About Advertise
Prince of Pop

Prince of Pop

by Sarah Dawson / 21.05.2010

This is the kind of utterly ridiculous story that could only have originated in a video game aimed at 10 year old boys. An adopted Persian prince must save the world from destruction by preventing an enchanted dagger (with a jewel button on the hilt which allows you to travel back in time) from falling into the hands of an evil uncle who might just jab it into a giant underground hourglass, causing time to turn back far enough for him to NOT save his brother (the king) from being eaten by a lion, hence claiming the crown for himself.

But it’s not for me to try and tell you that there is no place for such grandiose fantasising of violent apocalypse in the minds of male pre-teens in this world. That’s an argument that was apparently lost a couple of centuries ago.

And it’s only one of the ways in which this film is bad. So instead I’ll list briefly some of the other zillion ways in which this film made me want to throw up:

Wire fighting sequences are fun. For a while. Jake Gyllenhaal doing a full length aerial ballet, in poofy pants, is one of the more absurd and tiresome spectacles to which I’ve been subjected in a while.

Er, the nation of Iran, I’m sure, will be fascinated to know that its historical dynasties were in fact made up of a bunch of pale-skinned wimps who spoke like Monty Python characters. Perhaps after the credits roll, they’ll all decide to drop the whole “Islamic State” thing, and nip off down the pub for a pint.

Any surprises in the twist regarding the identity of the baddie was foiled by the rather over-zealous application of black eyeliner on Ben Kingsley’s character.

It is not enough for the face of a lead actress to be pretty. Acting usually necessitates that it also be able to move somewhat. At least some of the parts other than her flappy lips endlessly spouting inane and pompous dialogue.

Who ever decided that Jake Gyllenhaal could ever play any kind of meaty hunk? He has a face like a platypus. He’s much better suited to films like Brokeback Mountain.

Okay, I’m bored now. Most of the time I felt like I was trying to keep my head above the surface of a horrible, strained undercurrent that made me feel like I was watching the local drama club’s performance of Aladdin. Overall, unlike Pirates of the Carribbean, Prince of Persia drops off the Bruckheimer conveyor belt like an old wet fish onto I&J factory floor.

Please, please, please let there not be a sequel. (Though I fear that any energy spent on such a protest is wasted.)

13   2
  1. Tara says:

    Yay. Fortified forewarning. Only shame, dont mock the local club.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  2. Roya 'Persian Princess' Varjavandi says:

    From an informed perspective, I just thought you all should know that Persian boys are far better looking than Jake Gyllenhaal. Why would they put a Jake instead of a good ol’ hairy-chested-hairy-shouldered Vahid, Farhad or Hassan? Who the hell is the Casting Director? Nobody tell ’em that Gyllenhaal ain’t no Persian prince?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  3. Sarah Dee says:

    I still have sand in uncomfortable places. Ugh.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  4. Anonymous says:

    ok. before i go on about the woman’s perspective, i would just like to say the gyllenhaal was a bad choice for the rrole but it had its reasons. reasons i cannot understand, but reasons nonetheless. now: yes us men do enjoy such visuals,but before you go off ripping of a classic odyssey, nay legacy, that is the prince of persia series, would just like to inform that the story line of this movie was so lossley based on the actual video game, it could be the V12 engined machine in a cosmopolitan magazine. i think i ranted enough.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  5. creepy steve says:

    you know what would be cool if they made the movie in that shitty 8-bit peasoupygreen pixels like it was on game boy, think how much they woud save on production.

    p.s i think to be culturally correct the women in the flick should have worn burqas

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  6. Sarah Dee says:

    @Anon – Opinions by people who spell loosely ‘lossley” don’t count.

    @Creepy – I agree. It would’ve hid that annoying chick’s face,

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  7. Anonymous says:

    @ Sarah Dee please reserve judgment for for more important things than things than typos. and if i’m not allowed to say my opinion surely this article has no point?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  8. Anonymous says:

    ooh shutdown.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  9. High Plains Merchant says:

    This film caused me to break up with my girlfriend. She kept going, “Oh, Jake Gyllenhaal is sooo hawt.” And I kept going, “Go tell it to your fucking mother. I don’t want to hear that shit.” And she said, “Oh, but his stomach was all sculptured.” And I said, “yeah, but even though that woman in the film can’t act for shit, she has a better ass than you do.” Then she said, “I bet Jake Gyllenhaal has a bigger dick than you do.” And I said, “I bet that dame doesn’t just lie there like a corpse when she gets fucked.” And she squealed, “Well if you think you’re getting any corpse sex tonight, keep dreaming.” And I said, “Oh, yeah, you say that now until you roll over in the night, your eyes brimming with daddy complexes and you whisper, ‘fuck me’ in my ear.” Then we didn’t speak on the ride home. When we got home, she said, “you’re sleeping on the couch.” I said, “this is my fucking apartment, you dumb cunt. You can go sleep on the balcony.” So she took her stuff and slept on the couch. I didn’t feel bad when I woke up the next morning.

    Anyway, she packed up her stuff and left the next morning. I think this film may have brought out some unspoken issues in our relationship. Anyway, here’s to Jake Gyllenhaal for the drunken undergrad sex I had last night. Cheers!

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  10. Anonymous says:

    @ Merchant – That is possibly the most awesome comment I have ever had on any Mahala article I’ve written.

    @Anon – What could be more important than typos? Typos cost lives.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  11. Sarah Dee says:

    ^ Er… Love from Sarah Dee

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  12. sleaze says:

    Merchant you are a legend, best piece of relationship counselling I have read, would love to see you having one a one with that sanctimonious prick Dr Phil.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  13. Roger Young says:


    Prince of Persia released on Friday. You posted your comment on Saturday. Does this mean you had drunken undergrad sex while she slept on the couch?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  14. High Plains Merchant says:

    @ Roger Young

    Nice try, asshole. I watched it at the press preview on Wednesday.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  15. Roger Young says:


    Easy tiger, just curious.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  16. Lizzy says:

    Ha ha ha ha!
    great article, great comments! THIS is why i keep coming back to this site 🙂

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  17. Alex says:

    I think that even writing this piece is being too serious about the movie. I remember playing the original Prince of Persia on an old PC in the 90’s. The whole game ran off a floppy disc. It is in essence a game and yes, it is for pre-teens (or the pre-teen part of an adult’s brain).

    The movie is supposed to be eye candy and like the Hitman movie, it is only really for those who enjoyed the game. I haven’t watched it and because I never played the game I probably won’t. If you didn’t play the game you won’t know how to buy into the ridiculous story line and you won’t enjoy it. And sure, say what you want about gamers – they are different, they do buy into bizarre story lines, but that’s their thing. Much like this sort of over-liberal hippy kinda website is our thing.

    It’s a pitty that gaming movies don’t have their own cinemas and that they have to use the general public’s facilities to screen their movies. But I have learnt that if I want to see something thought provoking (and over-rated according to others), I go to an art theater.

    It is silly to argue the historical accuracy of the movie. It’s like arguing whether a cartoon character can really exist given the head to body proportions or cleverly pointing out that BMW never released the particular model that is available as remote control in Toys ‘R Us.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  18. Sarah Dee says:

    Hey Alex

    Though this was mostly a lightly-toned review, I’m not sure I’m arguing for the historical accuracy of the film as juch as arguing against the egregious sense of entitlement western pop culture has to global cultural history, towards ends such as this. It’s not the innaccuracy that’s the problem, its the flagrant disregard itself, which is all too wrapped up in such a narccisistic, control-freak-ish phenomenon such as gaming that can only arise out of western individualism.

    I don’t think that just because “it’s not my thing”, that there is no space for comment on how crap it is, both as a phenomenon and an artefact. I dont think that things always need to be evaluated within the framework of that partculalr niche. Such an approach is just another eg. of the same compartmentalised indidualism that paralyses our brains and makes us think we’re all unique special when we’re actually just dumb-fuck sheep.

    Perhaps this is a rather long response, but I think pre-empting similar arguments of “leave the poor gamers to their own devices” kind of silly argument. Some of the kids playing PoP in the 90s are probably, like, designing weapons for the war in the Middle East now. Wouldn’t it have been better if they perhaps had some sense that Persians are people too?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  19. Alex says:

    @ Sarah

    True, I guess there is a point at which we must ask where it’s all going, whether these movies should be made and what the effect is that it’s having on our psyche. I’d like to refer to a much older movie and one that I like. It’s “The people vs Larry Flynt”. In that, Hustler magazine accused a prominent pastor of having sex with his mother in an outhouse. The pastor took Mr Flynt to court and part of the argument went that because it’s such a ludicrous accusation no one would believe it and it can therefore not be seen as damaging the good reputation of the pastor.

    In the same way I think we should appreciate that computer games of this nature is extremely shallow in their make up and even more so in their political accuracy. We buy into the fact that “The “Persians” are not the Persians. The game people are not the real people and everyone knows this.

    I happened to be a fan of the Back to the Future Trilogy and at no point did I believe that good scientists are always mad, I never tried to fuel my dad’s car with bananas and never did I drive it at a wall in the hope that I’ll end up in the past. People (especially folks who buy into fantasy and these gaming worlds) understand the unreal assumptions made by the movie and the silly leaps in login involved.

    I’m not saying “leave silly gamers to their devices”, I’m just saying allow for mind-numbing entertainment if people want it. All phenomenon can be argued as crap. Advertising as a phenomenon is crap. Going to gym is pathetic. Fast food is bad. Hell, you can even criticise the phenomenon of BMX stunts as a childish phenomenon. The point is that for as long as there is innocent fun in it (and some people are having that fun), it might be worth leaving it alone.

    In response to the “gaming leads to violence” argument I would like to add that I’ve known gamers all my life and to this day I work with plenty of kids who live and die gaming. I have still not seen any evidence that show that gaming leads to violence or creates violent people. It creates insane hand-eye coordination, improves reflexes, makes you nerdy and if you don’t invest in a good monitor it’ll ruin your eyes. But other than that it’s kind of innocent. Funny thing is that a lot of these kids who game are often very clued up on who the enemies in the games are, how inaccurate they are and how they really differ from the real Persians or Russians or whoever the “baddies” are. You laugh at the game while you play the game. It’s fun, and that’s it.

    I suppose if the world is in fact dumb-fuck sheep we might be in trouble. It might not be the fault of games and movies like this but if people can’t realise that it’s not real, that the movie Persians are not the real Persians, that real Persians are people, and that buttons on daggers won’t enable time travel, then yes, then we should stop movies like this. And I seriously doubt whether the original platform game inspired a dude to build bombs in the middle east. It was more puzzle than violence.

    These movies (as a phenomenon) are far better than most other things in society. They’re healthier than soapies, magazines and diets. Never are you tricked into believing it’s real or that life is like that. You yourself said it’s so far from the truth in every way. It’s fake and empty and we know this. Escapism if you need an -ism word. Will you ever try to ban Candy floss because it looks bigger than it is or because broccoli is better for you. Sometimes we let go and watch the rubbish, knowing that it’s rubbish. And after, we go back to the real world, fully capable of telling the difference.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  20. Sarah Dee says:

    Despite being fake and empty and obviously ridiculous in every sense, it’s not that about what’s real or not real, its the very ethereal idea of what values are being communicated as being acceptable. And it’s not values like: ” It’s okay to slice someone open with a gilded dagger”, it’s more of a subtle sense of who/what is important in culture. I don’t really feel like doing any kind of long analysis here, but it’s worth contemplating for yourself. And the magic trick of films like this as an apparatus of culture is that they seem so “empty, shallow, fun, harmless, frivolous” (or the WORST of them, “escapist”) but they are probably one of the more significant channels for dissemination of ideology that will feature in a young (or old) boy’s life. Using your analogy, you can’t play in the rubbish without coming back with the stink all over you. Even if you’ve got used to the smell.

    So anyway… you might be almost right on one point: Though I’m not sure these phenomena are WORTH leaving alone, one’s individual sanity might not be worth sacrificing in trying to be critical about them.

    On the other hand, I’d lose my mind if I wasn’t.

    So if we can’t DO anything about it, at least we can WRITE about it.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  21. Alex says:

    Under normal circumstances I would not be reading threads dealing with a movie of this caliber. It’s not the sort of movie that warrants discussion. And it warrants no discussion because it does not live in that space of society.

    If The Prince of Persia spoke on behalf of all (or even any) cultural values it would be frightening. On a more subtle level, it communicates that there is a space in civil society where we can entertain our violent sides. Sex, food and violence are very real parts of every human being and very real parts of life. I think it’s kind of cool that you can watch good (in the goodie vs baddie – not moral sense of the word) conquer evil. If you condemn The Prince of Persia, how do you not condemn Tom and Jerry, and if you do this, are you not taking it too far?

    I think the danger of criticising these movies is that you now slowly leak them into a serious side of life. By writing this article you have now introduced The Prince of Persia to the world of intellect. And that is wrong. If we have put Jake in a bat suit and parade him around our the serious side of life, then we are in trouble.

    A bunch of guys made a ridiculous movie about a guy in the desert with a dagger that makes him travel through time. Imagine banning that. I say, make the movie and see who watches it. If the world thinks its wrong, they won’t watch it, it’ll make no money and that’ll be it. If they do then they want it and that’s ok too. It has no impact. It fades away into nothing. Like the The Goonies or Indiana Jones.

    Tons of rubbish is produced every day. If you like it watch it, if you don’t, well, don’t. I won’t watch the Prince of Persia because (a) I think games make for better movies than games and (b) there are better movies to watch. The last one I saw was Ironman (just saying). I vote for or against it with my money. I call it the viewerocracy. Evolve and let the chips fall where they may. Or something to that effect.

    And for the record, if you’re smart, you can totally play in the rubbish and come out smelling better than before.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  22. Sarah Dee says:

    The problem is that, as regards your last sentence, most people are nopt smart. And they’re the ones who cause us a hell of a lot of trouble. And I think that makes this worth talking about in a more that frivolous way, ie bringing it into the world of “the intellect”, ie actually thinking about it.

    If people start eating GM junk food that tastes delicious, but is going to make their children’s children grow ears on the backsides, should we just let it slide because, hey, eating ice cream is not an intellectual activity? Or should we talk about it?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  23. Alex says:

    I think if the movie showed very realistic grotesque violence that keeps you up at night that argument would hold. So eating GM junk food, no, that’s bad. But eating GM food. That’s good. More crop per square meter, drought resistant, prettier, hell it’s difficult to argue against it.

    But that’s why there are age restrictions on movies and they R-rate some of them. Because the movies are just too much of a good thing.

    But that wasn’t the issue in the article. The article is a Cinema Nouveau-style review of a game-inspired movie.

    “Er, the nation of Iran, I’m sure, will be fascinated to know that its historical dynasties were in fact made up of a bunch of pale-skinned wimps who spoke like Monty Python characters. Perhaps after the credits roll, they’ll all decide to drop the whole “Islamic State” thing, and nip off down the pub for a pint.” They won’t be fascinated to know this and they won’t nip off for a pint. Because they know it’s not true. Just like Lethal Weapon called Afrikaners Nazi’s and had a ship called Die Transvaal. I wasn’t offended or fascinated. It’s a movie.

    And this line “her flappy lips endlessly spouting inane and pompous dialogue.” Geez, it’s a fun movie. People talk silly in fun movies. What the hell will an article on Dr Seuss look like?

    And here’s another gem: “Who ever decided that Jake Gyllenhaal could ever play any kind of meaty hunk? He has a face like a platypus. He’s much better suited to films like Brokeback Mountain.” Really? I’ve seen a platypus before. Can’t see the similarity. Sorry. And maybe they didn’t want meaty hunk, Mahala should no that meaty hunk is no longer so cool.

    This is my point. Not whether society should or shouldn’t produce movies like this. For that matter we can argue whether society should produce movies at all. Should we even have actors as they only imitate others and are never true to what they are. Don’t take the moral high ground and hop on the GM bandwagon. This article tried to take a movie away from its target audience and parade it in front of the wrong crowd in an attempt to shoot it down and make the author look oh-so-clever. The article is generic and can be applied to any movie that’s not made for the super liberal, the open minded and the insanely tolerant.

    The article makes no mention of society, or for the better of all mankind. It’s a the writer’s opinion. A poorly supported opinion. Arguing that Jake Gyllenhaal souldn’t lead because he looks like a platypus. And what’s that business about a fish on I&J’s factory floor. Talk about endlessly inane and pompous dialogue.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  24. Roger Young says:


    and yet you continue.

    The end point of YOUR argument is that we should never talk about anything ever.

    Sarah’s function as a critic is to be honest in her opinions. We sent her to cover this film and this is what she thought. It’s really quite simple.

    Should we only ever cover movies or music that we like? Should we just be a recommend fest? That would be dishonest, boring and unentertaining.

    But I see you’re one of those that believe that GM foods are good even though the destroy the disenfranchised ability to be self sufficient, so really I don’t expect you to be able to think logically.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  25. Alex says:

    Isn’t that a real mistake in logic to say I can’t have an opinion on movies because we differ on GM food? Hmmm. Fallacies in argument I think they call it.

    Anyway, my argument is not about the movie and it’s not about whether she can write or not. It’s the way in which it is done. I still don’t know whether it’s a good movie or not. I know that Sarah thinks it’s historically inaccurate, that she hopes there’s no sequel and that it originated from a game that according to her could only be for 10 year old kids. That’s a lot about Sarah Dee. Very little about the movie.

    A couple of journalists on TV do the same. They overpower the person they interview and me as a viewer leave knowing what the journalist thinks but very little about anything else.

    “The end point of YOUR argument is that we should never talk about anything ever.” This is not at all the end of my point. It’s worrying that you commission journalists to do things and then struggle to pick up on what I’m saying.

    There is no point in this article. People who liked the movie will think it’s rubbish, people who hated the movie will think it’s cool and people (like myself) who was indifferent is annoyed because I now only know that Sarah Dee didn’t like it. Cool article. it didn’t give me much to work with.

    In automotive journalism, it is always best to look at where a car is from and why it is built before writing a review or before opening a computer. You judge that particular car in terms of what it must achieve. This article fails to do that with this movie. We can then go further to ask whether such goals should be achieved and whether the class of car (SUV, pickup, premium hatch) should exist. This article doesn’t do that either (it doesn’t ask that about the genre of movie – not class of vehicle). We can also go further and ask whether cars should exist. This isn’t done here either (whether movies should exist – not cars).

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  26. Roger Young says:

    Of course you can have an opinion on movies and you can even write about it. But it doesn’t stop your logic from being faulty. In terms of your car/journo comparison, the point of this article was to express Sarah Dawson’s opinion on Prince Of Persia. Did she succeed?

    The GM logic gap is this. If the point of GM food is to feed everyone why do they make the plants seedless?

    Your logic gap on this is that you assume that because Sarah doesn’t like Prince of Persia she doesn’t like the Genre of Games to Movies and therefore her opinion is irrelevant. What you’re missing here is that if you are indifferent, like yourself, you now know, whether or not you will think this is a good movie in its genre or not. Because if it in anyway transcended its source material or had anything interesting to say she would have told you. Just because something achieves it’s perceived goals does not mean it is a success. If an SUV’s goal is to use as much petrol and make you feel special for being able to afford it, does that mean it is a success just because it is advertised as having good gas mileage?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  27. Sarah Dee says:

    My favourite part of the last comment is how you see no ironic tone whatsoever in my line about the Monty Python Iranian dynasty. One clue that you missed that point completely lies in the fact that this film is blatantly obviously not intended for Iranian audiences at all.

    Back tracking a little in this extended argument, I’m also fairly sure that this review does anything but take the film seriously. It’s as flippant as the film deserves. And yes, that flippancy betrays an intellectuality (that’s only now been elaborated) that I’m unfortunate enough not to be able to escape. Perhaps, in that sense, I envy your ability to be stupid.

    Exactly why are you reading this magazine anyway? I can’t really figure out what you’re after here.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  28. Alex says:

    He he, oh how heavy is the burden of intellect.

    I stumbled upon it, read a few articles which was pretty cool and then saw this. I’m not after anything in particular but I always enjoy it when a movie review can give me the good and the bad. But I’m sure you’ll tell me there’s nothing good about his movie.

    “Er, the nation of Iran, I’m sure, will be fascinated to know that its historical dynasties were in fact made up of a bunch of pale-skinned wimps who spoke like Monty Python characters. Perhaps after the credits roll, they’ll all decide to drop the whole “Islamic State” thing, and nip off down the pub for a pint.” Irony? Very clever…

    I was reading it because I wanted a review on the movie. Not a smarmy I’m-too-clever-for-this-movie analysis. If you watch dumb movies you think dumb because you’re reviewing a dumb movie. You can end by stating that it’s not a intellectual masterpiece but if you’re up for some mind numbing fun and historical fantasy in CG sandbox, this might be your thing. Or something to that effect.

    If you’re too smart to write about these things, don’t.

    I’m not getting into the GM argument. But you must understand that killing off the second generation of seed is one of many things they can do. Just because I don’t like blue doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have colour. That is bad, but the technology can be used for good.

    As far as the example of SUV goes: say we know that SUV’s uses too much fuel and makes you feel special, then we know that’s what they do. I can write an article on whether feeling good and using a lot of petrol is good or bad (the equivalent of writing on whether this genre is good or bad) or I can write on whether a particular SUV lives up to the standard of making someone feel special and using a lot of petrol (is this a good movie given the genre). This article is the equivalent of saying the car is a bad SUV because it makes you feel special and uses a lot of petrol and don’t like cars that makes you feel special and uses lots of petrol. In reality you should say good SUV, but I don’t like SUV’s.

    Also, another tip for arguing, try and see what I mean with my examples, don’t argue them. This conversation is not about whether SUV’s are in fact good or bad or whether gm is cool or not. Just examples. I could use anything else. I just happen to always be writing on cars anyway.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  29. Roger Young says:

    I see what you mean and I understand that you write PR and not Opinion. Now try understand what we do. You’re whole argument is based on your idea of what a movie review should be which is turn is based on your SOP for writing for a trade magazine.

    Calling the Prince of Persia a dumb movie and saying “but is it a good dumb movie?” is an excellent way to approach film criticism, i wholly agree with it. But I think Sarah answered that question in her review. The answer was no? What more do you need? A technical appraisal of the quality of the CGI?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  30. Roger Young says:

    Oops, got so flustered that I spelt your, you’re. Forgive me.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  31. Alex says:

    Here’s from your Alice in Wonderland review (which was better regardless of being a spoiler)…

    Roger Young says:
    March 5, 2010 at 10:19 am
    Okay, kids. Let me step in. If you want a two line puff piece giving you a synopsis of what the movie is about, there is always imdb. I know the golden age of film critique is long gone but here at mahala we don’t “review” films (if we did you’d have about four a week) we discuss films, the intentions of the film makers and whether they succeeded or not and we try to do this from a personal level.

    I guess my idiocy makes me a IMDB kinda guy.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  32. Roger Young says:

    I don’t think you’re an idiot per se. I just think you’re trying to attach your method of writing onto a critique of Sarah’s.

    Also. What would a spoiler be in terms of car journalism? Don’t tell them the thing fucks out after 50 000k’s?

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  33. Alex says:

    I put the spoiler comment down just to say that I didn’t mind it. I guess “regardless” was the wrong word. I like reading about movies before I watch them, spoilers are cool. I roll over spoiler alerts on IMDB before I’ve watched a movie. I was just anticipating that you’re defense of the Alice in Wonderland review would be that it’s a spoiler so you can’t compare them. But it’s a good review. A bit wordy if I absolutely had to say something, but I don’t mind the style and the vocabulary.

    I suppose the conservative nature of the auto-industry welcomes any spoiler. The more you know the better right? Especially in this country and its perverted car-to-ego ratio.

    I’ll call it a day though. Sorry Roger if I wasted time. Sorry Sarah if I misunderstood what you were doing. I guess it supports the fact that games make for useless movies.

    And I don’t do PR writing for a magazine.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0