So far, on this list of video game flicks, the one that stands out as best overall (at least for yours truly) has been 'Silent Hill'. There's a certain dark, horrific beauty to it that I couldn't help but admire. And while it may or may not be reminiscent of the game for fans, it totally works on its own as a simple, mind-bending horror movie. In other words, you really didn't need the game to enjoy it - all the stuff that needed to be there was there; not the least of which was a brilliantly eerie soundtrack (perfect for Halloween). But now we take a look at the film's sequel; a somewhat convoluted mess that I almost feel like I should watch again before reviewing it, because it was kind of confusing, but I don't want to, so here we are with a somewhat half-assed attempt. So, some years after the events of the first film, Christopher Da Silva (Sean Bean) and his adopted daughter, Sharon (Adelaide Clemens) find themselves on the run, assuming different identities; prominently, in this film, Harry and Heather Mason (I will keep calling them Chris and Sharon for purposes of recognition). Now for those catching up, we know Chris and Sharon from the first film, and as far as we know before going into this, they remain somewhere in Silent Hill - so IS this the real Sharon? While Sharon is convinced that their running has to do with Chris being in trouble with the cops, Chris knows better that it's actually a cult from Silent Hill known simply as "The Order". Now, the standard 'Silent Hill' story tends to involve someone venturing, or being taken into the dark world of Silent Hill, and another venturing in after them. In this case, the Order kidnaps Chris, and Sharon heads in to find him with the help of one, Vincent Cooper (Kit Harington). Maybe it's just my ADD at work, but pretty much around the time the Silent Hill stuff starts to go down, that's where things started to confuse me. This was a film that I found to be a jigsaw puzzle pieced together wrong. It consisted of all the right pieces, but it get to be too much for a plot that should be about as basic as the first. If you're in the mood for a lot of disturbing imagery that borders on torture porn, however, this could be pretty ripe for the picking for you. That's one thing I'd say the movie did really well - the atmosphere of the first film is still ever present, and that includes the soundtrack that I so praise. So as far as the mood goes, in my humble opinion, the film nails it. There's also some pretty great usage of practical effects to add some of that real "meat" to things. All in all, the film is successfully creepy, and uses various stars to its advantage like Carrie-Anne Moss and Malcolm McDowell. Who do they play? No spoilers, but if you need to know, here's this. The film unfolds with some mystery and intrigue, but I personally had a tough time with it. While certain aspects of the film are done really quite well, other things are either confusing or even sort of redundant. I mean, we have a character going into Silent Hill looking for another character while the story tells some kind of horrific history in the town, for some reason always involving a little girl. And I think that's where the film really drops the ball; it's sort of more of the same, and the cool, gruesome, horrific imagery just isn't enough to save it. In my mind, I'd say stick to the first one, as it just plain works as its own horror movie complete with a twist ending. This, while I wouldn't consider it trash, is a bit more or a spectacle than a good story. Who knows, it could make for a guilty pleasure for the Halloween season. 2/5
0 Comments
When it comes to the 'Resident Evil' movie franchise, I have a tendency to divide it into two trilogies. The first three, I'd refer to as the "Apocalypse Trilogy", where the big concern is surviving undead creatures and Umbrella's sinister creations. The second trilogy, is the "Umbrella Trilogy", where the focus shifts far more towards the Umbrella Corporation itself, and taking down the big wigs while making sure everything "looks cool". I also consider the second trilogy to be more of a "style over substance" thing, almost as if all three final films are one big climactic epic. This is debatable, but this is just me. The fourth film even opens with a recap from "My Name is Alice" (Milla Jovovich), and since this begins the "Umbrella Trilogy", it's only fitting that I do the same, so we can start somewhat fresh here. So to recap, an incident happens in an underground lab that unleashes the "T-Virus", and eventually leads to the zombie apocalypse. This unfolds in the first three films by showing us its evolution through the Hive (Umbrella's secret underground facility), the fictional Raccoon City, then of course, the world. Former Umbrella worker, Alice, survives the first film, and by the second film is experimentally infused with the T-Virus, bonding with it, and creating a bad ass. Alice pretty much makes it her mission to hunt down Umbrella for not only destroying the world, but keeping constant with experimentation - which includes using her DNA to recreate her. This is where the fourth film here picks up, as Alice has found a buttload of clones of her, has freed them, and as a team, a whole whack of Alices is now storming Umbrella HQ in Tokyo, and they just tear shit up. Umbrella Head, Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts), however, manages to escape, detonating a bomb that destroys Umbrella HQ and all Alices within - except of course the real one who manages to escape on Wesker's plane. Her attempt on his life is nearly successful, but he manages to inject her with an anti-virus, taking away all of her awesome abilities. Just to get things rolling, however, the plane eventually crashes, and Alice survives, but now has to rely on her average abilities which are surprisingly similar to her superhuman ones. Anyway, she travels to her Alaskan destination of "Arcadia", determined in the third film to be the last refuge for humanity. Before the end of the third film, however, Alice goes after Umbrella, leaving the friends she made to make it to Arcadia, themselves. Among them, Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), who Alice stumbles upon when she finds Arcadia to be not quite what she expected. Anyway, I could be unfolding plot stuff here all day, but the pair soon travel to Los Angeles where they find a prison full of survivors. Lead by Luthor West (Boris Kodjoe), they also meet Wendell (Fulvio Cecere), Crystal Waters (Kacey Clarke), Bennett (Kim Coates), Kim Yong (Norman Yeung), Angel Ortiz (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), and last but not least, Wentworth Miller in his heyday, playing someone who may be a huge spoiler if revealed. As the film continues, we learn things like what Arcadia really is, and the fact that Alice's venture against Umbrella isn't over yet - indeed, it's just beginning. As for Wesker? Well, again, no spoilers (even if you don't really care). For me, the 'Resident Evil' film series is okay at best, and a lot of it has to do with chapters like this, where it's nothing but eye candy - and at this point, dated eye candy. The slow-motion, or "bullet time" cliche has pretty much become a parody of itself, and it was used a LOT here. A lot of that was also to show off the new superior 3D technology we got with 'Avatar'. Yes, this was the second (I believe) film to actually use it. So in theaters, I remember it looking amazing, but that was about the extent of it. Otherwise it felt very simplistic, and there to show off new technology and what it could do. As usual, I'm reviewing this not so much as a video game adaptation as its own thing - the fourth of a chain of six movies telling one long story. If you're able to see things as such, and you're not really that into the games (like me), it can be a perfectly entertaining experience if you can just let go, and treat it like some kind of bad ass Saturday morning cartoon... with swearing and violence. These have never been a set of movies I've hated in any way, but there are a few I find to be "lesser" than others, and this is one of them. The entertainment comes from the look and style, and the big problem with the 3D aspect, is that it's only really available on the big screen. After that, it's kind of just a balls to the wall action flick with very little substance, and this would continue with the next film. But more on that soon enough. 2/5 We all know that this is one of those movies that has gone down in cinematic history as something very "white-washed", and I'd like my audience to know that this is not something I'm about to touch with a ten-foot pole. It's a film that's old enough that by now, it's out there, and it can be used as some kind of educational example. I also don't pretend to know anything about these games, namely the one that share's the film's name, and I don't know how accurate things are (I know, surprise, right?). But I will admit something, cards on the table right now. Honestly? I actually enjoyed this. For a little history, let's turn to my homework on the 'Sands of Time' game. It's a third-person puzzle platformer that follows an unnamed Prince who's father attacks an ancient city. During this, the Prince finds the "Dagger of Time" and his father finds an hour glass containing the "Sands of Time". The Sands are presented as a gift to the Sultan of Azad, but a traitorous Vizier tricks the Prince into releasing the Sands, which in turn transform the townspeople into monsters the Vizier is able to control. The adventure involves the Prince, along with the Sand-educated Farah to set things right, and the game was released to critical acclaim, especially when you could use your dagger to rewind time and fix your mistakes. The film introduces us to a white boy named Dastan (William Foster) who lives on the streets in Persia, playing 'Aladdin' in his spare time (no, seriously, watch this opening and tell me it's not ripped out of 'Aladdin'). He stands up to some captors after trying to steel some fruit, and impresses King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) who adopts him. After fifteen years, the King's princes; Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), Tus (Richard Coyle) and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) are given the news that the city of Alamut is forging weapons for Persia's enemies. This attack is what leads Dastan to the dagger mentioned in the game description. Alamut falls, and Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), realizing Dastan holds the sacred dagger, agrees to marry Tus in order to unite their nations... makes sense. Anyway, this eventually leads to the death of the King, Garsiv accusing Dastan of murder, and Tus being appointed King, setting a bounty on the heads of both Dastan and Tamina. So it pretty well ends up being an "on the run" adventure movie, and the adventure and action here is actually pretty solid. There's more to the overall plot that involves actors like Ben Kingsley, but I could be here forever unfolding plot point after plot point. The key factor here is that the film, though containing elements from the game, is not the same story. This is always something that I understand when it comes to criticism about video game movies. A movie has to work in a certain way where a game can jam more information into it. For example, I don't know the reason he's unnamed in the game, or if he's ever given a name, but it might have been pointless to have him nameless. I'm going to go ahead and imagine that as an adaptation of the game, it probably dropped the ball. But if the game never existed, and perhaps the white-wash fact wasn't a thing (I know what I said about touching the subject, but still) this could have just been the next fun Disney adventure flick. It's another case of all the right elements being there, but the execution leaves a little to be desired. Although I do enjoy it for what it is, it might be a good example of it being a good movie if it wasn't called 'Prince of Persia'. This is more a matter of me being disappointed for fans of the established and very well received game. But perhaps it can be used as an example of why we really don't need a 'Last of Us' movie? Anyway, for me, passable. For others, I totally get it if it's not. 3/5 Beginning in 2004, and lasting up until now, the 'Far Cry' game series is definitely among the most popular game series out there. With this film being 2008, it was released with only the first of the now six games done, and the second was well on the way. The fist game follows a Special Forces operator turned boat charter named Jack Carver. He is hired by a Valerie Constantine to take her to an uncharted island in Micronesia. The boat is attacked, Valerie goes missing, Jack goes searching, and there's arguably a real 'Uncharted' vibe to it, complete with plot twists, strange creatures and interesting connections between characters. As the film opens, we get a mercenary squad attacked by some sort mutant creature, as they attempt to track down a number of escaped test subjects. We soon meet, watching the event with seemingly great interest, Dr. Krieger (Udo Kier), who is obviously up to no good, but we're not altogether sure exactly what it is he's up to. We just know it has something to do with whatever it is attacking these mercenaries. Asked to stop his "research" after these attacks, he refuses. Although this is a Boll film, I'm going to give a nudge of credit to Kier's performance here, as he is actually quite a creepy guy, and easy to buy as a madman type of villain. In the meantime, we meet Valerie Cardinal (Emmanuelle Vaugier), who is secretly receiving information about Krieger's secret project. She soon agrees to meet with her informant in person for further information. Like in the game, Valerie is a journalist who hires ex Special Forces Operator, Jack Carver (Til Schweiger) to take her to the island. The boat is attacked by mercenaries, Valerie is captured, at first, but soon enough things switch gears a bit. While Jack insists on leaving the island, Valerie refuses to without her informant, her uncle Max, who evidently once served with Jack, though Jack claims not to know him. So basically, rescue mission, and stop the madman. Perhaps its a bold statement, but as far as Boll's video game adaptations go, this one feels a little more "right on" than most. The only real problem with it is some of the writing ("surprise") and direction (another "surprise"). I feel like if this whole idea could have been put in someone else's hands, this could have been a decent film. Not great, but at least pretty passable. I may say it passes as a video game adaptation, but that's only really in that the plot is very similar. This doesn't pull any sort of 'Resident Evil' gimmicks, trying to make it something separate. It's at least trying to be like the game, and in the right mind-set it's possible to enjoy this... mildly, and ironically, but possible. One thing is for sure though, after this, I'm looking forward to not having to touch anything else Uwe Boll-written and/or directed (that is, until I do my next part of "The Arcade" sometime down the line, covering animation and straight to video releases) after this. The adaptations that lie ahead may not be great, but Uwe Boll films just have this certain strange feel to them - like watching the acting in a pornographic movie, but without any sex, and if there is any sex, it tends to feel a bit awkward. This had a moment or two, and I might suggest it's not as bad as it could be, but it's still quite bad. Don't take my word for it though, check it out on YouTube for free and judge for yourself. 2/5 Although there now stand three 'In the Name of the King' films, this was the only one to get any sort of theatrical release. Despite its all-star cast and popular video game-related title, the film ended up being a box office bomb, not even breaking the weekend's Top 10 upon its release. The film was critically panned left and right, up and down, and widely considered one of the worst video game adaptations of all time. This is also another one brought to us by Uwe Boll, marking his fourth video game adaptation... that's also not a typo, since I got the dates confused between this and his fifth, 'Postal', but here we are. For those keeping track, it started with 'House of the Dead', and continued, in order, with 'Alone in the Dark', 'Bloodrayne', 'In the Name of the King' and 'Postal'. This means there's only one more in this collection for me to endure, and it's literally next on the list. But back to the film at hand, this is loosely based on the 'Dungeon Siege' action RPG games. There are similarities, such as the location, taking place in the fantasy world of Ehb, but this is a lot like that one time they tried to make 'Dungeons & Dragons' a movie. For a game with customisable characters, and no real characters to route for that we'd be familiar with, there's a lot of free reign, save for a few elements here and there. The one thing this really had going for it, however, was its star power, which manages to transform this into an absolute guilty pleasure. We meet a man known only as "Farmer" (Jason Statham), living a sunshine and rainbows life with his wife, Solana (Claire Forlani) and son, Zeph (Colin Ford). One day, a band of creatures known as the Krug (a primitive, animalistic race) attacks their town, and it seems iffy that they seem suddenly intelligent enough to be able to attack much like humans would. Revealed to the audience, they are being controlled by a magic user named Gallian (Ray Liotta) who wants to simply take over the Kingdom of Ehb. Farmer fights a battle against the Krug, alongside his friend, Norick (Ron Perlman) and brother-in-law, Bastian (Will Sanderson), but fails to save his son from being killed, and his wife, along with other townspeople taken prisoner. Coming in to survey the damage and try to recruit for his army, is King Konreid (Burt Reynolds), accompanied by Commander Tarish (Brian White), another magic user named Merick (John Rhys-Davies) and a small group of Ehb's army. Farmer, Norick and Bastian refuse to join, however, and they set off on their own to search for Solana, believing she is still alive. That's the main plot, but we also come across Merick's daughter, Muriella (Leelee Sobieski) who, once in love with Gallian, has noted his dark side, and believes herself to be the reason he's so powerful. Perhaps most odd, however, is Konreid's nephew, Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard), who plots to one day take his uncle's throne. Now, think of Lillard being his typical whacky self, but with a bad English accent. It was... bizarre. Nothing against Lillard at all, but one must admit, him in a medieval film where he's not a jester doesn't feel like it fits. This is a film worthy of being thrown in the discount bin pretty quickly (and I think it actually was). It's a strange mishmash of big names, bad direction, and borrowing from all sorts of things, namely high fantasy titles like 'Lord of the Rings' with some of its sets and a lot of its atmosphere. It does, however, play out a lot more like 'Dungeons & Dragons'. The plot is pretty standard; girl gets kidnapped, hero must save damsel in distress. Beyond that, a lot of the performances are quite funny to watch, but not really in the right way. Perhaps most entertaining is somewhere between Ron Perlman's cheesy one-liners, and trying to take Burt Reynolds seriously as a king, when I've seen him as a pornographic director before. This one is a little bit harder to find, but it's worth checking out if you can. Don't get the wrong idea though. Uwe Boll still pretty much equals "Bad Movie". However, as I mentioned earlier, I can make this one of my many guilty pleasures. Another "so bad it's good movie" to show my friends and laugh at, doing the 'Mystery Science Theater' thing with it. Unlike pretty much all of his previous films I've reviewed, this is one I could see myself actually coming back to if I have some time and nothing else to do. On that note, I am pretty pleased that I only have one more Boll film on this list, and that's coming up next. Will it be his saving grace? Or is this guilty pleasure of a film the best I'm going to get? 2/5 Here's another fine example of a video game movie that managed to go pretty under the radar while its namesake is actually a pretty well-known one-on-one fighting game series. This was the one that got famous for having a whole lot of bouncy but bold female characters. In other words, they kicked ass, and looked good doing it. So it was no surprise to me that the movie primarily focused on four lead female characters participating in a tournament. First, these ladies need special invites to the fight, which they get one by one as they are introduced. We meet a shinobi ninja princess named Kasumi (Devon Aoki), whose brother, Hayate, went missing at last year's DOA tournament - a secret faceoff against some of the world's best fighters in their respective styles, where the prize money is $10 million. Next we meet professional wrestler, Tina (Jaime Pressly), fending off a group of pirates lead by 'Mortal Kombat's Robin Shou, looking like a literally washed up Liu Kang. Then there's master thief and assassin, Christie (Holly Valance) and Kasumi's friend, a guy named Hayabusa (Kane Kosugi), who follows her to keep her safe. The fourth female character is Helena (Sarah Carter), the tournament founder's daughter, who we don't see until things get going. We see the characters get injected with nano-sensors, and soon learn that this leads to a lab where they are being monitored and researched by island supervisor, Dr. Victor Donovan (Eric Roberts) and his assistant, the painfully nerdy and awkward Weatherby (Steve Howey) for some kind of mysterious project, which is unveiled in the end, and is actually pretty predictable. Meanwhile, each of our female leads goes through the tournament with their own motivations for winning - our main focus being Kasumi, looking for her brother (so definitely the Liu Kang of the film), and dealing with an assassin named Ayane (Natassia Malthe). As far as the others go, Tina is, in her way, the comedy relief who deals with a lot of the butt-kicking of men who are "being men" - like the sexual advances of Zack (Brian White). Christie develops a plot with her partner, Maximillian ‘Max’ Marsh (Matthew Marsden) to attempt to steal the prize money. Finally, Helena ends up being the "key" to the vault Christie needs access to, and ends up being the impossible love interest for Weatherby - a character so awkward that Jim Levenstein (of 'American Pie' pie-humping fame) would tell him he needs to calm the hell down. As one might predict, it all boils down to these four femme fatales and Donovan with his final result of his experiment. This one is tricky to say the least. Looking at it from a critical standpoint, it's pretty bad. It's full of tropes, tries to scream "girl power" but sort of just embarrasses itself, and things end on such a simple and predictable note. It's also a movie where they cram everyone they can into it. Thing of a DOA character, and I'm fairly certain they show up in one way or another here. The most fun is probably Bass (Kevin Nash), Tina's father, who brings in his own brand of comedy. But I do have a tendency to enjoy Nash whenever he's featured in something anyway, despite quality. So on the whole, this is definitely something I'd consider on the bad side. But much like with 'Street Fighter', it's something I can have fun with. I think that if you can look at this in the same scope as something like 'Charlies Angels', and keep that 'Street Fighter' mindset (where you can tell the film doesn't take itself seriously), I daresay this is something you can actually have fun with. It's just about what I expected it to be, and it does do a good job with fight sequences, but it may also take the video game similarities too far. For example, if you watch a fight on a monitor, there's a health bar, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But for me, that's right up there with M. Bison's arcade controller. This film is, indeed, ridiculous. It's corny, full of bad dialogue and bad acting, and almost overrun with T&A. But there's a certain "bad movie" charm to it. 2/5 Back in my PS1 days, there were two survival horror games that stuck out to me as potentially very good... if only I could get the handle of them. 'Resident Evil' was one of them, of course, owing largely to being the first game to give me a genuine jump scare. The other was the mind-bending and surreal nightmare that was 'Silent Hill'. It had an atmosphere with its gruesome imagery, lighting and dream-like, subtle soundtrack that I couldn't help but admire as what "horror" should be. It's a bit mind-blowing to think that at the time, a game could capture some truly horrific material while a movie couldn't. The first game was '99, so horror was in a heavy phase of teen slashers. They were all basically some kind of 'Friday the 13th' ripoff taking place in a more real-world setting. 'Silent Hill', among other games, however, offered something more unique - perhaps being able to get away with it a little easier both graphically and, well, graphically. Whether or not I ever got the handle of 'Resident Evil' and its tank controls, 'Silent Hill' was one I wished I didn't suck at because I wanted to experience it as some sort of next level horror. I might add that it was also around this time I started getting interested in all the classic 80s slashers I missed. The film's basic premise is seemingly pretty similar to the first game, but borrows elements as opposed to characters, all of whom are original for the film. I offer the movie credit for that, as it can be a self-contained story and doesn't really have to follow much of the game's original plot. In the argument of introducing us to Cole in the new 'Mortal Kombat', or Alice in 'Resident Evil', they interact with a whole bunch of characters we already know from the games, so you wonder where they enter into things. This, much like the games, is its own story, so even as a video game adaptation it sort of works either way. All they needed to do was add the right elements. Story-wise, this one opens with couple Christopher and Rose Da Silva (Sean Bean and Radha Mitchell, respectively) chasing after their daughter, Sharon (Jodelle Ferland) who just about sleepwalks her way off a cliff (filmed at my somewhat local Devil's Punch Bowl - in fact, much of this was filmed close to where I live, which is always pretty cool). She screams out the words "Silent Hill", and the parents wish they could figure out the connection between her and this mysterious location. Rose takes Sharon to find the town, which had since been abandoned due to a coal fire that continues to burn - based on the real-life location of Centralia, PA. Upon experiencing a car crash during a police chase from the seemingly shady officer Cybill Bennett (Laurie Holden), Rose awakens in the mysterious and abandoned ghost town with her daughter now missing. When Rose heads out to search for her, she soon finds herself in a hell on Earth where any time a loud siren goes off, trouble in its most terrifying forms are on their way. Along her journey to rescue her daughter, Rose further uncovers a mystery that may explain her daughter's connection with this Hellish town full of monster babies, twisty, bendy people, and a "Pyramid Head", who by the way offers up one of the most brutal deaths I've seen on screen - even if the effects are a bit dated now. Although I remain somewhat unsure of how this works as an adaptation, I think it's a title that can stand on its own very well as long as it's treated like its own thing, and not a direct adaptation of any of the games. Putting that aside, I would suggest that as a horror movie, this is something that does a good job of bringing that same horror magic I experienced with the first game to the big screen. When it comes to horror, I definitely have a thing for the twisted and unusual. A good horror movie has to mess with my mind, and this does manage that in several ways. It may not have done well critically, but this has its cult following of fans who suggest it's one of the best video game movies we have. I have to say, I couldn't agree more! While I still say that goes to 'Mortal Kombat', this was still at least objectively enjoyable as a horror movie. 4/5 I reviewed this movie last year for my "Film Negatives" page, and God almighty, was it ever negative. As far as video game movies go, probably the single worst video game movie I have ever seen in my life. Let's face it, that's saying a lot! But even titles like 'Double Dragon' are terrible movies you can still laugh at ironically (at least for some of us lighter-hearted critics). This was just a lot of noise, an insultingly stupid premise, and was edited in such a way that I wondered if the film was glitching on me. We are introduced to a couple of college students, Simon (Tyron Leitso) and Greg (Will Sanderson), who meet up with three girls, Alicia (Ona Grauer), Karma (Enuka Okuma) and Cynthia (Sonya Salomaa), with plans to travel to an island known as Isla del Morte to attend a rave, which is already going on. The students try to get a ride over to the island, but a boat captain named Kirk (Jürgen Prochnow) and his first mate, Salish (Clint Howard) refuse to take them, claiming that its cursed. So I guess all the other ravers happened to get sceptical captains? Anyway, eventually one of them gives Kirk (Captain Kirk... it's trying to be a joke, but no one is laughing) $1,000 cash, straight from his wallet, and that's enough to do the trick. Upon arrival to the island, however, they find that most of the ravers have been killed by zombies. Without going into too much detail, a police officer named Casper (Ellie Cornell) joins in for some firepower, and we pretty much get an endless, mindless, rock and roll, slow-mo abusing, balls to the wall action movie, edited with second-long clips from the 'House of the Dead' arcade game that its based off. Yes, there are transitional scenes that just crowbar in seemingly subliminal clips from the game. Now that's some Sega advertising! (there's also a gigantic Sega banner at the rave for whatever reason, but there you go, shameless promotion for a damn-near obsolete company in 2003) I suppose this movie was made for those die hard fans of the long-lived arcade game. But I can't help but wonder why. For starters, this was right around the time the zombie obsession was starting to make a big comeback, and 'Resident Evil' helped to trigger that one year earlier. If you ask me, the writers just looked at 'Resident Evil' and said "let's make ours look more like a video game". With that said, there is really nothing more to the 'House of the Dead' game than running around, killing zombies and other monsters. Now, let this movie just stand as proof that if you follow that simplicity to a certain degree, your movie ends up being a mindless, unnecessary mess. Once again, 'Mortal Kombat' probably has the best balance to it as an example of something that does it well. There is very little redeemable about this movie. If anything, maybe some neat action shots, and the music can be pretty rockin'. After saying all this though, don't take my word for the overall bad quality of this train wreck. IMDb has it listed all the way at #8 for its 250 worst movies of all time, its Rotten Tomato rating is a critical 3% vs an audience 10%, and Metacritic has it at a mere 15%. The film might be enjoyable if, and only if, you have a super bad day, and just wanna watch a bunch violence set to rave and/or metal music, with a few girls who don't offer up anything but eye candy. It's definitely a dude porn movie, but for that point in time in a dude's life called puberty, when watching this stuff is still just cool and fun, without thinking much about it. At the end of the day, this one is a mere throwaway movie with next to no redeeming qualities at all. Even for a movie that was released 17 years ago, Clint Howard is still the most famous name in it. The other players have been in other things, and might be recognizable, but there were no names to help fuel this movie and get butts into seats. Luckily, everyone was clever enough to see this for the disaster is was bound to be, and it bombed super hard at the box office. People saw this little independent film called 'Kill Bill' instead, that weekend, and were all the better for it. 1/5 As far as video game movie adaptations go, I never found the first two 'Tomb Raider' films to be particularly bad ones. I knew very little of the 'Tomb Raider' series, but I still had enough familiarity with it to see a thing or two they seemed to get right. However, I think that in resembling those first few games, this one does a better job of it. The film's only real problem is that it's basically what we saw last time with add-ons. It's the formula of "adventurer must intercept ancient magical object before bad guys can use it for their own selfish means". But honestly, that seems to just be the formula for a standard adventure story. I mean, 'Indiana Jones' does it too. An earthquake in Greece unveils the underwater location of the Luna Temple; a temple built by Alexander the Great in which he kept his treasures. One such treasure is an orb, which is what begins our story as Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) and her partners Nicholas and Jimmy Petraki (Daniel Caltagirone and Fabiano Martell, respectively) find it. Just as Lara goes for it, however, the group is ambushed by Chen and Xien Lo (Simon Yam and Terence Yin, respectively). The ambushers manage to take the orb, but Lara manages to escape with a medallion. Lara later learns from MI6 that the orb she was after is actually a map that leads to the Cradle of Life, which houses Pandora's Box. Meanwhile, Chen plans to sell the orb to a bio-weapon dealer, once a Nobel Prize winning scientist, named Dr. Jonathan Reiss (Ciarán Hinds), who will be our bad guy Lara's racing against in this story. Agreeing to find the orb and keep it away from Reiss, Lara sets the condition that if she is to help, her old special friend, Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler) needs to be released from prison to help her, due to his familiarity with Chen's operation. If the pair can't stop Reiss before he finds the Cradle of Life, he will unleash a plague contained within Pandora's Box, and save only those he considers worthy. I might consider this one a touch better in quality than the first, but on the whole, I feel pretty much the same about this one as I did with the first one. It's the standard adventure premise, and there's not a whole not of new and fresh ideas going on here. That said, considering the games they are based on, it's hard to discredit the plot for being so standard. It's something that works for what it's supposed to be. Really think about that adventure formula I mentioned in the beginning though. It's used a lot! The question is what separates the good ones from the bad ones? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with the lead's passion for what they are doing. When you take 'Indiana Jones' or 'Uncharted', Indy and Drake are always really into what they are uncovering. They have this almost child-like wonder to their reactions when they find something interesting out, or there's some kind of big reveal. Lara Croft has similar passions, but she spends a whole lot of time either posing, or being a badass. I find you don't get that sense of awe on an adventure with her like you do with Indy or Drake. I compare the three, as all three use said formula, but I tend to like Indy or Drake more than I enjoy Lara. Having said that, it's my understanding that they have since improved on her character, so I really should try out the latest series of games for myself. On the whole, I think the 'Tomb Raider' movies are a pretty worthy adaptation for what the games are. Things may not be so directly adapted, but I can't honestly say I didn't really get what I expected in either film. They make for a decent back to back adventure pairing, but I don't feel any need to revisit them in the near future. I'd much sooner re-watch the 2018 version, but that's perhaps a bit closer to where my tastes lie. This version has a bit of a 'Bond' feel to it, where the other is a bit more rough and tumble. But for what these are, neither is bad, neither is great, and both times I can't deny I got pretty much what I expected. 3/5 Here's another video game movie title where we have to look at what 'Tomb Raider' was at the time. Lara Croft was not what she is today. She had a few games under her belt, they were popular, and she was something of a sex symbol. She was a strong, independent female character, but was sure to be made "sexy" as well. Looking at her pixels nowadays, the idea is just plain embarrassing. But when it came to casting Angelina Jolie to play her in the movie, knowing the character at the time, and Jolie being something of an "it" girl, it was pretty much perfect. We first meet Lara during a training exercise within her family mansion, where she lives with her assistant Bryce (Noah Taylor) and butler, Hilary (Chris Barrie). A dream of her father (real-life father, Jon Voight) leads her to a mysterious clock which sets her on a path to locate two halves of something called the "Triangle of Light"; a relic with the ability to control time. She finds herself on a race to find the halves against the Illuminati, who wish to rejoin the two halves of the triangle for their own selfish gain. It's your standard 'Indiana Jones' race between good and evil for a relic that has the potential to change things forever. The Illuminati race to use it, Lara races to destroy it before they can. In the meantime, Lara isn't without a little friendly competition from Alex West (Daniel Craig), a fellow adventurer who was hired by Manfred Powell (Iain Glen) to locate the halves of the triangle for the Illuminati. You somewhat enjoy the way Lara and Alex play off each other, and it is interesting seeing Craig in something long before he became Bond. But all in all, I have to say that the film is somewhat formulaic, and if you've seen any standard adventure story like this, you can predict how it's all going to go down. Having said that, this is also a good example of a video game movie where I tend to enjoy it more than others. I wasn't really into the older games of the time at all, so for a 'Tomb Raider' movie, I felt like it had what it needed. I think where the movie fails lies within its overall predictability and unoriginality. It is certainly better than 'Wing Commander' in that sense, but you can't really deny that the problems do still exist. But again, for 2001, this was certainly one of the better video game adaptations we had for the time. In fact, I'd probably argue that it still is. It may not be perfect, but having played a little bit here and there, it's not far off from what the original games (or at least game) showed. The shining light in the film is certainly Jolie's performance as Lara Croft. I can still remember thinking Elizabeth Hurley would have been perfect for this role, but it's not like Jolie messed it up at all. I can remember being pleasantly surprised at her portrayal of the character, from what little I knew of that character anyway. As time has moved forward, Lara Croft has since become much more of an adventurer and much less of an awkward graphical sex symbol. If I'm being totally honest, I prefer the 2018 film over this, but I still think this was what fit for the time, and it works for what it's supposed to be. The film's only real problem in my eyes is that it has since been dated. Nowadays, we really lean towards the new Lara Croft. We like the rough and tumble bad ass Lara as opposed to the femme fatale Lara that this is. Here we have almost more of a Bond girl, and things aren't dated in what I'd say is a bad way, it's just that we have since moved on. But for a video game movie for 2001, this really isn't that bad. 3/5 |