Release: May 27
Running time: 111 minutes
Rating: M (violence)

This month, News Hit writers Andrew Moraitis and Timothy Maddocks sat down to discuss the latest Disney blockbuster, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Here is their discussion.

Maddocks
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is the latest collaboration from super-producer (and all-round charmer) Jerry Bruckheimer and the House of Mouse. Given that this collaboration has produced one of the most financially successful film trilogies of all time with the Pirates of the Caribbean cycle, great things are to be expected of this new effort. This is a film that has been aggressively marketed as “From the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean” and it is clear that this material is meant to be the heir apparent to that franchise. However, what The Sands of Time ends up doing is it throws into sharp relief what was done right with the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, by doing just about everything wrong.

The story opens when the King of Persia decides to go into the city for one reason or another, and he sees some kid performing magnificent feats of parkour and the like. Naturally, he adopts the kid, and we flash forward to years later, where this adopted kid, Dastan, is now fighting alongside the genuine fruit of the king’s loins, namely two rather boring princes, one of which is aggressive and the other of which is passive, and their uncle, who is played by Ben Kingsley wearing a sinister goatee. Sir Ben gets these young rascals to invade some sort of holy land because apparently they’ve been building dangerous weapons. So they use this as their excuse to invade. Surely enough, they weren’t making weapons at all, and Sir Ben was after something else entirely. Gee, I wonder what they’re getting at there.

You see, inside this holy land, there are two things of horrific destructive power. The first is the dagger of time, which can turn back time without the aid of either Cher or a DeLorean. The second is Gemma Arterton’s voice, which is officially the Single Most Annoying Voice in the world. Arterton is upset at Dastan, since his brave acrobatics and daring cunning and skillful CGI-assisted derring-do has allowed his princely brothers to annex her lovely city. The King decides to pop up, and Dastan is then framed for his murder, and his pursued by his adoptive brothers with relentless relentlessness. Along the way he teams up with Alfred Molina, and a noble token-black guy. And there’s some sort of ostrich race. And he tries to clear his name and stop the sinister-goateed forces of the land from unleashing the sands of time, which will somehow destroy everyone.

This is probably the perfect kind of story for an engaging fantasy-action romp, and it could be a lot of fun. On paper, this could be a very fun story with great characters to work in mythical, magical situations. But this film does not have any characters: it simply has types. And they are not even particularly fun types, either. They are bored, bored types.

Moraitis
What about Alfred Molina? You did not think he was a lot of fun?

Maddocks
I have not gotten to Molina yet. He is basically the sole bright point in the cast. And that is not in the character’s writing: that is what he is bringing to the role. And, boy, does the film need comic relief because the leads are so dull and completely lacking.

Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays the eponymous prince, is built like a brick shithouse, and he certainly looks the part, but as soon as he opens his mouth there’s this fumbling, uninspiring, and disengaged attempt at a British-accent-that-isn’t-quite-British-but-also-nothing-else at the same time. He simply does not convince as a prince of Persia, and it’s not even really his fault – there’s pretty much nothing he could do to make it work. He is just inherently wrong for the part. Compare his work with the performance of Orlando Bloom in the first Pirates film – sure, Bloom isn’t a great actor, he’s not even a particularly good one (and- on the whole- he doesn’t even have an ounce of Gyllenhaal’s genuine talent), but he’s an organic part of that period world.

The other big problem is Gemma Arterton. I suppose she’s certainly beautiful enough to convince as a romantic foil, but my God is her voice annoying. I’m talking Gilbert-Gottfried-meets-Kathy-Griffin-meets-Jennifer-Tilly-annoying. She can’t act either, which makes her screen time achingly unpleasant. If she had been an extra, I wouldn’t have minded. But as it stands, I was left clamouring for a haughty Keira Knightley in a bodice. I didn’t get it: she’s not interesting, her character’s not interesting. Her character is meant to be a guardian of an ancient temple, but she’s also meant to be a bit smarmy and a bit bitchy. She should have been left behind at the start. The romance is so forced, they have no chemistry. Unlike the relationship between Bloom and Knightley in Pirates (where you instantly believe that romance in their first two scenes), there is nothing going on between these characters over the course of these hours. There is also Sir Ben Kingsley and you might think that he would be kind of engaging, but, no, he is clearly there just for a paycheque. I will admit that his story is pretty interesting (I have not quite seen that type of motivation before).

Moraitis
It’s very The Lion King, that whole dynamic. He is very Scar-like in that regard.

Maddocks
Yes, but not as fun. Not as enjoyable. This Nizam-character ain’t doing anything. He’s bald and he has a goatee.

Mike Newell’s work here makes sometimes outrageous and often indulgent Gore Verbinski look like an absolute master of his craft. Newell has helmed some fine flicks in the past, usually of a smaller, more intimate nature than this kind of thing, but Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire proved he could make a big-budget spectacular that had a lot of personality, a lot of maturity and a lot of heart. And a lot of visual quality. This has none of those things– Newell and cinematographer John Seale just keep the camera moving at all times, and it gives us no sense of geography. The early fight scenes in the film are utterly incomprehensible. Admittedly, they get better as the damn thing wears on, but this is small comfort. This is the kind of story that demands a more classical look, something that will endure for future generations. A visual style akin to something like… I dunno…

Pirates of the Caribbean.

Instead we’re zooming in, zooming out, shaking all about, treated to a bit of awful CG and a rather bland score by Harry Gregson-Williams, and expected to swallow it all up. The editing, too, has major issues, and the entire first half of the film just moves way too fast, cutting from one scene of one plot to one scene of another plot, and then back again. Nothing is given room to breathe or settle in, and it will give you a migraine even if you don’t get migraines.

Moraitis
I do agree. The fight sequences and special effects shots are a little too busy and cluttered (there are maybe a little too much detail in the CGI shots that sometimes threaten to overtake the human dimension of the story). It seems as if Newell had let the special effects guys run rampant and overwhelm the story. The environment does not have an appropriate sense of space. It feels like they have built these giant buildings one on top of the other in these ancient cities.

Maddocks
It’s a shame, though, since the story has potential, and with the talent involved, it could have been the first truly enjoyable video game-based film. Alfred Molina is a lot of fun as a kind of low-rent John Rhys-Davies (although he is probably more expensive than Rhys-Davies), and there’s an action sequence late in the game that is quite entertaining, but that’s about it. Otherwise, it’s just dross.

Moraitis
There is not necessarily a lot to love in this film, but there is certainly a lot to like. I have never played the game, but I can certainly see why someone like Mike Newell would be interested in this material.

Mike Newell may have made his reputation with smaller-scale British dramas and comedies about difficult emotions and interesting, unpredictable relationships, but he does think in terms of big, set-pieces. If you look at something like Four Weddings, for instance, that is nothing if not a series of well-choreographed, written and performed set-pieces- his Harry Potter film is probably the least story-driven and more event driven of the franchise, as well- and he again finds joy in the arrangement of spectacle or more dynamic one-on-one sequences involving characters fighting one another for power and position.

Maddocks
I do not really have a problem with the story. For this kind of film and material, I thought that the story was pretty good.

Moraitis
The story has clear parallels, as well, to the modern world, and- despite the giant budget and the association with the Bruckheimer brand-name- the storytellers make some important, pointed points about contemporary power struggles without being too on the nose. Although it is ultimately about doing the right thing, the importance of the bonds of brotherhood and being true to yourself- two classical Disney themes, and very much evident in the similarly-themed The Lion King- it also about trying to face up to truths that are difficult, and respecting different cultures that occupy other lands. Granted it is the Disney version of these ideals, but there is a certain amount of daring in making a film of this big a budget and willing to depict certain other religious sensibilities with respect and portray the importance of justice and understanding even in a troubled time.

Maddocks
I think there is a kernel of something in there. It is not like Doom, which is just people shooting at each other. I have no problem with those lessons at all. I just think that children can find them in better films.

Moraitis
I have seen a lot of not-very-successful films recently that have dealt in some ways with myth and legend- Disney’s Hercules and Dreamworks’ Sinbad- but this has a nice quality, as the writers and its director Mike Newell have a clearer, more specified understanding of myth in storytelling, and adopt a lot of the modes- for instance, Jungian theories about a clearly defined hero’s journey and (the mischief-maker).

Although I agree with you about the female lead (she is more whining than winning, here)…

Maddocks
She actually looks like character from a Cecile B. DeMille film. But there is something incorrect about her presence. She’s meant to be a mystical, faithful figure, but he’s not exotic- she’s just the girl from around the corner. That might be a part of her charm, but I am yet to be charmed by her. I think that might be a casting problem. I do not know if that is her fault or not, but I was not impressed.

Moraitis
Sir Ben Kinsley does what he is asked to do, and he is effective as a Scar/Claudius-esque villain with an eye always on his brother’s throne. But- although he is not the obvious choice- Gyllenhaal is versatile enough to pull off the kind of charismatic swagger, underdog determination and rat-a-tat delivery asked of this type of enterprise. I think the reason the casting works is precisely because he is American and coming into this very British family-dynamic. There is a little bit of a disconnect, but the casting of the other actors compensate for that.

Maddocks
I really think it is in the vocal part of his performance. It is just that he does not sound right. You have to have someone who sounds like he is an organic part of his universe and he just does not sound like he should be there- Arterton too. You can get away with that in the ‘30s, but, now, there is such diversity in actors that you can find someone who is an organic part of the universe.

You need someone stronger. One of the downfalls of the Pirates sequels is that they rested on Bloom’s shoulders, not Depp’s shoulders (which is something that they seem to be correcting with the newest instalment). To make these big, immense blockbusters work, you need someone with a big presence.

Moraitis
Like Russell Crowe?

Maddocks
If you are looking at the classics, they work because the principles are engaging and were believable in their stories.

Moraitis
But if you look at the likes of Heston and Douglas, they were playing Old Testament-style alpha males, but if you look at the recent run of blockbusters, there is a movement towards a more internalized, New Testament performance-style- where the characters are ready to embrace their emotions. So, there is a modern sensibility to the hero’s characterizations that extends beyond revenge and bloodshed. Professor Christopher Frayling has talked extensively about this in regards to Gladiator.

Maddocks
Maybe that’s what is wrong, then. These are action/adventure films. I want fun. If I want to see my protagonists internalize whatever they are feeling, I will see a Sam Mendes film or a Joe Wright film. I will give it a Fail.

Moraitis
Oh, I thought it was better than that. Credit.