Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

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 (08/18/2010)

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. (09/01/2010)

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... (06/19/2010)

Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton are the two reasons that I am inclined to give this flick a higher rating. You won’t find a more likeable couple in any adventure spectacle. This film is driven by spectacular set designs, good music and a pleasantly exotic atmosphere, but what does affect the movie in a bad way is the minimum of original ideas, ignoring the potential of supporting characters and surprisingly confusing action scenes. Stephen Sommers’ The Mummy and Gore Verbinski’s Pirates of the Caribbean were simply more refined. (05/20/2010)

The Sands of Time is a very nice example of how money can be wasted in the film industry when the producer thinks that a grand set design, special effects, and handsome actors in lead roles can accomplish everything. However, the story itself is unremarkable and undeveloped, and the characters get lost in it. Even actors like Ben Kingsley are shamefully underutilized, so I soon felt bored and sleepy. Of course, ladies can admire the warriors' biceps and the dresses of the movie beauties, and gentlemen can enjoy the clanging of weapons, but that doesn't change my conviction that The Sands of Time is also a waste of time. Overall impression: 45%. (03/06/2011)