Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

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. (20/05/2010)

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 (18/08/2010)

The most talkative fairy tale that Scheherazade told us. Prince Dastan has an argument for everything, and Princess Tamina has the sharpest tongue ever known in the East, and among all the dialogues and arguments, one sometimes wishes for the storyteller's spirit to reappear, spreading the play around him in every step, jump, or duel. However, the plot pleased me more than I dared to expect. The game creator added exactly those plot twists that fascinated me in the original, and the dagger, the hourglass, the villain, and the chemistry of the main duo decided that the atmosphere of the Sands of Time had arrived. 70% (01/06/2010)

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... (19/06/2010)

The Action and cinematography are well-known from computer games (Assassin's Creed). The plot is empty, unnecessarily filtered, overcomplicated, and overly colorful. Uninteresting. Only the central duo is interesting, with well-crafted dialogue, but that is a bit too little for a 200 million USD film. The people behind it relied on attracting audiences with a similar hype to Avatar, but they forgot that James Cameron, besides excellent marketing and a certain astuteness in setting the boundaries between correctness and his own way, knows how to direct very well. Mike Newell has confirmed with this that he does not. (18/09/2010)