User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 378 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 30 out of 378
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. BarryG
    Jun 3, 2010
    2
    That anyone could describe this movie as having "great acting" is just ridiculous. The prince couldn't decide whether he was British or American. Parts of the story didn't make any sense at all. Acting and script was terrible all round. Bad editing. Basically, just a stinking pile of crap.
  2. Sep 10, 2010
    2
    A disastrous movie, without a shadow of a doubt. Appalling acting, boring direction, washed out and run-of-the-mill action sequences. Really, really bland movie, regardless of whether you liked the videogames or not.
  3. Aug 19, 2010
    2
    I guess the script looks something like this;
    BOOM! (Something explodes),
    "Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!"
    BAM, BAM, BAM (Something fires),
    "Whaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!"
    CREAK ... CREAK ... CRACK!!! (Something breaks),
    "Yaaaaaaaaaaaa"
    Continue in this vein for the duration of the movie. If you enjoy noisy, pointless movies, look no further.
  4. Mar 11, 2011
    0
    Truly appalling. This movie cost 150 million dollars. What was that money spent on ? The actors sounded like they were rehearsing a play. The entire script had no coherence whatsoever.
    After watching this flick for only five minutes, I knew this would be bad. I had no idea how bad. It sucks the energy right out of you, and makes you cringe.
  5. johns
    Jun 1, 2010
    4
    This movie was boring and longer than it needed to be. I like jerry b movies but this one was over done. The acting was weak. The action was weak and the chi was circa 2000. I love simple movies but this one was not all that. i am sure it will do well with the intended demographic. I was not impressed it was like a ton of other flicks all wrapped up in one. I see that few reviewers ranked This movie was boring and longer than it needed to be. I like jerry b movies but this one was over done. The acting was weak. The action was weak and the chi was circa 2000. I love simple movies but this one was not all that. i am sure it will do well with the intended demographic. I was not impressed it was like a ton of other flicks all wrapped up in one. I see that few reviewers ranked it at about an 8 but 4 is were it ranks with me. Expand
  6. chenry
    May 31, 2010
    4
    I really wish I had some of my own Sands of Time so I could go back and avoid having to watch this movie. Lousy dialog, uninteresting story, boring characters, and pointless action sequences. Ben Kingsley delivers another paycheck performance. Everyone else seems bored or confused about what they're actually supposed to be doing in the movie.
  7. ColinP.
    May 30, 2010
    2
    Very very disappointing. The editing is especially bad, but there really is nothing good to say about this steaming heap.
  8. RonR.
    May 29, 2010
    1
    Simply horrible. I am not a fanboy of dissing movies...I wanted to love this movie based on the idea that I grew up with the franchise, love popcorn movies, and needed time away from the teenagers; but, man, oh, man...garbage.
  9. LB
    May 31, 2010
    1
    Took the boys to see "Prince of Persia" a movie based on a once popular video game about a prince who can scale walls and, with the help of his magic dagger, could turn back time! I wish I had a dagger like that, I'd turn back time to the point when I bought the movie tickets! The movie was a heaping vat of suckage! Th...e boys and I could not contain our laughter!
  10. kgm
    May 31, 2010
    4
    Basically the same sort of storyline we
  11. TahaA.
    May 31, 2010
    0
    Editing! Editing! They got it completely wrong. It was as if they needed to cut the movie by half an hour to get it under two hours, and it shows. You expect more from a $150 mil movie. Plus, Prince Dastan is not only the most acrobatic man in persia but also the most lucky and blessed. In so many sequences he was at peril and at the last moment got magically rescued by his girlfriend or Editing! Editing! They got it completely wrong. It was as if they needed to cut the movie by half an hour to get it under two hours, and it shows. You expect more from a $150 mil movie. Plus, Prince Dastan is not only the most acrobatic man in persia but also the most lucky and blessed. In so many sequences he was at peril and at the last moment got magically rescued by his girlfriend or his brother or so unfortunate shmuck who got in the way of an arrow or snake. Heck, I would not have been surprised if at his wish he had just reached his hand out and said 'soard' and it would have magically appeared out of no where. Complete trash! Expand
  12. TomE
    May 30, 2010
    4
    Meh. Kinda boring. Lots of fighting. Not terrible, but definitely not up to what I would expect for a high-budget Disney block-buster.
  13. adh
    Jun 10, 2010
    4
    A ok film, not really as great as the games and different to the games plus they removed the weird sand people from the film witch I wanted to see so was disappointed. It was ok but lacked in areas. Was a little bit long and my friend fell asleep a few times. good if you don
  14. Sep 25, 2010
    4
    With the big budget that it had i believed that it would be a great film....i was wrong. I give that vote for the stupid use of the budget, the banal recitation and the end, banaler than the history.
  15. Feb 2, 2011
    4
    After contemplating today on how I had to sit through this film twice, I knew I had to give my take on the attempt at entertainment. Was it a terrible movie? By no means. Was it good? Absolutely not. It runs it's course being so bland and predictable, it will satisfy the simplest viewers and the simplest viewers only. Everything about the film is obvious: The ending, the romance, theAfter contemplating today on how I had to sit through this film twice, I knew I had to give my take on the attempt at entertainment. Was it a terrible movie? By no means. Was it good? Absolutely not. It runs it's course being so bland and predictable, it will satisfy the simplest viewers and the simplest viewers only. Everything about the film is obvious: The ending, the romance, the "hidden" bad guy. In the end, "Prince of Persia" ends up being a B-version "Pirates of the Caribbean". Expand
  16. Jan 2, 2012
    3
    Gemma Arterton gives a basically annoying and cliche performance, but Jake Gyllenhaal gives a charming and funny performance. The movie is based on a video game so its storyline basically doomed the movie. But Prince of Persia is one of the most entertaining films of the year. I give this movie 31%.
  17. Jan 6, 2013
    3
    A movie that fales to even capture my interest with the running shots and then we go to a love story that doesn't have any development and leads to just a load of crap.
  18. Nov 30, 2013
    3
    A terrible video game movie that stands on top of a heap of bad video game movies, vying for Prince of the Mountain.

    The only things about this movie that are decent, are the visuals and the action. Past that, it's nothing but a hurricane of the worst Hollywood cliches, forced romance between two irritating characters, and a story that is a shadow of what was presented in the video game
    A terrible video game movie that stands on top of a heap of bad video game movies, vying for Prince of the Mountain.

    The only things about this movie that are decent, are the visuals and the action. Past that, it's nothing but a hurricane of the worst Hollywood cliches, forced romance between two irritating characters, and a story that is a shadow of what was presented in the video game series.

    Play any of the Prince of Persia games for a better experience, even the original 2D side scrollers.
    Expand
Metascore
50

Mixed or average reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 38
  2. Negative: 4 out of 38
  1. Mixing old-fashioned content and state of the art effects, this Jerry Bruckheimer production trades ‘pirates' for ‘princes' to revive the swashbuckling, sword fighting spirit of the sort Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn specialized.
  2. A handsome, fast-paced and innocuous adventure that's easy to take but lacks epic scale.
  3. Reviewed by: Leslie Felperin
    60
    Bruckheimer's passably enjoyable, antiquity-themed epic should satisfy its young male core demographic well enough, but won't connect with other auds on the level of Bruckheimer's "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise.