# Osage Reviews...PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME (Blu-ray; Disney/Buena Vista)



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

*Studio Name: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (Buena Vista) 
MPAA Rating: 
Video Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Disc/Transfer Information: 1080p High Definition 2.40:1 Widescreen; BD-50 Blu-ray Disc; Region 1 (U.S.) Release
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (48kHz/24-bit)
Director: Mike Newell
Starring Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton*


If I had to judge it, the best part of Disney’s rather violent _Prince of Persia_ had to be watching the up-and-coming Gemma Arterton as a tantalizingly sultry princess. Ever since I saw the trailer for this on the _Armageddon_ Blu-ray, I was intrigued; however, like so many other films that I watch in my home theater, it seemed to just lose something as compared to when I walk out of a theater and see a film – and I shared this observation with my wife when viewing _Prince of Persia._ This seemed to be one of those films and times. Something just tells me, should I have seen this on a massive screen with expensive buttery popcorn, it would have played better to me – I wasn’t that impressed with the Blu-ray copy I demoed.

The premise looked interesting – the normally annoying Jake Gyllenhaal (why young women find this kid to be a drop-dead-gorgeous sex symbol worth feinting over, I’ll never get…but then again, I will never get young women as a concept standing by itself) plays a beefed-up Persian warrior of some sort who battles his way through CGI-infested setpieces replete with rolling sands, fierce creatures and a demon figure, and who has the beautiful Arterton in tow for the ride. The special effects seemed worth the price of a rental or admission alone, which suggested _The Mummy_ meets _National Treasure_ with a dash of _Pirates of the Caribbean_ mixed in for good measure (of course it would seem that way; we have the Bruckheimer stable responsible for production values). The final product, though, was riddled with plot confusions, overtly hammy performances from everyone involved and was simply too thick for its own good – at one point, you’re not going to know _what’s_ going on.

I applaud Disney when they make films like this, and take on a project which they hope will one-up the last major silver screen deluge of theirs – there’s a sort of “theme park” feel to these films, as the studio has grown beyond the boundaries of their _Snow White_ and _Cinderella_ days into big-budget spectacles that bring their most beloved attractions to life on the screen, a la _Pirates_ and even _Haunted Mansion_. While _National Treasure_ and _Prince of Persia_ aren’t based on any of the corporation’s theme park rides, they still have that Disney-esque feel that I don’t need to describe – but this one gets too complicated too quickly, and doesn’t feel as memorable as the members of the _Pirates_ franchise as a result. With some typical onscreen narration, _Prince of Persia_ tells the story of a boy who was taken in by the Persian king after displaying a show of indifference to soldiers overtaking a village. The boy grows up to be a prince of Persia (Gyllenhaal), but we’re never really given any insight as to how he obtains his _Daredevil_-like abilities to spring from walls to rooftops and take out other soldiers and warriors like an expert; it’s all very rushed and candy coated with CGI sequences and the like. Apparently, if I followed this right, the prince is framed by one of the king’s brothers when the king is given a robe of some kind that appears to be cursed and ultimately kills him rather horrifically. The robe is initially thought to be cursed by the beautiful princess of the kingdom the Persians are attempting to take over (Arterton) but by the time half the film runs, you get the clues which point to the prince’s uncle.

Reading into it more carefully, the king’s brother wanted to be crowned ruler of Persia, and in a typical Hollywood revenge plot, seeks to get rid of the king by framing the prince, as it was the prince who gave the king the robe upon returning from the meeting with the princess. The plot gets heavily convoluted at this point onward, as the story regarding a dagger that Arterton has been protecting that contains special sand develops, and takes Gyllenhaal on a journey that encompasses battling hordes of ostrich racers (I’m not kidding), deadly desert warriors and mythological demon people that really weren’t that frightening. A large chunk of the middle of the film is spent depicting the prince and princess arguing about this dagger with the special “button” on its handle and how Gyllenhaal doesn’t want to give it back to Arterton until she explains what the sand does and why it’s so important – indeed, this gets childish after awhile. The prince actually discovers on his own with a press of the dagger’s button that the knife actually turns back time – but requires special sand to do so. The uncle’s plot? Get a hold of this sand, dagger and the aforementioned mythological demon creature to possess the sands of time in order to change history so his brother isn’t king of Persia. 

As I said, with this premise in place, the plot splinters and just gets too complicated for its own good – without all this nonsense about the uncle needing to get the dagger to the demon people in order to release the sands to get him back to the time he needed to get to, it may have actually worked and been interesting. There’s also the problem of Gyllenhaal and his ridiculously forced British/Persian/Arabian/I don’t know what accent that gets _really_ annoying after awhile. I believed him, for a bit, as the muscle-bound, knife and shield toting warrior from the Persian underbelly raised by the king as an orphan child who grows up to defend the kingdom, but many of the sets and dialogue got downright silly and unbelievable – including moments when he’s flying through the air like a Marvel Universe character, seemingly with no supernatural abilities at all. I never understood this in many films – that is, the tendency to suggest most characters have this ability to cling to walls, do backflips without breaking something, jump from rooftop to rooftop like you and I tie our shoes…when they’re supposedly just human. Remember the lovely Kate Beckinsale in _Van Helsing?_ What was _that_ all about, when she flips from a rooftop onto a tree branch, then lands on both booted feet without any of her makeup looking even remotely disturbed? Excuse me – when she flips _upside down_ onto a tree limb…

Anyway, to get back to _Prince of Persia_, there is a cornucopia of CGI and special effects going on here, culminating in the final sequence in which the sands of time explode open to expose the film’s most lavish budget foray. But as a film and as a judgment in narrative, I just don’t think this succeeded…it was certainly not terrible and it was entertaining at least, but it wasn’t overtly memorable. What I suspect is that Disney is hoping to build this into a growing franchise, a la _Pirates_ and _National Treasure_, but who knows, since _The Haunted Mansion_ bombed in doing so. 

But Gemma Arterton? Between _Quantum, Clash of the Titans_ and now _Prince of Persia_, this rising starlet is definitely one to watch in Hollywood, and perhaps the most interesting thing to watch in _Persia_ as a whole. 

*VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?*

Disney Home Entertainment’s Buena Vista distribution channel presents _Prince of Persia_ in a typically fine-looking 1080p encode on this Blu-ray, coming in a la a rather wide 2.40:1 ratio. All the standard Buena Vista high-def details are here – the facial details during close ups, the individuality between the grains of sand in desert shots, the heat-bleached “feel” of the beige colors during outdoor sequences, the rock-solid black levels and shadow detail…from what I could recall, there weren’t any issues with the disc’s video presentation. 

*AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?*

You know, I could recall when Disney Blu-ray releases were accompanied by nothing but Uncompressed PCM audio soundtracks…i.e. _Pirates, No Country For Old Men, National Treasure, Con Air, Haunted Mansion…_ Switching with the times, _Prince of Persia_ gets an involving DTS-HD Master Audio mix in a 5.1 channel configuration that indeed exposed all of this audioscape’s minute details for the most part. Clangs of swords, swooshes of kicked up and blowing sand, rousing score…they all find their way into the surround channels quite effectively. As I normally find with Buena Vista-branded releases (save for really rambunctious tracks like on _Armageddon_ perhaps), there was a bit of a “leanness” to the audio – that is, while aggressive in many places, the audio wasn’t as forceful as it could have been during suggestive heavy action sequences. I commented about this even on Disney’s first two-disc DVD edition of the first _Pirates_ and its DTS track when I reviewed it back then, and even Geoffrey Morrison of _Home Theater_ magazine said the same, regarding the fact that the mix seemed a bit “lean” in its use of aggressive panning and wild effects. There were traces of this symptom on _Prince of Persia’s_ Master Audio track which kept it from being a real standout. 

*EXTRAS:*

There were a plethora of extras, a la Disney style, including the prerequisite “making of” featurettes, deleted scenes, digital copy and more. 

*SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:*

Definitely worth an evening’s rental with the family – but be warned: This isn’t typical Disney non-violent entertainment. Some of the sequences are drenched in violent suggestions, if not completely blood and gore soaked. I won’t personally be adding this to my collection, but as always, your mileage may vary – something just stops it from being a very memorable Disney fantasy/actioneer, and it was probably the aforementioned plot confusions which just get too thick for the film’s own good.

Thank you for reading, and please let me know what you thought about _Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time_ if you see it/saw it! :wave:


----------



## Lucky7! (Jan 7, 2008)

I watched this for the first time the night before last, and generally agree with your review. The plot has some holes and is a bit silly in places but at no time did I find myself groaning with how bad it was; some of the point of 'fantasy' type movies like this is some light relief, a chance to just relax into something that doesn't have one thinking too hard, suspend disbelief, and to just enjoy the action as it comes. That's why I'm not too hard on them.

Ben Kingsley, whom I consider a very fine actor was a bit, well, under-inspiring but that may have been because that was how he was directed to play the role. He is more than capable of stealing the picture out from under just about any actor.

I will agree with you about Gemma Arterton who is a striking young woman, who I hope we see more of in the future. Still fairly early in her career, she doesn't seem to have developed a great range and depth but more than adequate for this film, and much less 'stiff' than she was as Strawberry Fields in Quantum of Solace.

All in all, I found it a quite amusing adventure film, but I doubt I would buy it at full price.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

A9X said:


> I watched this for the first time the night before last, and generally agree with your review. The plot has some holes and is a bit silly in places but at no time did I find myself groaning with how bad it was; some of the point of 'fantasy' type movies like this is some light relief, a chance to just relax into something that doesn't have one thinking too hard, suspend disbelief, and to just enjoy the action as it comes. That's why I'm not too hard on them.
> 
> Ben Kingsley, whom I consider a very fine actor was a bit, well, under-inspiring but that may have been because that was how he was directed to play the role. He is more than capable of stealing the picture out from under just about any actor.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for your thoughts and opinions here, A9X! And thank you for taking the time to read and respond to the review...

I agree with just about everything you point out above -- and I did forget to mention Ben Kingsley in this, who played the betraying uncle to Destant (the prince). You're right about Arterton as well, her Strawberry Fields rendition was a bit stiff. She seems to be stretching her proverbial legs over the past few films though, and I do consider her an up and coming sex symbol starlet who hopefully won't go down the Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan route...


----------

