The Sands of Stupidity

If someone were to base a movie on the most popular board game in America, we’d get a couple of hours of old roadsters and little dogs trying to buy real estate in Atlantic City.

Obviously, no one is going to pay 10 bucks to watch that, which is why no one has ever made a movie version of Monopoly. Yet studios keep making movies out of video games, which are essentially the same thing with better graphics.

As has now been proven time and time and time again, video games do not make compelling movies because they are not inherently cinematic. Video games are a test of skill and the ability to master whatever tricks you need to get you to the next level. But movies are purely emotional. It’s an entirely different kind of experience.

The latest video game movie to fail is “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” which tries to re-create the gaming experience by racing from one action scene to the next. But even with all the action, it turns out to be a terrible bore.

Part of the problem is that the action scenes are largely all the same, with swordfights, dagger fights and characters leaping from one rooftop to the next (I’ve never played the original game, but I’m guessing it involves an awful lot of leaping). Director Mike Newell is obviously trying to capture the magic of adventure films of the past, but what he winds up with is “Raiders of the Least Ark.”

Once upon a time, Newell made wonderful, character-driven stories, such as “Enchanted April,” “Donnie Brasco” and the sublime “Four Weddings and a Funeral.” But apparently he has lost his touch. Where his earlier movies were smart, “Prince of Persia” is fatally banal.

Maybe it is all of those computer-generated special effects. Sure, computer effects may seem perfectly fitting in a movie based on a video game -- which is nothing but effects -- but they tend to drown out all acting and any efforts to create a character.

Suffering the most from this overabundance of effects is a buff Jake Gyllenhaal, who stars as an ancient Persian boy from the streets who was adopted by the kindly king to live as a prince. While his brothers lay siege to a holy city, he proves himself in battle (his brilliant strategy is to go in from the back). As a prize, he is given the city’s beautiful princess (Gemma Arterton) to be his future bride.

The two bicker in the time-honored tradition of romantic comedies, but without any of the humor or credibility. Meanwhile, the romance takes a back seat to the increasingly ridiculous story, which involves a dagger that has the power to turn back time, at least for a minute.

Horrifyingly, the writers tried to use this idiotic story to make political points: The Persian army invaded the sacred city because of inaccurate and trumped-up information it was hiding daggers of mass destruction. The man behind the throne (the vice king, as it were) argues that a man he knows is innocent be put to death without a trial, because a trial “will only give him a stage for his sedition.” And the fighting eventually threatens to bring on an Armageddon that will destroy all life on the planet.

The story is convoluted and periodically nonsensical, and it becomes more dull as the movie drags on. If you find yourself in the theater growing bored, you might want to spend some of your time trying to figure out why Gyllenhaal is trying to use an English accent.