Prince of Persia is actually pretty good!

[bluestarultor]

The characters work well and the action is okay. It's overall not a bad movie.

Sadly, I was unable to see the end, because we had rush Phantom off to work. But we plan on seeing it again.

[synkr0nized]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Sadly, I was unable to see the end, because we had rush Phantom off to work.

loooooool

You paid to go to a movie and didn't stay for it all and are thus going to pay to go again?! Ridiculous.

[Sithdarth]

It was actually a relatively good movie. There were just enough moments where you went "Hey I remember having to do something like that in the game." While at the same time being basically its own story. The banter was also good. I think a Warrior Within movie with the same team might be equally as good. This might go down in history as one of the best movie adaptations ever done.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by synkr0nized

loooooool

You paid to go to a movie and didn't stay for it all and are thus going to pay to go again?! Ridiculous.

Hey, not my fault they fucked around with his schedule.

I think the fact that I actually am willing to pay to see it again just for the last 5 minutes says something as to its quality.

[BloodyMage]

I heard it was terrible, and I trust my sources.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It got 40% on RT with average rating of 5/10 which is pretty bad. It doesn't even pass the SMB test of the best movies being between 20-30%/70-80% on the meter.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by BloodyMage

I heard it was terrible, and I trust my sources.

Your sources need to define "terrible."

As an objective third party, I'll list off the good and bad:

Pros: great dialog, light comedy, serious parts done incredibly well, rock-solid characters, a complex plot that keeps you guessing, the best ranged combat sequence I've ever seen, superior special effects, good music that fits the movie, great acting, wonderful stunt work, no crapping out and doing any of the action in CG instead of real actors

Cons: fight scenes tend to make use of shakycam, bad CG snakes, inappropriate use of the word "poison"




This is coming from a guy who's never played the games and therefore isn't colored by them. As a standalone movie, it is objectively good. If you're looking for a carbon copy of the first game, from what I know of it, you will be disappointed that it's not.




Edit:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

It got 40% on RT with average rating of 5/10 which is pretty bad. It doesn't even pass the SMB test of the best movies being between 20-30%/70-80% on the meter.

To be fair, the panning is strictly from the critics. The RT community gave it a 70%.




Edit for below:
Honestly, for me it was more just her tone all the time. She didn't exactly fall over the guy and spent half the movie running off and doing a damn good job taking care of herself. It wasn't until nearly the end that the two actually started liking each other and he was the one that made the first move. She was otherwise going to ditch him again. It really came off to me like his persistence won her over.

[CelesJessa]

I thought it was pretty good. I've never played the games before, but I was glad I didn't have to in order to understand what was going on.

The lead female kept annoying me for some reason though. I'm not sure why. I think it was because she was the stereotypical "strong yet I still need a maaan" female lead in every movie like this. (not really a spoiler, but some people don't like to know anything about something they're going to see.)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Your sources need to define "terrible."

I'll help by listed off some of major complaints I heard abuot it (note I haven't seen film, just relaying)
Biggest one was that the dialogue was horrible in that it explained everything that was happening in excruitating detail and beat you over the head with it and characters wuold stop every ten minutes and be like "we must do this!"
Other complaints were special effects were from the 90s, plot was convulted and characters cartoonish.
Also it about as historically accurate as the flinstones.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

I'll help by listed off some of major complaints I heard abuot it (note I haven't seen film, just relaying)
Biggest one was that the dialogue was horrible in that it explained everything that was happening in excruitating detail and beat you over the head with it and characters wuold stop every ten minutes and be like "we must do this!"
Other complaints were special effects were from the 90s, plot was convulted and characters cartoonish.
Also it about as historically accurate as the flinstones.

I'll tell you that there were only like three exposition dumps and they were all reasonable and relevant. Only one of them ran anywhere near too long, and that was explaining the dagger's story.

Also, the dialog was pretty damn good, with my only complaint being one character with a vendetta against... taxes. It was mildly humorous, but could have been done better. I'll agree on the "let's do this" bit, but it actually wasn't all that noticeable. My complaint is the "destiny" bit. That wears out its welcome by the end.

Also, the only bad special effects were plastic-looking snakes. Everything else was amazing.

And, uh, to put it lightly, expecting historical accuracy in any of The Prince of Persia is like expecting a singing dog. Maaybe you'll get a little hint of it, but overall, it's just not a good place to look for it.