02.12.08
Posted in Film analysis at 4:40 pm by Administrator
Some films are sold with big name stars attached to their title while others are sold based on the name of a writer or director involved with the film. There Will be Blood is helmed by one of todays most promising directors, P.T. Anderson, who has decided to lose the dots and be known as Paul Thomas Anderson which is somehow very befitting as he has shed alot of skin as a director and has grown considerably with every film he directs.
I admit I did not jump on the P.T. boat after Boogie Nights. Not even the over indulgent three hour epic Magnolia truly sold me on his abilities. It was obvious that he was talented but their was a detachment to his films that was always keeping me away. Punch Drunk Love sucked me in by being one of the most artistically charming movies I had ever seen. It was concise in its brief 90 minute running time but it was as if Anderson had demasked himself revealing that without the length he was able to tell a heart warmingly bizarre story with two very strong performances and on top of that never lose his integrity as an artist along the way. Suddenly a light went off in my head, this was a name I was going to follow very closely as I pursued my love of film. Even his past efforts had gotten better because of it.
Its obvious that Punch Drunk Love was a short term indulgence as he has clearly returned to working in his preffered longer format. There Will be Blood is a slow burn that requires you to dwell inside its humble frame and enjoy every second for the bits of cinematic nourishment it offers. Lets begin with the asthetics of the proceedings. Anderson has crafted a messy, dirt filled portrait for this 1892 period piece. More often then not our cast is sweaty, ugly, and covered in the black oil they want so badly. Quite literally everyone eventually gets a face full of the black gold that is mined out of the ground. Anderson is rubbing their faces in it almost angrily giving them the very thing they so greedily seek.
Needless to say Daniel Day Lewis is oil man extrordinaire, Danny Plainview, he carries his son with him to all of his dealings. His moto, ironically enough, is to speak plainly and honestly. Watching a bastard turn into a full on heartless monster is staged in such a way as to make Plainview both hero and villian in Andersons little tale. Whenever Plainview isn’t buying land and raking in the dough he’s tending to his son with a strange mixture of sentiment and repulsion. He admits that he doesn’t like most people, sometimes this even includes his own son and his love of money drives him further and further away from them.
I realize this review has overstayed it’s welcome but truly great films inspire deep analysis of their characters and events. There Will be Blood is such a film and I hope it will inspire you to read between the lines as well.
5/5
Permalink
11.18.07
Posted in Film analysis at 4:15 pm by Administrator
You’re going to hear a lot of crazy stories about Southland Tales. People are going to call it convoluted, confusing, and a down right orgy of misplaced ideas. Depending on who you are , you may or may not agree with them. This film divides audience’s right down the middle and even those who enjoy it won’t feel too inclined to defend the film against its enemies. Richard Kelly joins the ranks of Darren Aronofsky and shoots for the stars on his second time out. The problem with being this ambitious is that sometimes your ideas are bigger than yourself, bigger than your audience, and bigger than the movie itself. Southland Tales isn’t going to spoon feed you its entertainment value. It requires reading of the prequel saga available in one collection of three graphic novels detailing the events leading up to the film. I would even suggest that you watch Donnie Darko as this film shares a lot of similarities with that film’s theme and subject matter.
If the film were connected to a heart monitor the sound of its pulse would go from a slow thump to a heart attack in just a matter of minutes and then back to mimicking the pattern of a nervous man during a lie detector test. The film is abnormal but always enthralling. The performances are all but consistent but this is no fault on the actor’s parts. Every scene requires a different tone depending on whether or not Dwayne Johnson is playing Boxer Santaros or Jericho Cane. Sarah Michelle Gellar feels underused as porn star Krysta Now, this is especially disappointing since in the graphic novel her character is given a lot more to work with then in the film. She ultimately amounts to a song and dance number that pales in comparison to Timberlake’s own musical scene.
Anyone who tells you this movie is confusing has either never read the prequel saga or has never watched an abstract film in their lives. Critics want you to think this film is incomprehensible and difficult to understand but honestly its not that hard especially when you realize Kelly is repeating many of the same ideas he had in Donnie Darko. Go ahead email me any question you may have about the film and I’ll answer it to the best of my ability. (Stephen@stephenalix.com). If you’ve ever watched Jodorowsky’s Holy Mountain you’ll see that their is such a thing as a critic proof film. To criticize Southland Tales is to show a certain degree of ignorance. A film like this is so intentionally designed to provoke a very specific reaction you may unknowingly be tangled in its web. Experiencing the very thing the film wants you to feel but your rejection of that feeling can lead to a negative reaction to the film.
My only qualm with the film is a blatant “homage” to Mulholland Drive that borders on theft but I’ll forgive Kelly because Rebekah Del Rio has never looked so good. I really don’t want to give this film a star rating so you’ll have to just decide for yourself if this movie is for you. If the idea of laughing your way to the apocalypse sounds good then you may just enjoy these sordid tales of how it all came crashing down. The end of the world never felt so good.
Permalink
11.08.07
Posted in Film analysis at 5:16 pm by Administrator
Once upon a time, dear reader, a small indie film was released in theaters, due to poor advertising nobody knew it existed and thus no one went to see it. Then it was sent straight to DVD limbo. A couple of folks watched it on home video, loved it, and started to tell all their friends about it. Word began to spread throughout the Internet. “Theirs this crazy movie called Donnie Darko, its trippy, and you have to see it.” I remember purchasing this film just in the midst of the small buzz surrounding it. It was a blind purchase and frankly I went out on a limb to watch this film by an unknown director with this giant horrific looking bunny bossing around this kid named Donnie, at the time played by an unknown Jake Gyllenhaul.
The rest is history. I loved it. Others loved it and soon Richard Kelly and Donnie Darko became a secret password for film lovers all through out the Internet. Now unfortunately the next phase in this cult process is that once word gets out more people start to see it and then begins the “lets shit on something people love” phase that normally follows anything with a cult following. I think at long last the hype on Donnie Darko has leveled itself out so that its known to be great, a little over hyped, but good nonetheless. And rightfully so, its a perfect melt of some great theoretical ideas on time travel, horror, and just the right amount of humor to create an enjoyable experience that takes you through a variety of moods in its near two hour running time.
Richard Kelly tapped into the spirit of Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, and The Matrix. He mixed in a little bit of horror and Donnie Darko was born. While the title might suggest a super hero film, Kelly once again takes your expectations and turns its on its head. What you also thought was going to be horror is in fact a science fiction story about time travel. The films best-kept secrets were mostly speculated amongst fans. What exactly is going on this movie? It wasn’t until the director’s cut was released that the film explained itself fully and the answers were indeed pretty unusual.Spoilers ahead!Apparently a paradox has occurred in the space-time continuum, which has caused time to fold in on itself. God isn’t too thrilled with all of his creation suddenly dissapearing due to the laws of science being completely broken, so he uses a vessel (Frank the Bunny) to save Donnie’s life so that he can set events into motion that will recreate the paradox, and allow him to transcend time to save the world. Donnie was always meant to die in his room but the first time around he would’ve died and the world would have ended. Instead he creates a second paradox that cancels out the first, he still dies but now his death has meaning. End Spoilers! Are ya still with me? Funny enough the director’s cut takes a great film and over explains it to death. I watched it once but now I just go back to the original film I loved so much. Donnie Darko has stood the test of time and everything that was so great about it in 2001 is still great today.
So next week Richard Kelly dares to once again challenge what a film should be and he’s peppered it with a surprisingly large cast of Hollywood stars. Dwayne “The Rock”Johnson, Sean William Scott, and Sarah Michelle Gellar star in Southland Tales. His choices have been baffling to say the least but until I see the final product I really can’t say if it was mad genius or just a classic sophomore mistake. Southland Tales opens in limited release in NY and LA and I urge you to check it out. I don’t know if it’s going to be great but I know it’s going to be different.
The mistake most often made when criticizing complex films is the audience thinks certain filmmakers are just intentionally trying to baffle them. That some directors take glee in watching filmgoers scratch their heads in confusion. This is entirely untrue, they don’t want you to be confused. They want you to actively pursue the answers yourself. They want you to be an active participant in the film. Don’t just sit there! Think dammit! Think! It’s really not too much to ask now, is it?
Permalink
10.22.07
Posted in Film Review, Film analysis at 3:22 pm by Administrator
Three brothers search for enlightenment on a trip to India to heal some old family wounds in an attempt to save what little affection they may have left for one another. Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrian Brody are rightfully cast as the three estranged brothers who haven’t spoken to one another in a year. In the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou director Wes Anderon seemed enthralled with the ship, the way it framed the characters, and the timeless nature of a journey on the high seas. He once again taps into this motif but now takes us on a trip through India on the train where the film gains its title.
Anderson doesn’t hide his themes instead he blatantly wears it on his sleeve for the entire world to see. He’s not hiding the obvious nature of this trip to supposed enlightenment as three white men search for meaning by praying in front of statues, purchasing exotic clothes, and have anonymous sex with the local women. Each brother has his vices and for better or worse it also doubles as the very thing that makes each one distinctively stronger then the others. Owen Wilson is Francis; the oldest that instantly takes charge and makes all the decisions for the group. Adrian Brody is the one most affected by the death of their father, prone to taking things that don’t belong to him, and running away from his wife who is 7 months pregnant. Jason Schwartzman is the ladies man who can’t decide whether or not to remain in a relationship that he realizes is not right for him. (Played off screen by Natalie Portman.)
As if their personal troubles weren’t bad enough they can’t seem to trust each other or get along just a couple of minutes without an argument. Their deeply routed communication troubles are the real focus of this surprisingly upbeat meditation on the artificial search for peace versus the far more realistic approach of simply living day to day. Anderson makes an important point of showing us that the stops they take along the way to find artificial enlightenment are shallow and does very little to mend their troubles. Its what they discover when treading off the beaten path that inevitably gives them the strength to face their fears and learn to trust each other.
I normally cannot stand films that throw subtlety out the window. It’s usually a deal breaker for me when I cannot get past how obvious certain films are about their wittiness. Characters who are given peculiar ticks merely for its own sake, a desperate attempt to make your dull cast of characters more interesting then they actually are. Its lazy writing, and for the most part its something I always seem to fear going into a Wes Anderson film, but somehow it’s the very thing that makes this film so charming. The characters aren’t pretentious snobs, the plot is simple and endearing, and the over all themes are not trying to be witty, they just are what they are. I’ll be damned if it doesn’t just work and I loved every minute of it.
4/5
Permalink
09.30.07
Posted in Film Review, Film analysis at 1:30 pm by Administrator
I have a simple theory when it comes to most Hollywood comedies, if the critics shower a particular film with golden showers of praise I tend to stay away. What critics tend to find humorous usually involves a lot of what I like to all “non-jokes”. A non-joke is something that really isn’t funny but if you remain silent long enough after you say it people start to laugh. Knocked Up is one such film, sure their a few unexpected jokes here and there, but for the most part I thin it proves that what you say when you hang around with your buddies is really just funny to you and doesn’t belong in a major motion picture. But if that were the worst of it I wouldn’t even be writing this review, Knocked Up sends a very dangerous message to its viewer. One that had my head rolling every minute or so as these two morons on screen seemed to come right out of the 1950’s.
First up to bat, Alison, a successful young woman, independent, and works for E entertainment news. She’s given a chance to even star in her own show which is most anyone’s dream who works in that industry. On the other side of the coin you have Ben, probably didn’t graduate college, sits at home doing nothing, and his dream is to open up a web site where you can find how far into a film your favorite actress shows her boobs. These two would only get together in one way, the super drunken one night stand, that part the film gets right. The part that it gets wrong is that someone in Alison’s position never would have kept that baby. The film lightly mentions abortion as an option and it’s immediately shrugged aside as if the Christian coalition busted in and forced it out of the script. Am I crazy or was that truly the best option in this situation? Ben is a loser, a stranger, and she’s going to destroy her career to have his child? Maybe this film was funnier then I thought, or maybe we traveled back in time when women had to use coat hangers because the law told them they didn’t have a choice.
Next up on the list, now that Alison is properly knocked up as the title promises, she not only decides to keep the baby but once again she travels back in time to learn that now she must force herself to love the man who got her pregnant. WHOA! That’s the biggest mistake 99% of couples make, assuming that pregnancy ties you down to someone you don’t love, don’t like, and never would have married if that baby wasn’t part of the equation. Couples that that marry for this reason always end up hating each other and having miserable marriages. Instead of debunking these myths Knocked Up decides to reinforce this fairy tale that the person you don’t love, well you can learn to love them, and even better you can change them.
I just didn’t buy anything these characters said or did, not in this day and age. Maybe if at the beginning they told us the film was taking place many many years ago. In the end you got this baby, parents who will probably just end up divorcing each other, or parents that stay together to be miserable just for the sake of this poor little baby who was born into this terrible mess.
2/5
Permalink
09.18.07
Posted in DVD Tuesday, Film analysis at 12:29 pm by Administrator
This week The Weinstein’s are single handedly going to sell you half of a movie for the full-suggested retail price of your average DVD. I understand that they were foolish enough to release a three hour R rated movie on Easter weekend but in a mad rush to get back a lot of lost money they are splitting up the two films that make up Grindhouse to sell extended cuts of each film separately. This film was made up of two movies, one directed by Robert Rodriguez, titled, Planet Terror, and the other made by Quentin Tarantino, Death Proof. Both movies are an homage to the 70’s exploitation cinema where you could see two terrible movies for the price of one. Fortunately this time around they offered two good movies that made up one great movie-going experience.
What starts to become painfully obvious when watching Death Proof on its own is that without Planet Terror’s over the top excitement this movie cannot really stand on its own two legs. What was once forgivable is now incredibly cringe inducing. Tarantino needs to cut back on the self-referential dialogue. I am tired of him name-dropping movies just so that he can snub his nose at the very audience who paid to see his movie. What really hurts Death Proof is the second set of girls who are loud-mouthed caricatures. You see I was able to look over these faults when I could think of Death Proof as half of one awesome movie. Planet Terror is looked down upon simply because it has more gore and less talk, if you ask me I’d take that over Death Proof’s asinine conversations any day, especially when all of that talk ultimately adds up to nothing.
My recommendation is to wait until the Weinstein’s release both films as they were originally intended to be watched; as one three hour experience where one film compliments the other. After the 90 minutes of bullets and blood I welcomed QT’s far more relaxed pacing and slow build up to the car chase scenes. Now you must sit and wonder why Zoe Bell thinks squinting is acting or how many times one black character can say “bitch
Grindhouse: Death Proof – 2/5
Permalink
08.30.07
Posted in Film analysis at 3:08 pm by Administrator
The summer of the threequel has come to an end. Hollywood has unleashed its biggest guns and according to the box office it has paid off but what about for you and me, the devoted moviegoer, did we get what he paid for? Like most summer that answer is loaded with arguments for both sides of the coin.
DUDS
A film can be a dud even if it skimmed by with a 3/5 from this lover of cinema. A dud is just a film that failed to exceed expectations or even worse turning out to be a complete piece of trash.
Shrek 3 - DreamWorks (the assholes who recently ditched blu-ray for HD-DVD) released a big giant green shaped turd this summer and his name was Shrek. Whatever last leg this franchise was standing on was sawed off and fed to the nearby cannibals. Jokes are reversed as not to appear recycled. Characters remain stiff and two-dimensional. The animation style is dated when compared to Pixar who is constantly upping the ante in that department. It’s a franchise that families can’t seem to stay away from and that needs to over dose on pixie dust.
Rush Hour 3 – Falls into a lot of the same pit falls as most of the threequals that came out this summer. More of the same old thing. Nothing fresh to offer. Even the stars are looking older and tired of running around with the same old routine. Jackie Chan does none of the awesome stunts that made Rush Hour 2 so much fun. Chris Tucker tries almost too hard and rehashes his singing bit and the “I don’t understand you” bit. A lame attempt at tying this up, as some sort of trilogy cannot disguise that nobody involved seems to care anymore, and neither should we.
Sunshine - I don’t blame Danny Boyle for trying. Every filmmaker secretly wants to make his or her very own masterpiece in the vein of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Boyle came awfully close until he throws it all away for a third act that destroys the ambiance of the first two acts. I wouldn’t be so hard on the film but it starts off so promising and then just descends into mediocrity so easily, falling back on every cliché that these kinds of films are riddled with. A team of scientists stuck on a ship. Will they each die one by one? Will they turn on each other? Will they search another ship? The answers should surprise no one familiar with the genre.
Good but slightly disappointed.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End - I am a slight apologist for this bloated and uninspired end to the Pirates saga. While I walked away impressed with its ballsy ending I was surrounded by disappointed sighs and charlie horsed butt cheeks. The films three hour running time was a true endurance test for your derrière. Some didn’t enjoy the franchise leaping head first into the fantasy genre, almost without warning. Still even with its pleasant surprises one can’t help but complain that at three hours this film at times feels aimless and lost at sea until its almost thrilling finale.
Hot Fuzz - In hindsight I truly am sick and tired of every comedy running two hours and sometimes even longer. A word to the wise, I can only laugh so long until I tire of it. Lets embrace the concise nature of the 90-minute comedy. Non-stop laughs, not too much story, and ends right as your face begins to hurt from all that grinning. Hot Fuzz succeeds mostly but fizzles out in its mid section.
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer – I enjoyed this film for what it offered but two glaring aspects may hurt my opinion of it as I revisit it on home video. 1) Its short running time limits the scope of the storytelling. 90 minutes just isn’t enough time to explore all of the relationship possibilities with the fab four. The best comic book films run at least two hours. 2) Galactus – yeah a big giant cloud of dust. I’ll never get over that one.
Stardust - You can read my recent review as to why I was not impressed with this wannabe fantasy film. I just can’t bring myself to complain about it anymore.
Winners
Transformers – An empty, shallow, yet entertaining cartoon becomes an empty, shallow, and very entertaining feature film. Transformers knew what it had to do and it did it just right. It’s the very reason we go to the movies in the summer time: beat the heat and watch giant robots blow everything up. Michael Bay doesn’t squeeze any false sentimentality out of the proceedings and gives you the bots with as little filler as possible.
Spiderman 3 - My problems with Venom aside, if you pretend this movie is just about Spidey and Sandman then it becomes a truly phenomenal end to this segment of the web crawler’s film adventures. Sam Raimi continues the formula that worked so well and manages to evolve the characters each to a very satisfying conclusion. Now you really can’t ignore how terribly underplayed the Venom/Black Suit saga was done so its up to you how much of a deal breaker that is, but for me it wasn’t enough to sour me on this great comic book film.
The Simpson’s Movie - If you didn’t find something to love about the Simpson’s movie I pity your immortal soul. TV-to-film movies don’t get any better then this. Its full of truly well written jokes, the characters all get their moment to shine, and the tone remains true to the Simpson’s that made us truly care about this dysfunctional yet charming family.
Beyond Winning. Downright Greatness.
Once - The indie musical that will make you forget that you hate indie musicals. The music is where this film shines. Sounds like a brilliant mix tape of unknown artists when compared to Hollywood’s flamboyant and loud counterparts. The story is simple, as it should be, and just allows the music to sweep you away and win you over.
Grind house – If you didn’t catch this one in theaters then you will never understand how Death Proof, and Planet Terror made for the perfect double billing. Never before has the ten-dollar movie ticket been worth every penny. Going down as one of the best films of the year in my book.
Sicko – Michael Moore is his own worst enemy. Most will not sit down to watch it simply because he made it and that will be their loss. Never before has he so fairly displayed a topic that nobody can possibly refute. Healthcare is a hot button issue that will surely drive the next presidential election. You can thank Mr. Moore if one day you can pay $5 dollars for your mother’s medicine.
Final Thoughts
Like every summer you get a healthy mix of good, great, and downright awful movies. Comparing summers is about as useful as wondering which side of an apple you should eat first. Every year I hope the next summer’s offerings can just give me more of what I love and less of what I hate. Lets hope Iron Man, Batman Dark Knight, and Indiana Jones 4 can live up to the hype.
Permalink
07.17.07
Posted in Film analysis at 2:59 pm by Administrator
I can start this article by listing all of the things that make me a huge Simpson’s fan but I won’t bore you with those details. Sure I can quote Simpson’s episodes like Christians quote the bible. Sure I’ve seen every episode at least twice if not more. I’ve got stacks of old tapes where I recorded nothing but 8 hours worth of the Simpson’s that I’ve watched at nausea. Like many other fans I’ve eagerly anticipated a Simpson’s movie for as long as I can remember. Most shows like the X-Files, Twin Peaks, and Southpark release films right at their prime. The Simpson’s on the other hand is a different animal all together. Matt Groening and company never ran head first into doing a film in fact they didn’t want any of that pressure which explains why they kept this movie such a big secret until just last summer when a teaser was revealed literally out of thin air (Or fat air).
Is this too little too late for a series that has never been able to regain its golden days? Most fans would argue when exactly the Simpson’s began its decline, apologists would go as high as season 10, the less kind would say at season 6. I will admit that certain seasons left me baffled, the show has become so convoluted and much of the heart of the series has been exchanged for cheap gags. Still their is hope; this past season has to be one of the best since the decline, showing us that The Simpson’s can still win over old fans that have been with the series this entire time.
The ones responsible for some of the best seasons of the show are helming the movie. It wasn’t rushed and if you’ve ever heard commentaries by that crew on the dvd sets they are very picky about what jokes they use. They have very high standards and I can’t imagine the movie not living up to expectations but with the shows fan base not as alive as they used to be is their still room for this film to be the huge box office success it would’ve been 8 years ago? I suppose that answer is up to the millions of fans worldwide. I’ve no doubt the film will make a lot of money and I certainly hope fans will not miss out on the movie because of a few bad seasons.
What made the Simpsons so great is that for once a TV family was not perfect, they had faults, but they perservered through them. As long as the film does not forget its roots we are in for a gut busting good time. I’ve got my tickets for the midnight show on July 26th with plans to see it again opening weekend. Hope to see you there!
Permalink
07.09.07
Posted in Film analysis at 1:56 pm by Administrator
Transformers opened to a whopping 7-day box office total of 152 million dollars. Worldwide figures are already close to hitting 250 million. Not only is this the kind of kick in the pants this sequel-laden summer needed its also the first whiff of what Hollywood has up its sleeve as the next big trend. Comic book movies show no sign of weakening with even C grade heroes such as Ghost Rider grossing over 100 million at the box office. With Batman set to return next year and Iron Man ready to make his big screen debut theirs no shortage of comic-to-film translations. So what could possibly shake up Marvel’s golden age in cinema? The 80’s that’s who. It’s back and ready to milk your nostalgia for all its worth.
Transformers are just the first of a few of big screen adaptations of some of your favorite cartoons. This fall they’ve announced Alvin and the Chipmunks starring Jason Lee with the three once-loveable singing trio now turned into what appears to be pimped out ghetto thugs. So instead of a hoola hoop I suppose Alvin will want some gold rims and a platinum chain for Christmas? Making the same mistake as this summers Underdog they’ve decided to turn a cute cartoon into an ugly reality. Chipmunks are some ugly little sons of bitches and just from the poster you can tell that the film is going for this awkward hyper-realistic look. Why take away the one aspect that people fondly remember? Why is Underdog just a boring normal every day looking dog? What happened to the retarded cartoon I remember so vaguely?
Transformers walked the fine line and managed to succeed despite itself. You still get a cringe-worthy “bitch” reference from Jazz but thankfully that kind of tripe is kept to a minimum. So what’s in store for you film lovers out there? An all CGI movie of the Smurfs with an all CGI movie of the Thundercats set for 2010. G.I.Joe is already being talked about and we may even see the steroid induced He-Man sequel nobody asked for, where’s Dolph Lundren when you need him?
You know what? None of these cartoons are as good as I remember them. I sat down to watch an episode of Thundercats on Cartoon Network and had trouble getting past the first ten minutes. Once the joy of watching the opening theme ended I had to sit through some truly god-awful animation mixed with a script that makes every line redundant of what is going on. They seem to always pain stakingly explain what they are doing before they do it and what is happening just after its happened. Don’t get me wrong they have their charm but lets not kid ourselves about these properties. Transformers were never Shakespeare and Bay’s film is true to its original toy-selling scheme. A cartoon created to sell action figures, brilliant.
Still the 80’s could be in for a tough fight as the Wachowski’s bring back the 60’s with their next film based on Speed Racer. I can’t wait to watch as Speed Racer and his monkey sit down and have a philosophical conversation on the need for man to race against others or perhaps he’s truly just racing against himself? Go Speed Racer Go.
Permalink
06.11.07
Posted in Film analysis at 2:06 pm by Administrator
Theirs no way around it, no matter how hard you try to hope. No matter how hard you pray to the gods of adaptations; there is one singular, unmistakable, inescapable truth: video games do not make good movies. Quite often when a game to film adaptation is announced you always feel that air of caution from both fans and critics alike. Its that stench left from so many tragic video games turned into films that really leaves us with the feeling that their is nothing to hope for whenever a new one is announced.
Last night I was watching one of the more decent games to film movies, Silent Hill. As I watched a few rather impressive blood filled set pieces lazily glued together with some rather drab dramatic storytelling I thought back to all of the video game movies I either did or did not enjoy for various reasons. I instantly just lower my standards whenever I pop in a film like Doom or Resident Evil and to interesting effect it is possible to discover a lower-level brain-dead enjoyment from the mindless proceedings. Other times you just want to bash your skull in just to end the pain such as with House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark. 
If I had to think back to the first video game film to get it right it would have to be Mortal Kombat. Not because its really all that good but simply because it gives you what you enjoyed from the game and doesn’t try to change it just to appeal to mainstream audiences. Just look at Street Fighter for a fine example of how doing such a thing can end up with your film appealing to absolutely no one. Still, one is left wondering what is so difficult about adapting a video game to the big screen? I believe the answer is rather simple, games are meant to be experienced not watched. When you are interacting with the story it’s easy to forget that the script is awful and the acting is wretched. If you are the man with the gun its easy to get lost in the fun of it all but if you had to sit and watch all the story elements without any of the interactivity you are left with some very drab stuff.
With game such as Halo, Gears of War, and Metal Gear Solid making their way to the big screen what hope do we really have that any of them will be any good? Halo is flawed from the start because its storyline is slim and its main character never takes off his helmet. Perfect for a game but the scriptwriters have a nightmare of a time getting around those elements. Do you keep fans happy and have Master Chief remain hidden behind his iconic mask? Or do you please mainstream audiences and give them a handsome face to drool over in between gun battles? Another recent blockbuster hit in the game world is Gears of War a game that has taken countless hours of my life and I would never dare ask for them back but its storyline was nonexistent and would bore me to death if I had to watch all ten minutes of it back to back without the thrilling experience of playing through it. 
Metal Gear Solid is the only odd man out simply because the series itself has been more like a film and less like a game since it was revived on the Playstation a few years back. Its a movie stuck in a video games body so perhaps their is a chance it will easily find a home on the big screen. The only thing working against it is that the game is very well known for its very complicated, bizarre, and at times preachy storylines. It may not be what your average movie goer wants to see so its another case where you must decide whether to please the fans or the masses and in either case it could mean death at the box office. Even this weekend they recently released the film version of the Dead or Alive video game series. I watched the first thirty minutes and needless to say its hilariously awful. So bad its downright funny.
I personally have mixed feelings when it comes to films that take my favorite game and try to entertain me without giving me the chance to take part in the proceedings. I just take them on a case-by-case basis. I’ve enjoyed laughing at them, and some I can actually enjoy without being embarrassed for all involved with the project. All we can do is hold tightly to our game controllers and hope for the best. Although all is not lost, much like your typical book adaptations, when the film fails you can always fall back on the source material and pretend the movie never happened.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
