or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Prince Of Persia Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prince Of Persia Post Release

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
It came out over here this week, and I actually enjoyed a lot of it. With hindsight I don't understand quite why I enjoyed it so much, but I did.

Gyllenhaal is quite good in the lead role. The accent takes a bit getting used to, as does his immaculately trimmed beard, but I really did like him. Gemma Arterton has little to do except look pretty and make snide remarks to Gyllenhaal, but that mostly worked for me. the chemistry starts off a bit naff but in the end seems pretty solid to me. Ben Kingsley is servicable as the bad guy and in some scenes he is hilariously over the top (when we get introduced to the assassin cult, for example. His facial expressions in that scene are solid gold). Alfred Molina's character worked for me. He's always good, and he makes the annoying comedy sidekick actually funny! the other characters are very light, but decent enough.

The movie looks pretty stunning (the big FX scene near the end which is in all the trailers, the ruins collapsing and the prince sliding along the sand looks better on screen than in the trailer, but it's still a bit Mummy Returns). the cityscapes and landscapes (the latter of which I'm not sure are location shots or CGI) are very beautiful looking. There are some impressive sets on display as well, with a shitload of extra's as well. Very old fashioned (like most of the movie, actually) which works for me. The major problem was that the acrobatics are pretty decent (David Belle is credited for the parkour scenes), but horribly cut: nearly all the fight scenes are badly edited and filmed with way too many close-ups, incredibly cheap looking slow motion (there's some speed ramping, but mostly of it is just not very good looking slow motion). Also, the parkour isn't half as impressive as it was in District 13, or as magical looking as a great wire-fu flick. I was disappointed by it, as Newell's Harry Potter flick had some of the best looking and easy to follow action sequences of recent years. I guess there was a different cinematographer and/or editor on this flick.

The script is all over the place (I'd love to read Jordan Mechner's original screen story. The script is credited to-I think-four different writers, and it shows). It often is meandering and without any sense of urgency. The set pieces are very decent but in between there's an awful lot of awfully boring exposition. I liked the characters and the way it incorporates several elements from the game (the ending especially) and the Dagger Of Time effects is pretty gorgeous and used sparingly enough that it doesn't become boring. It's not a brilliant script by any means with all the poor pacing and general lack of direction, but it still is servicable enough that I (mostly) didn't notice the flaws until after it finished.

Oh yeah, the soundtrack is totally forgettable. Except for the atrocious Alanis Morisette end credits song which I couldn't forget fast enough.

Damn, I made it sound pretty awful, while I actually really did enjoy myself. weird.
post #2 of 63
I caught it in Imax, which helped. The story itself isn't bad, but a lot of the dialogue is terrible. Gyllenhaal makes for a pretty engaging hero, but his likeably cocky attitude just made me wish he was in a better flick. Arterton basically has the role that Keira Knightly had in "Pirates". With similarly hot-but-dull results.

And as mentioned above, it's yet another movie that thinks that cutting up the action into a million shots gives it more energy. The action sequences actually capture the acrobatics of the game, but it's just too friggin' frenetic.

Oh, and I don't know if the whole Iraq allegory was admirable or bizarre. Maybe a bit of both. I'm not sure how many summertime family Disney movies have story parallels to the war on terror.
post #3 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resistant to Change View Post
Oh, and I don't know if the whole Iraq allegory was admirable or bizarre. Maybe a bit of both. I'm not sure how many summertime family Disney movies have story parallels to the war on terror.
Oh yeah, I completely forgot to mention that. I felt much the same, rolled my eyes when the King talked about his "allies not liking it when we attack countries without evidence". It was just so heavy handed...
post #4 of 63
Such clunky direction, those random shots of the hassassins chasing them cut-in between those interpersonal conversations in the desert were huge "WTF" moments. Really grating... Arterton was just awful, she was basically just playing Io from CLASH in a different costume. Talk about one note. I really wanted to like this thing, but I couldn't get the past the ridiculously terrible direction. Desperately needed another week in POST or a new editor or something. Just weird. Gylennhaal was okay as the Prince, would rather have seen Naveen Andrews as many have lamented, wasted opportunity. Here's hoping if this thing is a hit and/or we get a sequel, they can get Naveen to play the "Dark" Prince or something... also, get a decent director.
post #5 of 63
Fuck you, Mike Newell!
post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethos View Post
Oh yeah, I completely forgot to mention that. I felt much the same, rolled my eyes when the King talked about his "allies not liking it when we attack countries without evidence". It was just so heavy handed...
There is an interview with Newell where he said two of the writers were young guys from California who hated Bush and wanted to put the politics in and he went along with it.

http://www.timeout.com/film/features...of-persia.html
post #7 of 63
I agree very much with Sethos. It's got a whole swathe of problems but I walked out thinking it was pretty good.

The action is ok but disappointing. There have been some absolute travistyies of action scenes in the last decade but this isn't that bad. It's more of a pity since the gymnastics should be accentuated. Instead it happens and you can tell that what happened was cool, you just didn't get a really good look at it. The knife throwing fights was good, as was the brief whip battle.

I thought there were some silly plot holes. Like why the Hasassains don't attack at the campfire, then wait till the Persian army turns up and then has a go. The stuff with the knife breaking the seal and ending the world didn't really make sense to me. Jake G basically makes it work, so theoretically it would have worked for Ben Kingsley too, right?

I liked Molina. I liked that he embraced the weird british accent thing everyone was doing and just went full cockney.

It was also nice that the brothers got a bit to do. They initially seem like assholes, but earn their redemption in the original timeline and it leaves it in a good place at the end.

So with better direction and a tighter script this could have been a real classic. As it stands, it's simply fairly enjoyable entertainment.
post #8 of 63
I thought the Iraq allegory was obvious, but it didn't really disrupt the plot so I didn't mind. Ben Kingsley's character needed some false pretense for invasion.

Though in hindsight, the start of the film is odd since it's so obvious that the invasion is wrong and yet Dastan is suppossed to be doing heroic things. Also, is there any greater cliche than the bad guy in an Arabian Nights story being the brother-to-the-king/2-in-command/vizier ?
post #9 of 63
It was enjoyable while I was watching it but it's already starting to fade from my memory. Good looking people, doing good looking stuff, in good looking places, with a heavy dose of missing WMDs allegory, at least at the beginning. That's the full extend of this.
post #10 of 63
Jake completely charmed the pants off me in this - would really like to see him try more action-based roles.
post #11 of 63
I thought Gyllenhaal was pretty bad, he almost has no presence whatsoever. He coasts by on some 'aw shucks' type grins and looks, but it came off completely dishonest and fake to me. Also, the banter between him and the princess is horrible and forced. Interestingly, I think the oldest brother did the best job, his whole arc was almost believable.

Everything about the action has already been said, let me just add that I certainly would have used some more of the time-rewind scenes during moments of action (there were one or two), not people standing around and being bewildered in 'sand-time' while events rewound.
post #12 of 63
This was passable entertainment, so I don't regret going to see it this morning (matinees where I live only cost $3.50, so it's usually to my benefit to see things in theaters rather than wait and see until rental, which costs more), but man was the story bad.

I know we don't expect much from videogame adaptations, and I figure that's why I found the film reasonable enough, but this really is the worst kind of storytelling. Most of the plot is inferred by Dastan as he goes along and we just have to take his word for it that that's what is happening. And it really doesn't help that Arterton's character solely exists to deliver endless exposition.

Knowing the game and just seeing how the movie was progressing, I knew we were in for the whole big rewind, but I really don't understand how that was accomplished. They pretty explicitly said that stabbing the sandglass would screw everyone, but I guess if you only stab it a little you're okay? No clue.

Worst plothole, though, has to be the "sanctuary." Nothing about this part made any sense and it's just totally tacked on to the film. It's a pretty huge plot point that you can just get rid of the dagger by stabbing it into a rock. So why do the princess' people even keep the damn thing? If their whole deal is to never use it, it seems, why not just be done with it? I suppose it's best not to think about it, as the movie doesn't outside of Arterton's huge expository speech right before they get there, and then it's just dropped. Her big speech from earlier on the Sands of Time might have explained why this was a last resort, but hell if I can remember any of it.

Also found it pretty hilarious that they were shocked Kingsley's forces knew about the sanctuary. Considering he knew everything else about the sands of time, it would be a safe bet to think he might know of it. Granted, I was wondering why they didn't just throw the dagger away into the desert, but that's just me. I guess they needed it to prove Dastan's innocence, but it would still work to just toss the damn thing.

Also gotta agree that a lot of the direction was bad. There were some nice set pieces, but a lot of terrible slow motion shots, especially stuff involving the Persian League of Shadows, or whatever those guys were.
post #13 of 63
The editing and especially the time manipulations (slow motion and fast motion) really stuck out as amateurish, which I wouldn't have expected in such a big film.

Perhaps Newell's loose directorial style didn't create the desired pace, so they had to fix it in post? It often felt like the editor was hitting the fast-forward button when presenting certain expository items, which really destroyed any possibility of a coherent mood at the beginning of the film*. Two particular moments I'm thinking of are where the two gates are being discussed, and the camera zips around, and when the camera zooms out from Dastan during the siege to his brothers waiting on the outskirts of the city. Those just felt really intrusive and unnecessary.

The slow motion, on the other hand, could've been handled more gracefully. *Maybe* they were going for something stylish there, but it pulled me out of the movie instead.

Jake Gyllenhaal was the best thing about the movie, but given the ensemble feel of the first fifteen minutes or so, all of the characterizations failed to find any definition until the end of the film. It felt like "Kingdom of Heaven" at first, but then it switched rails to "the Scorpion King."

EDIT: *Read that time out article linked in this thread by rainbowtrout. It pretty much says as much.
post #14 of 63
post #15 of 63
"She's magnetic and hateful."

Pretty much sums her up. I'm not sure if it's her personal character, or the roles she's been stuck with, but she always comes across as a bit of a shrew, despite y'know, being attractive.
post #16 of 63
Pretty boring film. All I can say is that if you have any interest in watching this, you're better off watching the great Douglas Fairbanks' The Thief of Bagdad.. twice.
post #17 of 63
I'd still give Best Video Game Movie Ever to Silent Hill. It did a wonderful job of capturing just how fucked-up, bleak and Japanese the games are. Plus, no one in Prince of Persia had a barbed-wire vagina.

Videogame movies are a hybrid of cash-in and remake, so it should be no surprise that they crest at mediocrity.
post #18 of 63
No interest in the film but the review was aces.
post #19 of 63
I liked it more than Devin. I thought the main couple kinda worked by the end of the film. And I also liked the CGI in most of the scenes, including the cities. There were some Minas Tirith-type shots that were quite stunning. I'd give it 7 out of 10.
post #20 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Plus, no one in Prince of Persia had a barbed-wire vagina.
It kinda sounds like Arterton did.
post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriegaffe View Post
I liked it more than Devin. I thought the main couple kinda worked by the end of the film. And I also liked the CGI in most of the scenes, including the cities. There were some Minas Tirith-type shots that were quite stunning. I'd give it 7 out of 10.
I could've enjoyed the effects, but the editor seemed determined to fast-forward through all that 'artsy boring stuff'... ;]
post #22 of 63
Cynical, boring mess. The film is staggeringly incompetent on a number of tech/craft levels, especially so for the new Big Disney Adventure Movie. The script is painful to watch in motion. Just awful. I haven't so seriously considered walking out on a film in years, but once the audience definitively turned against it (on the "...because it's sacred" line), there was some entertainent to be found.
post #23 of 63
Looks like a huge bomb at the box office...

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/midn...over-original/
post #24 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
"merely ho hum"

That was my guess from the marketing. Confirmed. Rental it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
Pretty boring film.
That may elevate a few other video game adaptions above POP then. Others may not be "good", but a couple are anything but "boring".
post #25 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
That may elevate a few other video game adaptions above POP then. Others may not be "good", but a couple are anything but "boring".
I liked "Hitman" enough... for all its sheer ridiculousness, it was also short and quick with two good performances. PoP only manages one.

Silent Hill also had some nice swaths, but it was also a chore.

PoP's greatest virtue is that it was made by film makers who didn't try to sell it to the video gaming audience –wise enough to know that they'd rather play the game than see a movie anywise.

On a side note, I wonder if this movie is more likely to make its money back through its videogame tie-in? What a sad state of affairs.
post #26 of 63
Excellent. I happily look forward to not seeing this movie.
post #27 of 63
I'd say the original MORTAL COMBAT is the best video game movie. Like Devin notes, that's not to say it is a good movie. Though I also haven't seen that film since it was in the theater. My memory could be way off.
post #28 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyWorm View Post
I'd say the original MORTAL COMBAT is the best video game movie. Like Devin notes, that's not to say it is a good movie. Though I also haven't seen that film since it was in the theater. My memory could be way off.
I think that's actually pretty accurate. I don't think it could be confused for a good film, but I can't think of any other video game movie that comes close just in terms of sheer entertainment value.
post #29 of 63
I want to ask the people who have seen it: is the whiteness of the cast as distracting as it looks? When I first heard about the casting, I was a bit annoyed but ok with it. Then I watched the trailer with the sound off last night and felt that it didn't look in any way shape or form like a story about middle eastern people execpt for some of the buildings in "Persia".

Is this an issue for people who've seen the film, is it distracting? I read Devin's review and while I'm going to wait for the DVD, I'm staying at my mom's house right now and she has highspeed internet. I decided to fire up the trailer last night and was shocked by what I saw
post #30 of 63
Since they aren't being crushed under the weight of their white guilt like you are, they probably aren't giving it any thought. They probably figure they're just watching a dumb disposable Disney blockbuster made for white people so who gives a shit?
post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
Since they aren't being crushed under the weight of their white guilt like you are, they probably aren't giving it any thought. They probably figure they're just watching a dumb disposable Disney blockbuster made for white people so who gives a shit?
Huh? I doubt other Chewers turn off their brains as easily or as readily as you suggest
post #32 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Huh? I doubt other Chewers turn off their brains as easily or as readily as you suggest
I think he's saying the movie doesn't even deserve the level of thought you're suggesting, and judging by the trailers I'd guess he's right.
post #33 of 63
It's not distracting. The film's awkward attempts at epic romance indicate that it's meant to be taken with very little regard to history or culture. Whatever's on screen is more or less your typical Hollywood amalgamate of the middle east... a melting pot of Arabic, Persian, Indian and Caucasian styles. The fact that the actors aren't native to the region can't be argued as a detractor because the "region" in the film, while Persia in name, *isn't*. It's a fantasy land.
post #34 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post
I think he's saying the movie doesn't even deserve the level of thought you're suggesting, and judging by the trailers I'd guess he's right.
I stick by Devin's statement (that someone has in their sig) about picking up heroin if you want to turn your mind off


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadjimurad View Post
It's not distracting. The film's awkward attempts at epic romance indicate that it's meant to be taken with very little regard to history or culture. Whatever's on screen is more or less your typical Hollywood amalgamate of the middle east... a melting pot of Arabic, Persian, Indian and Caucasian styles. The fact that the actors aren't native to the region can't be argued as a detractor because the "region" in the film, while Persia in name, *isn't*. It's a fantasy land.
Fair enough, and thanks for the info. That's what I wanted to know, basically. It's disapointing because Persian history is fascinating and it would be great to use it as a backdrop for some cool action. Oh well. I just watched that trailer and couldn't spot any Persian people, and that perplexed me. I thought Gyllenhall would look less white, but no, he's really really white looking in the flick

Anyway thanks again
post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Fair enough, and thanks for the info. That's what I wanted to know, basically. It's disapointing because Persian history is fascinating and it would be great to use it as a backdrop for some cool action.
I think there are some great stories in Herodotus' "Histories" that are ripe for cinematic adaptations. The story of Cyrus the Great, for instance, is absolutely epic. That would be a real "Prince of Persia" film if ever there was one.
post #36 of 63
I don't really see how all the actors being white would be "distracting." If all the other actors were Middle Eastern except Jake G, that's one thing. This is like when all Nazis are played by British actors, or cavemen speak English. Inconsistency is what is distracting... like Jake's accent apparently.

But if such things bother you in concept, Kate, then you've really answered your own question I think. It will bother you.
post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadjimurad View Post
I think there are some great stories in Herodotus' "Histories" that are ripe for cinematic adaptations. The story of Cyrus the Great, for instance, is absolutely epic. That would be a real "Prince of Persia" film if ever there was one.
Absolutely. I may be a fan of the guy who ended their empire*, but the persians were pretty cool and deserve better than a bland white washing. I mean that's what's so lame about this, if it would be less bland at least if it had a little ethnic flavor but instead it was Gyllenhalled into wonderbread. Oh well

PS My dad reads Herodotus for fun

*Megas Alexandros!
post #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
I stick by Devin's statement (that someone has in their sig) about picking up heroin if you want to turn your mind off




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Mr5AQeTUA


So, even if the filmmakers have no interest in engaging the audience on even the lowest intellectual level, we should try to keep our "minds turned on" watching Marmaduke for what reason exactly?

I guess I see it as a 2 way street, and I don't see Prince of Persia putting forth the effort, so basically, like Sebastian said, who gives a shit about this shitty disposable Disney Blockbuster?
post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyWorm View Post
I don't really see how all the actors being white would be "distracting." If all the other actors were Middle Eastern except Jake G, that's one thing. This is like when all Nazis are played by British actors, or cavemen speak English. Inconsistency is what is distracting... like Jake's accent apparently.

But if such things bother you in concept, Kate, then you've really answered your own question I think. It will bother you.
I don't want to derail this and I've had my question answered, but to answer you I'm fine with seeing one kind of European portray another. Often times this can be very cleverly done (like on ROME , where British actors were used to portray the aristocracy and Italian extras all were cast in the slave or low class roles). This is, to my mind, a different kettle of fish

Anyway, derail over.
post #40 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Mr5AQeTUA


So, even if the filmmakers have no interest in engaging the audience on even the lowest intellectual level, we should try to keep our "minds turned on" watching Marmaduke for what reason exactly?

I guess I see it as a 2 way street, and I don't see Prince of Persia putting forth the effort, so basically, like Sebastian said, who gives a shit about this shitty disposable Disney Blockbuster?

If a filmaker makes a film in the manner you suggest, I'm not going to like the finished product. Even the most gleefully stupid films need to be clever or interesting on some level for me to enjoy them (GI JOE). I can't turn my mind off and suddenly enjoy a boring, terrible film.

To each their own though
post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
I can't turn my mind off and suddenly enjoy a boring, terrible film.

To each their own though
Wait a second, I never said I wanted to turn my mind off and enjoy shitty movies. I'm saying there are some movies not worth putting forth any energy thinking about, or even discussing, because they are in fact so boring and terrible.
post #42 of 63
It's one thing to not turn your brain off, but it's another thing to go into Walt fucking Disney's Prince of fucking Persia starring Whitey McWhite Jake Gylenhaal and be distracted by the fact that they haven't cast it with real Persians.
post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post
Wait a second, I never said I wanted to turn my mind off and enjoy shitty movies. I'm saying there are some movies not worth putting forth any energy thinking about, or even discussing, because they are in fact so boring and terrible.

I guess if a film is not worth thinking about -- on any level-- then in my book it's not worth watching. Anyway, not trying to insult peoples tastes just letting you guys know how I roll
post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
It's one thing to not turn your brain off, but it's another thing to go into Walt fucking Disney's Prince of fucking Persia starring Whitey McWhite Jake Gylenhaal and be distracted by the fact that they haven't cast it with real Persians.
IMHO If you call your movie the Prince of PERSIA , and don't feature any actors from this part of the globe...


It's distracting. Doesn't matter if Disney made it or not
post #45 of 63
Where were the Greeks in Alexander or 300, or the Scots in Braveheart? I don't get why people are getting up in arms about this when it's been standard practice in Hollywood for eons. Hell one of the better known films about the War of Independence is directed by a German and stars a trio of Australians.
post #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
IMHO If you call your movie the Prince of PERSIA , and don't feature any actors from this part of the globe...


It's distracting. Doesn't matter if Disney made it or not
The distraction you'd be experiencing probably is a result of whatever form of autism it is you suffer from. I'm really not saying that to be cruel -- it's become obvious to me that you have some sort of low-level autism. I'm going to try to not get annoyed with you from now on.

Most people would not be distracted by the lack of Persians. They might notice it, but then they'd accept that this is the film they are watching, move on, then forget all about the film a few hours later.
post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
Where were the Greeks in Alexander or 300, or the Scots in Braveheart? I don't get why people are getting up in arms about this when it's been standard practice in Hollywood for eons. Hell one of the better known films about the War of Independence is directed by a German and stars a bunch a trio of Australians.
Oliver Stone made an interesting casting decision in Alexander by having the Greeks played by Irishmen. This turned the whole Brits-as-Romans thing on it's head, using the lower class rougher people of Ireland to represent the more Barbarian hill dwelling greeks. Plus, there is speculation that Sekander's people in Macedon were distantly related to the celts, anyway

And as previously stated I have less of a problem with one European portraying a different kind of European. I'd even be cool with an Arab playing a Persian.. this cast is just so white though it's really embarrassing, IMHO. It's like making a film called "The Caucasian King" and casting Idris Elba as the lead
post #48 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'd still give Best Video Game Movie Ever to Silent Hill. It did a wonderful job of capturing just how fucked-up, bleak and Japanese the games are. Plus, no one in Prince of Persia had a barbed-wire vagina.

Videogame movies are a hybrid of cash-in and remake, so it should be no surprise that they crest at mediocrity.
Put me on team Silent Hill. When the air raid siren kicks in, it's a fully authentic experience.

PoP:
Agreed, the level of craft was shoddy and/or inconsistent. Credit goes to the actors for keeping the whole thing from sinking into the desert.

Some of the supporting cast were really earning their money - can't believe the eldest brother was the nerdy welsh dude from Coupling. Kept waiting for Toby Kebbel to shiv someone too. He had a good moment with the two bodies dropping through the roof in front of and behind him. It felt somewhat like Dastan had pulled some moves like that before. It made me wish there'd been more set-up of the brothers' relationship, so we cared more when it was put on the line and that Dastan's parkour was a source of long-suffering for them.

Liked the business around the knife-throwing black guy through Molina. Though his action pieces were similarly poorly handled along with the rest.

Only the ostrich race and surrounding scenes had any real pep to them.
Newell's style of direction must work better with that sort of organized chaos than super controlled/designed action set-pieces. Or he chose badly on his Stunt Coordinator/B Team.

The Hassassins were another missed stroke. There was some business about them being an outlawed group or something, but it never felt like they had anything at stake. Had Kingsley promised them some great new position in his empire? It didn't feel like. Just that they were these ninja guys who liked fighting and snake husbandry. Scarface McSnakeboy was just a nothing. There was no dramatic weight to his presence. All the pirates and navy dudes in the PotC had clear goals (in the first two at least) and desires. Razor-whip dude was a bit more interesting, particularly when he used the whips to swing himself around. It allowed the action more fluidity and unpredictability.

I liked Jake actually, but he needed to be a full-on monkey boy, scampering over everything. There were times where he was just essentially kicking a wall when running away from Pursuer X. Maybe he only had time to get buffed for show, but didn't get into any serious gymnastic moves.

Loved Devin's description of his expression. I wish they'd parlayed that into his character. A bit simple, but game and good-hearted. Less of the attempts at snappy wit.

My audience wanted to enjoy it and Molina really gave them an opportunity to engage. There seemed to be good will there. But at the very least it had the wrong guy helming it.


- As an aside to the Hassassins storyline. Just before Kingsley goes to visit with them, he gets a report from one of his palace underlings that weird things have been going on, including a horse disappearing. With all the snakey business, I was kind of hoping they were alluding to the presence of a monster snake. Does the game feature anything like that?
post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowtrout View Post
Looks like a huge bomb at the box office...

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/midn...over-original/
The Mouse will not be getting a POTC level franchise from this.
post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
The Mouse will not be getting a POTC level franchise from this.
Thank God.

I saw this last night and had to fight off sleep during most of it. It's an astonishingly boring movie that never comes alive. I was really surprised at how painfully boring it was. I was never once engaged by anything and found myself either dozing off or laughing uncontrollably at the awful dialog.

Worse than Robin Hood.

So far, this summer is pretty much tied with 2001 as the worst movie summer of our generation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Prince Of Persia Post Release