Sand waterfalls are beautiful this time of year — just try not to fall off of one.

Stunning visuals help create the only memorable scene from “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” released on May 28. The movie, starring Jake Gyllenhaal as Dastan and Gemma Arterton as rival princess Tamina, is based on the 2003 video game of the same name.

"Prince of Persia"

Film adaptations of video games have a history of being mediocre, both in execution and design, and “Prince of Persia” does not disappoint.

The film kicks off with Dastan, a young orphan who shows amazing acrobatic abilities and courage in the face of adversity and who is adopted by the king as his son. This flimsy introduction to the characters gives the necessary backstory for the film to move forward, especially for those who have not played the game.

Dastan’s acrobatics are portrayed in movie as they are in the video game. This will keep fans of the game in their seats, but really just introduces the audience to Dastan as the “Prince of Persia,” a title repeated far too often in the film.

The film then transitions to the present day, and the main premise of the film. Dastan, a now disgraced prince, obtains a dagger that controls the sands of time. He teams up with Tamina to keep the dagger from falling into the wrong hands.

Gyllenhaal’s performance is not of a necessarily poor caliber, but his terrible accent does detract from viewers’ involvement in the film. The accent is almost comical, as it does not work in the deeply dramatic situations that permeate the film. The film also makes taxation jokes related to America’s political situation, which have no bearing on the outcome of the movie. The romance between Dastan and Tamina is also inconsequential and feels awkward.

In films, nonspoken elements can be the most powerful, but “Prince of Persia” ignores this trait. The dialogue is often cheesy and most is a stepping stone between action sequences or a way of explaining that which the viewer could not discern themselves.

The action sequences can be fantastic at times, and — as with any Jerry Bruckheimer production — the visuals flourish on the screen. Only a few times did the cities seem computer-generated; the desert landscapes were marvelous for the eye to behold.

Anyone who has played an action-adventure game will be right at home with the visual style of “Prince of Persia.” The camera focuses on elements that are important for achieving an objective in the scene, as if there are clues being given on how it can be obtained.

Being a film, however, it cannot give the viewer choices as to what occurs; it can only clue them in on what is important and hope the significance is readily apparent.

Fans of the series might appreciate the action sequences, but because the movie strays so far from the narrative of the game, they could also be the biggest detractors.

Verdict: Though “Prince of Persia” is not a great film by any standards — as thrills are few and far between and do not make up for the lack of plot — it is one of the better game-to-screen adaptations. There are worse movies out there, but action junkies would be better suited finding another option.