'Prince of Persia' could be cursed

How big a risk is "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"?

Well, its star, Jake Gyllenhaal, has only been in one film that earned more than $100 million domestically, the 2004 disaster epic "The Day After Tomorrow." For a film with a reported budget of $150 million, that's pretty risky.

But the really big risk is this: "Prince of Persia," which arrived in theaters Friday, is a video-game adaptation. Despite the fact that the U.S. video-game industry takes in about $20 billion annually, video-game movies mostly bomb domestically.

In fact, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" would have to be the most successful video-game adaptation ever just to break even.

The top-selling video-game movie of all time domestically -- and the only video-game movie ever to break the $100 million mark -- is 2001's "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," which took in $131 million according to Box Office Mojo. Its follow-up, 2003's "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life," made only $65 million.

But that was still enough to make it the fourth-highest video-game domestic box-office ever. That's how weak the genre is.

Consider "Doom," which made $28 million, or "Super Mario Bros.," which made just under $21 million. The video games were huge; the movies were duds.

Some video-game movies have been profitable in the United States -- "Mortal Kombat" made $70 million and the "Resident Evil" movies keep hitting about $50 million -- but most have been bombs.

So why does Hollywood keep pumping them out?

A lot of it has to do with sales outside the United States. "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" made only $51 million domestically, but around the rest of the globe it pulled in $78 million more. That's $129 million earned off a cost of about $45 million.

Similarly "Max Payne" made only $40 million here, but it did $44 million more worldwide, at a cost of $35 million. Hollywood loves the sound of those numbers.