Date: 2010-06-04 21:43:22 Created: 2010-06-04 17:42:54
the sands of time
The film, not the game.
Unfortunately.
As soon as I saw the posters and trailer, I felt that this could work really well as a film. I was not expecting too much depth, just a good ride in the spirit of the games.
In short, I was ready to like this film.
The game was a wonderful experience. Tight and focused, it played to its strengths and wrapped acrobatic puzzle solving and fighting into a nice and cleverly written cover story.
The film, the way I see it, spends a lot more time telling much the same story in a much less engaged and focused way. It takes ages going to places much less interesting only to arrive at a very similar yet much less satisfying end.
I can not call it a climax because I sort of felt robbed of a payoff. I feel like they could have pulled at least half an hour out of the film and only made it better in the process. Even better, they could have stuck closer to the story of the game. I wonder if there were good reasons not to. If only we could go back in time and explore the alternatives ...
I found myself looking up at the script credits and thinking "Well, they can't be too proud of this."
Many of us have a reflexive doubt about games made as film tie-ins. Prince of persia goes to show that even with a strong story there is nothing certain about going in the other direction either, even when the filmmakers have this many years to get their act together.
Pity, all this money, talent and effects could have come together into something even better.