Are Video Game Movies Really That Bad?

This week on the Rotten Tomatoes there is a piece that ranks the scores of all video game movies, showing the recently released Rampage as having the best critical score.  The interesting thing here is that Rampage sits at a 51% rating.  That means that all forty-six other films have a score worse than that.  What this illustrates is a verification of the feelings throughout the years since Super Mario Bros. came out in 1993 that video games do not make compelling cinema.

It is my belief that a video game could turn into a solid movie.  We haven't seen it yet, but there is nothing stopping it from happening, other than maybe getting better pens to scribe the screenplay.  An intellectual property doesn't need to have any kind of backstory to turn into a solid film.  The LEGO Movie in 2014 proved that.  Stories for video games, I would argue, are getting better and better.  The industry deals with so much money that the production of triple A games are seeing larger and larger budgets to ensure the games not only sell the initial product, but that they keep a steady player base that will buy additional content or loot boxes post release.

The price tag of a triple A game hovers around $80 on a console, and players expect the best.  In the hands of the player, and a potential nemesis to the game developers, is the internet forum.  When one of those expensive games doesn't deliver in all areas, people will flood the forums, especially if the game is part of a loved franchise.  Because so much money is made for developers (and shareholders, something which seems to be the driving force behind post release monetizing schemes) after the release of a game, and because the budgets for the game are so high, developers cannot have a largely disgruntled community.  It was shown with the release of EA's Battlefront 2 (part of a Star Wars video game franchise dating back to 2004, and with ever a loyal base) that fan reaction can force a studio to change course even before a game comes out.  Fan reaction can spread fast and furious, pre-sales can be refunded, and ill-will be generated.  Because of all of that, parts of the game such as story need to be better than ever before.  This should set up a better foundation for transforming the properties to a appetizing film version.

A video game in recent years that had a really compelling story line to it was Assassin's Creed.  I honestly don't care about stories when I play video games, but I was right into the one that was in front of my from the moment I put the disc into my Xbox 360.  It was really imaginative, and provided amazing settings for game play.  I would have thought that this video game, more than any other, would have the best chance for success in theatres.

The studios seemed to share that sentiment and injected $125 million into the film and cast talents such as Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, and Brendan Gleeson.  That's five Oscar nominations between them, two wins, and while Gleeson had no Oscar noms, he did have three Golden Globe nominations.  That's a serious amount of acting power.  The director was Justin Kurzel, who directed had directed three three feature films, all scoring eighty percent on Rotten Tomatoes or higher (a personal favourite of mine was Snowtown Murders).  The elements were there for a solid movie.

Even with the pedigree that it had, Assassin's Creed could only muster support from 18% from critics and $10 million on its opening weekend.  It was a domestic flop, sitting alongside other big budget North American video game failures such as Warcraft and the $200 budgeted Prince of Persia.  Using popular titles for movies has proven not to be a guarantee for money made, and throwing large sums of money at them may not be the best idea.

While a number of the video game movies seem to be aiming with their sights quite low (such as the six that are directed by Use Boll, all 7% or under on Rotten Tomatoes) there have been a number that are trying for mass market appeal.  Having seen a number of these movies (four of them in theatre, sadly), I can say that it isn't one specific problem that plagues them all.  The closest commonality in their failing would probably be story, but, as I mentioned, the source material is doing better in that realm now.

It's not specifically video games that aren't well done, it is pretty much any adaptation of a game.  Battleship, Dungeons and Dragons, and Clue didn't receive a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  In fact, I think that the only movie based on a game with a fresh rating is Ouija: Origin of Evil.  It is crazy to think that of all of the movies based on types of games, the only critically received film is a sequel to a movie that scored 6% on RT.  I would love to say the reason why that movie succeeded where others didn't is because of the skills of director Mike Flanagan (I am a huge 'Flana-fan'), but other skilled directors have been in there and failed.  I already mentioned Justin Kurzel, and a favourite of mine, Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) directed  the mostly woeful Warcraft.

For some reason, movies based on games appear to be cursed.  Whether they're sourced out to directors with notoriously poorly received movies (Uwe Boll and Paul W.S. Anderson account for 23% of all video game movies ever made) or handed over to proven talents, video game movies just happen to fail.  It's not some systemic issue happening here.  It's not because there aren't rich and enchanting worlds to tap into or backstories that captivate.  It simply is a case of coincidence.  There will one day be a well received video game movie.  I believe it will happen, and, laugh at me if you will, I could even see in the future a movie based off of a video game being in Oscar contention.  The games are continuously getting better and better, with many already setting their sights on having blockbuster quality content and talent.  They will shake the curse soon enough.

REVIEW: Warcraft

The movie is based off of a video game of the same name, or it could be based off of the video game World of Warcraft.  I have seen debate on gaming forums as to which is most true, but it seems to be that most people feel it is based off of the hugely successful World of Warcraft.  The player base for that game peaked in 2010, making the film six years late to the party.

The world of orcs is no falling apart and is not longer habitable.  It's a shame, really.  This means there needs to be a new land to travel to and claim as their home.  That's bad news for the humans of Azeroth, as they seem quite happy to be living in peace.  It is also bad news for all the poor bastards who are imprisoned by the orcs, as their souls are used to create the portal needed for the orcs to travel to Azeroth.  It sounds like those damned orcs only care about themselves.

A war party of orcs is sent through the portal to capture humans to fuel the 'fell' (the dark magic power used by the orc leader Gul'dan) in order to open the portal a second time to bring the rest of the orcs through into Azeroth.  It is quite reasonable to believe that this plan does not sit well with the humans, who rely on the leadership of King Llane (Dominic Cooper), the mighty warrior Sir Lothar (Travis Fimmel), and the guardian Midivh (Ben Foster), who is a very powerful magic user and protector.

What does this all lead to?  Well, it leads to a story with an exorbitant amount of alliances made and broken, as well as one of battle, blood, and anguished faces.  Thrown into the mix is Garona (Paula Patton) who is a half breed orc that is captured by the humans and finds her allegiances challenged.  There are a lot of players involved in this movie, I haven't even mentioned the main orc Durotan (Toby Tebbell) or magic user Khadgar (Ben Schnetzer).  With so many key members of the cast, there is a lot of ground to cover in showing why each is important and motivated.  This does not do well at keeping the pace of the film clipping along in the realm of completely enjoyable.

The story itself feels like nothing new, but director Duncan Jones and fellow script writer Charles Leavitt do something that a lot of films are too afraid of when it comes to movie making - they are not ashamed of killing major characters.  This addition into the story, and the fact that it clearly becomes and introductory piece to what is a hopeful franchise (the title has just now been changed to Warcraft: The Beginning), allowed me to still predict how it would end but with no idea as to who would survive.  Predictability along with doubt is the best thing that this movie offers.  That being said, there were certain characters that the audience knew would not be killed.

Being a huge fan of Duncan Jones (Moon and Source Code), there was a certain level of expectation that followed me into this cinematic tale.  This is his first foray into a special effects fuelled spectacle, and there were times that sadly it felt like a really well done video game cinematic.  The visuals weren't awful, they just were not up to the standards that we have already seen set for 2016 from Jungle Book.

The action sequences were fun enough, with a no-holds-barred approach to showing people getting annihilated, something that most movies shy away from.  The unfortunate part is that these moments were scattered amongst some useless scenes that were over doing it with the bloated cast of characters.

In the end, it was just too much of 'already seen,' and it did not feel like a completely fresh product.  There have been many other fantasy films in the past, and the few things that this movie had going for it were not enough to elevate it above its contemporaries.  It is a fine movie, but that is about it.  Warcraft excels as a video game cut scene, but falls short of the quality and emotions needed for a tentpole flick.

Rating - 2.5 stars out of 4

Hannah's Pick: Source Code

My amazing sister in-law, Hannah, recently passed a number of movies my way (most of which I had not yet seen) for me to check out and review.  In honour of her support of my blog, Wednesdays will now be 'Hannah's Pick,' as I will go through her offerings until the well worn shopping bag they came in is empty.  It is an earlier blog for me today, as I was sent home from work when I offered to come in for the night shift tonight and help out.  I napped a full fifteen minutes already, but something tells me that may be all the sleep I get until sometime after 7am tomorrow.  I will definitely be showing up for work double fisting the coffees.

Today's movie is Source Code, a film that I had heard good things about from friends and have been intrigued about for a while.  My interest was sent into overdrive a few months ago when I saw Moon, a sci-fi flick that was the debut for writer/director Duncan Jones, who would then go on to direct Source Code.  When watching Moon, a great appreciation grew for the story telling style of Jones, who is able to guide the audience through complex stories while keeping them simple enough to comprehend, and that allows us good emotional connection to the characters.  If I talked positively about Sam Rockwell in yesterday's review of The Way, Way Back, just wait until I review Moon and you will hear me gush over this under-appreciated actor.

Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal who plays the role of helicopter pilot Captain Colter Stevens, who awakens on a train, in mid conversation with a woman he has never seen before (Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan).  From this point on in the movie, we slowly get an unraveling plot as Captain Stevens tries to figure out his situation and the true depths of it.  He quickly finds out that quantum physics has allowed a program to be created that will allow Stevens to re-live the last eight minutes of someone's life, and that he is being inserted into the final moments of the victim of a terrorist attack on a train in order to find the bomber's identity.

 The acting in this film is really well done, and that seems to be something that Duncan Jones realizes is important when spinning an elaborate yarn.  It is possible for an audience to suspend disbelief and dredge through the unknown when we feel a connection to the outcome of the characters.  Gyllenhaal does a wonderful job showing the wide range of emotions his character goes through while constantly having to experience the same eight minutes only to perish in a terrible explosion each time.  Michelle Monaghan is great in her role as the stranger in the train that Gyllenhaal continually meets in his efforts to find the bomber.  As well, Oscar nominated actress Vera Farmiga delivers a terrific performance as Captain Goodwin, the face on a monitor who coaches Gyllenhaal between trips in the source code.  Because she is just a face on a screen, she needs to be able to portray any thoughts, emotions, or inner turmoil through small, nuanced alterations in her face, a task which she is able to accomplish extremely convincingly.

 Duncan Jones is really establishing himself as someone to watch, after only having directed two movies so far.  One of the skills evident in Source Code is that he is able to layer in deeper themes into a movie that is also enjoyable on a mere visceral level.  The film looks at living and existence, two terms that may seem to mean the same thing, but that are completely different.  What is someone willing to live for, willing to exist for, and willing to die for.  It is this theme that adds weight to the film, and is great fodder for conversations with friends over coffee.  It is an aspect that is woven into the fabric of the movie, and is not overtly shoved in our faces and left us dizzy from being bashed over the head with it, as seems to be the method when some films attempt to include a 'deeper' meaning.

If you are a fan of science fiction, you will most likely love Source Code.  If you claim that you are not a fan of science fiction (much like my wife) but enjoy thrillers, you will most likely love Source Code.  In both this movie and Moon, Duncan Jones shows that the genre is not just about space ships and cyborgs, but is really just a canvas left destined for immersive imaginations.  It is a place where all things are possible, and Source Code makes the most of it, inserting Captain Colter Stevens into mystery for eight minutes at a time, forcing him to repeatedly live with those who are about to die, a man immortal thrust into the continual mortality of the people on the train.  Sound confusing?  Duncan Jones does a better job at delivering the story and the message, and that's a good reason for you to watch it.

Rating - 3.5 stars out of 4