Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time (9/5/2010 10:43:32 PM)

Post your comments on this article




Ethanial -> Gar (9/5/2010 10:43:32 PM)

Why can't they make a good blockbuster anymore?
This CGI fest of stupidity, generic cliche-ridden plot and dialogue, lack of character and all round bad acting, sans Gyllenhaal, is a complete waste of time. Why is Arterton allowed to act? When will someone tell her she can't, or is this a Sam Worthington thing, where some people see the 'talent', and others can't?

Whatever that is, the whole film is atrocious.




theoriginalcynic -> RE: Gar (9/5/2010 11:01:40 PM)

Wow, this review is early.  Obviously I haven't seen it yet because it's not out for a couple of weeks.




Deviation -> RE: Gar (9/5/2010 11:09:05 PM)

The 3D wankery was incredibly painful to read.

And seriously, shouldn't Bruckhiemer and the rest of the crew worry about making a good film instead and jerking 3D into it? Wouldn't that be more important?




DaveTheHutt -> RE: Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time (10/5/2010 5:47:27 PM)

Saw this last night courtesy of a Vue compo that got me 2 tickets to the 'regional gala premiere' - basically an hour-and-a-half of streamed footage from the real premiere (incredibly dull - if I'd know I'd have to sit through that, not sure I would've bothered!) and then the film.

It was okay - 6/10. Gyllenhal had a modicum of charm, Arterton was pretty but a little annoying, Kingsley solid but unsurprising... Molina came off best as the scoundrel with a heart; the film picks up noticeably when he's on-screen.

The plot is okay but you can see the 'twists' coming from a mile off. And it all ends a predictable CGI-fest that doesn't actually make sense - unless I missed something. There's the occasional spark of wit, especially between Gyllenhall and Arterton (even if she does come off as stroppy rather than sparky most of the time).

As happens too often these days, the action is too fast-cut and closely-framed to make much impact - all you see is a blur of bodies and then someone's on the floor; quite how it happened is anyone's guess.

The much-vaunted parkour suffers worst - again, all the cutting and close-framing means you never get any sense of flow or peril... in the pre-interviews the makers made much of the fact there was no wirework and that the parkour was all for real, but that never comes across.

There's a little nod to the games at the start - as the Prince works out how to best to sneak into a walled city, the camera flash-pans from obstacle to obstacle, like the game used to when showing you the perils ahead. Nice. But that's about it - apart from the obvious theme/setting influences, of course.

So no disaster then, and slickly (if uninspiringly) made - will no doubt make a bit of cash, but I'd be amazed if it caught public imagination enough to inspire a sequel.




DaveTheStampede -> RE: Gar (11/5/2010 11:34:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

The 3D wankery was incredibly painful to read.

And seriously, shouldn't Bruckhiemer and the rest of the crew worry about making a good film instead and jerking 3D into it? Wouldn't that be more important?

Good god, man!  What is the matter with you?  Have you missed James "The Messiah" Cameron telling everyone that 3D is the future?  THE GAME HAS BEEN CHANGED!  No more must film makers rely on the strength of their work to get bums in seats.  If a blockbuster isn't in stereoscopic 3D, then it quite obviously is not worth watching.

Gah, I can't believe you needed telling that!
[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, I agree with you.  Of course, the lack of 3D means I'm probably going to catch this one at the cinema, instead of some time past never.




kenada_woo -> RE: Gar (11/5/2010 7:37:43 PM)

Did they just review a film and were disappointed it wasnt 3D?

Are they serious? Honestly?




BOHEMIANBOB -> RE: Gar (13/5/2010 1:08:56 PM)

I keep an open mind on movies,even movies based on games(i quite enjoyed Silent Hill-absurd guilty pleasure!).
The trailer for this has made this movie a no-no from the off.
Another Playstation demo masquerading as cinema with 1 dimensional acting.
A franchise?Never.




rich -> RE: Gar (13/5/2010 2:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

Did they just review a film and were disappointed it wasnt 3D?

Are they serious? Honestly?


This




DancingClown -> RE: Gar (14/5/2010 11:22:33 AM)

I posted this a while ago in the Magazine section but it got locked. Here is more appropriate, I guess:

Ian Nathan's review of Prince of Persia troubled me. Firstly, of course he is free to rate the film as he chooses. And secondly I'm basically indifferent to the whole 3D thing. But at the end of the review it seemed as if he was suggesting that the film would've been better if made in real 3D. Now, I know that this is a silly blockbuster based on a video game - it's not exactly Shane Meadows or Mike Leigh - but surely what's important in this instance is how the film's most basic and most important elements work, i.e script, acting, direction. Ian did comment on these but I was left feeling as if there's going to be a new trend of rewarding 'good' or 'okay' films with extra marks just because of 3D - and as we all know while proper 3D has potential it shouldn't be used to paper over a weak film, and surely the practice shouldn't therefore be encouraged by critics.

Not all of us are doing carthweels about 3D, as the review suggested in its first few lines. And that doesn't make us naysayers or Luddites - as suggested later in the mag in the review of Avatar on DVD. I love you, Empire, but in this instance you can go fuck yourselves.

I'm worried that this might set an unwelcome precedent for the magazine in the future. You know, the film wasn't made in 3D, or retro-fitted with 3D, but Ian Nathan kept mentioning it as if its absence impacted on the film's quality somehow, which would quite obviously be stupid, not to say a little worrying. I hope I'm just over-reacting.

It did really annoy me, though.





BOHEMIANBOB -> RE: Gar (14/5/2010 3:49:57 PM)

I agree,and like the phrase 3-d wankery to describe this current fad.
You would have to question how ANY movie is better because it's in 3-d,it's an absurd notion.
Take Robin Hood,would it be any better in 3-d?I don't think so.Surely that applies to every film.
It's condescending of reviewers(and Cameron band-wagoning jumping) to say that 3-d is now the dogs bollox and a non- 3-d movie is somehow devalued.
3-d is not the present,never mind the future.
Popular for the moment,but we are on 3-d overdose which can only end one way.




histeachn -> Unhelpful review (17/5/2010 3:52:27 AM)

When it takes me about two-thirds of the way through what I'm reading to arrive at a point, much less THE point, I know I'm reading something bad. For the criticisms made about the movie they aren't strengthened by a jumbled mess of an argument. It's like it can't decide what it wants to be: an essay on summer blockbusters, an essay on 3D, or an essay on video game films. I was hoping to read a review, but I got what amounts to what a person writes after bingeing on Red Bull.

Personally, I know this is a Jerry Bruckheimer film, and I just want to know how it stands up AS THAT. Is it entertaining, because we know that's what his films major on? I don't need a stream of consciousness. Wax philosophical on Inception, but, come on, this is a film for fun.

I give this review 1 star.




histeachn -> Oops (17/5/2010 3:52:43 AM)

Sorry, accidental double post.




jokerpoker123 -> Im so happy this is not 3D - even if the films will be bad? (17/5/2010 8:14:14 AM)

3D over rated for the poor people like me who can't see it, fuzzy with glasses and fuzzy without, I guess film makers forget their are people with lazy eyes - yes makes me look weird when my eye tends to wonder were it shouldn’t, but I must say I am so happy that I can still see 2D films, and 3D hasn't taken over my local cinema yet. So just the fact that this is made in 2D, and the 3D fanatics will be wining it gets a huge 5 stars from me.




smakris04 -> U forgot to mentioned the accent (17/5/2010 12:17:52 PM)

I don't remember Reading that in ancient Persia people spoke with such a bad English accent. You'd expect them to have had a professor to teach the actor. It was an 150 millions production. And then again. Why did they need an English accent?




Bighousewill -> RE: Im so happy this is not 3D - even if the films will be bad? (17/5/2010 5:39:54 PM)

You know you can wear your normal glasses and put the Real D glasses over them, thats what my Dad did when I took him to see Avatar. Real D technology is good with the right film for example Clash of the titans was shit 3D because they just added a few scenes where cgi monsters come at you which was done in post production the rest of the film just looked no different. Other films like avatar and the upcoming Tin Tin are "filmed" in 3D the effect creates a deep stereoscopic effect it looks like you can walk right in. Street Dance 3D also filmed in 3D. But anyway Prince of persia is more traditional none 3D affair.




UTB -> RE: Im so happy this is not 3D - even if the films will be bad? (17/5/2010 6:43:10 PM)

I saw Lebanon over the weekend and I couldn't help but notice the lack of 3D.




jokerpoker123 -> RE: Im so happy this is not 3D - even if the films will be bad? (18/5/2010 8:40:36 AM)

I don't wear normal glasses, I have a lazy eye which means my eyes don't work together, thatís why I can't see 3D, I have even asked at my opticians and they did tests and told me no you can't see 3D and won't which is annoying when films just keep throwing that 3D crap everywhere, even TV is starting to go along with the trend and I really don't know why??? I thought Avatar was just fine in 2D. I know Iím ranting a bit, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. [8|]




Jezzman -> (18/5/2010 8:22:56 PM)

Completely agree with 'histeachn.' This a really unhelpful review and quite frankly a shambolic mess. D- Guess I'll have to make my own mind up by seeing it,




latedavela -> What a shocking review! (18/5/2010 11:57:41 PM)

I've actually registered purely to comment on this. The review may well make some decent points but its buried under a wave of pomposity and meaningness snipes. The 3D comment is classic, so you want some kind of 'Clash of the Titan's' rubbish? As a professional film review working for Empire I expect some half decent insights, not this excuse for journalism.




BOHEMIANBOB -> RE: Unhelpful review (19/5/2010 12:51:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: histeachn

When it takes me about two-thirds of the way through what I'm reading to arrive at a point, much less THE point, I know I'm reading something bad. For the criticisms made about the movie they aren't strengthened by a jumbled mess of an argument. It's like it can't decide what it wants to be: an essay on summer blockbusters, an essay on 3D, or an essay on video game films. I was hoping to read a review, but I got what amounts to what a person writes after bingeing on Red Bull.

Personally, I know this is a Jerry Bruckheimer film, and I just want to know how it stands up AS THAT. Is it entertaining, because we know that's what his films major on? I don't need a stream of consciousness. Wax philosophical on Inception, but, come on, this is a film for fun.

I give this review 1 star.

A 1 star review to a 1 star movie?
A first,surely.
Justice exists!




Pigeon Army -> RE: Unhelpful review (19/5/2010 6:43:09 AM)

quote:

Itís with greater irony still, you imagine what 3D ó good 3D ó might have given it. Fancy hitting rewind, Jerry?


Irony - noun.
- the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.
- an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

Ian Nathan, I do believe you will find that what you are describing is not irony. It is you being a 3D fanboy. It is you insinuating that you would give a film you believe is average another star if it had a far-from-perfect technology wedged into it. It is you being an idiot.

Fancy hitting rewind, Ian? [8|]




Olaf -> RE: Unhelpful review (19/5/2010 10:04:24 AM)

as Alanis Morissette once sang, isn't it ironic?




BOHEMIANBOB -> RE: Unhelpful review (19/5/2010 9:43:05 PM)

What?Irony?




Olaf -> RE: Unhelpful review (19/5/2010 10:27:00 PM)

I forget what exactly it was that Alanis found ironic, actually. All I know is that it wasn't actually ironic, and as such it was ironic that Alanis said it was ironic when it wasn't. The irony.




BOHEMIANBOB -> RE: Unhelpful review (19/5/2010 11:48:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I forget what exactly it was that Alanis found ironic, actually. All I know is that it wasn't actually ironic, and as such it was ironic that Alanis said it was ironic when it wasn't. The irony.


Ed Byrne(Irish comedian) does a great send-up of this.
Anyhow,shit song,shit film-still don't get the irony.




shinysavage -> RE: Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time (21/5/2010 1:10:16 AM)

I'm not usually one for criticising Empire's reviews - I might disagree with the final analysis, but all criticism is subjective, and I've never really had a problem with the writing itself - but in this case I'm going to have to bandwagon. The 3D stuff in this review was extremely annoying and unnecessary. 3D is not the be all and end all of cinema, no matter how good Avatar's tech was. And why mention it specifically for Prince of Persia? I don't remember anything about 3D in, say, the Iron Man 2 review. This review felt lazy and unprofessional, although it wasn't a complete disaster; maybe a 2.5/5.

Haven't seen the film yet, but the most recent trailer actually changed my mind about it; I may go see it now. I'll comment on the film (and whether it needs 3D or not) then.




TrailMix -> RE: Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time (21/5/2010 10:24:25 PM)

I read an interesting review with Bruckheimer where he talked about this not being in 3D. He said he likes the format, but it's very expensive, and because they were shooting in the dessert it would of been tough to maneuver with the 3D cameras. 




theJackal -> RE: Unhelpful Review (22/5/2010 2:48:46 AM)

WTF?! This is a great write up! It's not a review for Lawrence of Arabia, for christ's sake. Ian Nathan takes the review about as serious as the film takes itself, and clearly has fun doing it. Loosen up, cinephile buddies!




R W -> RE: Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time (22/5/2010 1:32:10 PM)

Director: Mike Newell
Screenwriters: Jordan Mechner, Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina

Synopsis
After the discovery of a dagger that lets the carrier travel back through time, the adventurous Prince Dastan (Gyllenhaal) teams up with a rival princess (Arterton) to stop a sinister ruler (Kingsley) from unleashing a sandstorm that could destroy the world.

Review
If thereís one thing that everyone will agree on, is that any films based on videogames brings out the very worst of cinema, because the filmmakers behind those works are more interested at putting the gameplay up on the big screen without the support of a good narrative. From the fashionable cheesiness of Street Fighter (maybe the worst thing I have ever seen) to the current hogwash of the Resident Evil franchise, Ubisoft Montrealís classic videogame series is getting the cinematic treatment by the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean.

With the involvement of the seriesí creator Jordan Mechner (who has a screen story credit), what he and three other screenwriters have done is a loose adaptation of the 2003 videogame of the same name that has its own narrative whilst incorporating elements from other instalments in the series. For those who are fans of the series, you wonít see any monsters roaming around temples, but you will expect the free running acrobatics of the Prince who now has a name.

In the way it was previewed, many had assumed that this is the new Pirates of the Caribbean and when you do watch this, that is the case. At its heart, Prince of Persia is a simple swashbuckling adventure with a bit of humour and a lot of swordplay. The big criticism is the same with Pirates, which is the lack of characterisation and the drama mostly shows characters explaining the plot and what to do next in their journey.

If there is something positive to be said about the film, it is the direction of Mike Newell. As someone who had tackled epic fantasy with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Newell knows how to create worlds with epic proportions as the production design is massive and beautiful, as well as action sequences that are broad and quite spectacular. However, it is a pity that someone who had done Harry Potter that Newell is doing something that might as well be based on a theme park ride without much substance. Still, heís a better director than Gore Verbinski.

When I first heard that Donnie Darko was playing the title character, I did expect him to have a tan, not the case. If there was a problem with the Prince from the games, it was the fact that he was a very cocky interpretation of Luke Skywalker. Gyllenhaal (who has completely bulked up and can run up walls) does not have this problem but is essentially the Skywalker-esque protagonist with a better English accent than Russell Crowe in the recent Robin Hood.

His acting towards this shines with his nice chemistry with Gemma Arterton, who has a funny relationship reminiscent to the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Karen Allen from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Arterton as the sharply-witted Princess Tamina is an improvement than her hollow role of Io from Clash of the Titans. As for the supporting players, Ben Kinglsey doing the typical pantomime villain similar to his take on the Hood from Thunderbirds while Alfred Molina showing the best acting for the film and provides all the best laughs.

Verdict
It maybe based on a videogame (which is usually a bad sign), Newellís film has enough enjoyment to be a good swashbuckler with a nice chemistry from a muscle-bound Gyllenhaal and a delightful Arterton.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875