on, but the story fails to hook; everything morphs into a tedious blur. On the positive side, Jake's a heroic protagonist and Gemma is ravishing in an offbeat way, although the filmmakers shoulda taken more advantage of her presence.The film runs 116 minutes and was shot in Morocco.GRADE: C+