Anytime a film opens with new studio logos that proudly and triumphantly declare that, yes, there will be more films from this production company adapting their beloved materials, it's always a nervous prospect. If this first film flops, either critically or commercially, it can spell doom for anything in development to follow. Just look at Universal’s failed monster multiverse Dark Universe.
So forgive any PlayStation fans who might feel a slight bit of unease at the bright blue “PlayStation Productions” logo that opens “Uncharted”, the long in development live action adaptation of the now classic video game series. Video game fans in general have been burned many times before, and while some more promising adaptations are starting to come out (“Sonic the Hedgehog,” “Pokemon Detective Pikachu”) it’s still a long way away from any video game movie being a guarantee to anyone.
Which is why it's even more disappointing that “Uncharted” is such a mixed bag. After moving through at least six directors (David O. Russell, Neil Burger, Seth Gordon, Shawn Levy, Dan Trachtenberg, Travis Knight) before landing on Ruben Fleischer (“Venom,” “Zombieland”) and writers Rafe Judkins (“The Wheel of Time,” “Chuck”), Art Marcum (“Iron Man,” “Transformers: The Last Knight”), Matt Holloway (“Iron Man,” “Transformers: The Last Knight”), Jon Hanley Rosenberg, and Mark D. Walker, it lands with a thud rather than any sort of fanfare. No, it isn’t really very good, but it also isn't “so bad it's good” like some beloved video games films such as “Mortal Kombat (1995)” or “Assassin's Creed.” Instead, it occupies a frustrating middle ground of mediocrity that makes it almost completely forgettable in any way.
Tom Holland (“Cherry,” “Spider-Man: No Way Home”) is Nathan Drake, a history buff and wannabe explorer who gets roped into a hunt for lost Magellan treasure by Victor Sullivan, played by Mark Wahlburg (“Boogie Nights,” “Ted”). Along the way they run into old friends, like Chloe Frazer played by Sophia Ali (“Faking It,” “The Wilds”), old flames, like Jo Braddock played by Tati Gabrielle (“Chilling Adventures of Sabrina,” “You”), and new enemies, like Santiago Moncada played by Antonio Banderas (“Desperado,” “Puss in Boots”). The problem is, not a single one is memorable. Even the characters pulled from the game series lack any sort of immediate charm or attachment, functioning on fundamental levels as vehicles for the plot and that’s about it.
By extension, this means that the plot twists and double crosses don’t have any impact as the characters don’t have any impact. It all hits with the force of a limp noodle, not registering annoyance or enjoyment. This is a major problem because this is the kind of film that has two audiences it needs to cater to: fans of the original games and people who don’t care about the games. The latter won’t be engaged because no one is interesting enough, and the former will likely be outraged by the blandness of it all.
Holland and Wahlburg are just, plain and simple, miscast. Neither brings the right kind of energy and they never really develop a believable rapport or charm. It’s kind of crazy considering how the rest of the cast seems fairly competent, at least being able to roll with the film’s punches. Ali both looks and acts almost exactly like Chloe to a near perfect degree, and the characters written for the film believably fit into this world. It’s almost as if Holland and Wahlburg were so miscast that they fired the person who cast them and hired someone else with a much better judgment.
Look, adventure movies are nothing new. Every few years, a studio pumps out another one that hopes to be the next “Indiana Jones.” But the games industry didn’t really have that before “Uncharted.” Sure, there was “Tomb Raider,” but that was so primitive, coming out in the early days of 3D gaming, and had such a spotty track record that it can’t really be compared to it. So, when “Uncharted” was released, it was a breath of fresh air.
But by the time the series continued, the developer knew they had to do more than just another adventure game, so they focused on the spectacle and the characters. By the time the fourth and last game in the series was released, no one played “Uncharted” for the adventure, they played it for these incredibly well realized characters.
That’s the biggest disappointment with the film: it turns such beloved, well established characters that are so easily translatable to film into husks of themselves; shallow and bland and flatly uninteresting. It's not hard to imagine friends or family members of the video games’ fans sitting down to watch this film, excited to see what all the fuss is about and, when credits roll, merely think, “that was it?”
Even small details can’t save the film. The music, long considered an iconic staple of the games, is rote and boring, turned from a rousing score of various instruments, to a typical blockbuster synth and guitar heavy mess. The stunts, for the record, are fine enough. They aren’t anything daring, and the third act pirate ship segment is pretty fun. But the heavy use of green screen and CGI is sadly evident. When Nathan Drake stands in a cave and stares in awe at a pirate ship, that same awe isn’t felt as it's painfully clear he’s just looking at a flat studio wall that might as well say “Awe inspiring item TBD.”
It would be fine if “Uncharted” was different from the games. Changing characters, lore, events, etc. isn’t just not a bad thing, it's a healthy part of the adaptation process. But when you don’t replace it with anything substantial or interesting, then it's all for naught. Tom Holland’s Nathan Drake isn’t called Nathan Drake because he’s the same character. He’s called Nathan Drake because he knows some Magellan facts and wears the same shirt he does. Because apparently to the filmmakers, that’s all the character needs.
“Uncharted” is a disappointment for many reasons, but it also isn’t a terrible film. It’s passable for many reasons, and the less you know about the games it’s based on, the better time you’re likely to have, though not by much. As paradoxical as that seems, it's the unfortunate truth. Fans will likely be upset with how fast and loose it plays with the characters, and it's just short and adventurous enough to not be a complete waste of time. It’s a film, though, that’ll likely be remembered more for repeat airings on TNT than for being a worthwhile adaptation of a beloved series. 2.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment