Review: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

Year: 2016
Director: Zack Synder
Screenplay: Chris Terrio, David S. Goyer
Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot

Synopsis is here:

The critics are wrong. They whine too much. They're far infatuated with what this pop culture brand used to be. Also, they don't remember how to have fun with the product. Boy oh boy is product the right word for this. The fanboys are wrong. At time of writing, I'm sure tons of comment boards will be aflame. Overwrought overreactions (with probable death threats) will be posted on sites and film forums. Trying to protect a film that will make millions no matter what. The brand will be saved from those nasty critics by the dollars of the TRUE fans. Boy oh boy is brand the right word for this film.

Let's try and be honest. Be it the negative reviews or the fanatics digging their heels, it doesn't matter because Batman vs Superman isn't really worth either. It highlights that Warner Bros and DC want to be the serious comic guys with the heavy issues, but does so at the expense of balance, storytelling and character development. This won't matter to the audience much. That’s not what they want to see. In the same way the Transformer franchise delivers robots smacking bolts out of each other, this delivers superheroes doing the same. It doesn't matter that Lois Lane does something incredibly stupid to maintain that there's an actual climax. It doesn't matter if the geography between Metropolis and Gotham exists in some kind of wormhole. Is a causal film goer or fan going to pick apart the fact that much of the film doesn't really seem to carry enough weight, from effects to character motivations? No, they will not. As long as the Batman and Superman are doing the man dance, little else matters.

This is unfortunate. For a viewer like myself, whose interest in Superheroes and the films they inhabit, waivers between intrigued casual fan to tired cynic, this film, which overzealous fanboys have crowned “only for the hard-core fandom” has decided to forget that it’s the broad audience that needs nourishing through these films, whether they like it or not. Batman vs Superman isn’t the worst superhero/comic book movie ever, but it is a comic book movie that could have been more than the sum of its parts.

I found myself once again sitting through a film which was exceedingly long, and yet has a narrative that never seems to progress. Characters make great exclamations, but actually say very little. Pieces of the puzzle get moved around, but never to build a fuller picture. It’s a film with weighty themes that do point towards a growing maturity towards the very ideals of heroism, and yet never does the film get to grips with what it’s trying to tackle. It can be argued because there’s some be fish to fry, but honestly, it could do with some decent work on the story’s connective tissue as opposed to setting up the next entry to its soon to be long running series. Claims of Iron Man (2010) doing the same is understandable, but it’s surprising what the charm of Robert Downey and Sam Rockwell can do. I will also say that the screenplay of that film doesn’t feel as patchy as this one, which has already had media outlets touting the 30 minutes extra left for the home video release.

Still, it’s not hard to be fascinated by the idea of Snyder continuing on the topics that raised eyebrows in Watchmen (2009). A modern world where idealism and heroism is dying and questioned. Cynicism bleeds through this film and to be honest, elements of it are somewhat refreshing. Even more so than Nolan’s own Dark Knight Series. Synder places these symbols in a world of black and white absolutes, Batman may be ok with picking up a gun. Superman questions the meaning of “goodness”. To even consider that world goes against what we think we know about these characters, yet still remains a compelling dynamic.

Other things frustrate. Lex Luthor for instance; a character who always seemed accustomed to acumen and preciseness, now feels likened more to a haphazard agent of chaos (similar to the Joker). Jesse Esseinberg’s coked up Trump Zuckerberg is entertainingly quirky performance, but the visual tics and manic energy do little to hide the fact that his plan to kill superman feels incoherent and unclear. We know the goal, but the reasoning never feels clear. Eisenberg always feels to be one second away from blurting out “everything burns”. Something that has never been his M.O. to my knowledge.

I also like the idea of a modern Superman, free from the shackles of Richard Donner and the cleanest cut Boy Scout image. But this figure is less tragic than just mopey. Heroism as a burden, unless it involves Lois Lane (A criminally underused Amy Adams). It's never engaging because Superman is never engaging. Neither by character or performance. Cavill’s stiff and dour Superman is combined with the angry and violent cynicism from Affleck’s impressive Wayne/Batman. The problem is in a film in which these two juggernauts are meant to clash, both heroes would happily jack the heroism thing in. There’s little to no conflict of points of view to really speak of. Just two miserable men being manipulated against each other. We don’t need wide eyed idealism, but Synder’s film has decided that neither character seems interested in nobility at all. This may not have been too much of an issue if the film settled on one of these characters. Because it doesn’t, we’re faced with overkill.

At least we’re given Batman’s origin story yet again, highlighting just how pushed to the side Superman often feels in a film which started out as a sequel to his own franchise. I have nothing but great things to say about Gal Gadot’s performance as Wonder Woman, but her subplot has little reason for being other than to wink at the hardcore fans. As does so many elements of the film (cameos, nods to future events, etc), which may have been better spent touching up the plot strands.
If there’s one thing that I cannot argue with, it’s Synder’s ability as a visual stylist and director of action. If the film's story felt as cohesive as the set pieces, I doubt we’d be obtaining the knee jerk early reviews we received. I can only imagine what the film looked like in the grandness of an IMAX screen. Watching Doomsday howling in front of the LexCorp sign is a simple yet effective visuals, as are the images of Superman hovering majestically in silhouette. It’s a shame, however, that more aspects don’t hold as much investment.

You don’t need to be paid by Marvel to see that so much of BVS is as unwieldly as its full title. Nor do you need a Zack Synder bias to feel that this is not the director’s greatest moment in terms of storytelling. There’s no anti-Warner Bros sentiment. If that’s the case, than why were Christopher Nolan’s Batman series so well received by critics? The reason why Marvel’s movies appear to be so much healthier (despite their own issues), is that the studio established a stronger structure to stand on.  Those claiming that its record breaking weekend defines this film as “good” should google just how often a film “breaks” a box office record these days.  I’d also like to see how they feel about Kim Kardashian. She too rakes in millions. Does that mean she should be adored with no questions asked? Same goes for Justin Bieber, Coldplay et al.

My personal view on Batman vs Superman is that it’s simply an overegged and overlong blockbuster. It contains some interesting ideas and some solid visuals, but no more. I came to this opinion a few days after my midnight screening of this feature. Others feel different. I won't be seeking them out with hate mail. I haven't got time. Some of us have lives to lead, Lives that don't need aggression about yet another entry in the long line of super operas. It may be interesting to see how the film frames itself in 2020 when even more of these suckers are released, but I’m not holding my breath in any way. Why should I? With Suicide Squad and Civil War are making their ways to cinemas soon, I’m finding it harder to find the time watching these things let alone arguing about them. Why fight in real life? Can’t we leave that to the Super heroes?

Review: Child 44

Director: Daniel Espinosa

Screenplay: Richard Price

Starring: Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Noomi Rapace, Joel Kinnaman, Paddy Considine, Jason Clarke, Vincent Cassel

Synopsis is here:

I often find myself getting into conversations of adaptation, with a good friend of mine whose and avid consumer of books and film. Our talks usually debate about how a film can keep hold of the book's spirit. It can never be the book. It’s not that medium, nor should it aspire to be. Not every element can make the translation. Filmmakers must traipse through the difficult task of pruning and trimming in order to gain the right fruits for the film to bear. Child 44 is a film in which clearly somebody wanted all the fruits to grow. Due to this there’s far much to pick. It is then when we yield rotten berries.

A telling review of the novel by Angus Macqueen, hints the story’s commercial aspirations, but also describes the writer Tom Rob Smith’s desire to encompass so much of Stalin’s Russia into the fiction, that it becomes difficult to take the book too seriously. While I cannot fully pass judgement on the novel. I can say that it’s hard not to feel similarly about the film.

Child 44 is quite simply a thriller that doesn’t thrill. It alludes to richness by placing forth a multitude of sub-plots, but does little to give them decent resolutions. It suggests relationships with depth, but does little to build on them. The film suffers from the same irritation that comes with Michael Bay’s Transformer Movies, in which length is believed to be a decent substitute for scale. The film's setting and historical background should provide intrigue. Yet this is clouded by drab conversations in dubious faux Russian accents and multiple scenes which grind the pace of the film to halt. Moments which should be revelations, never build to the vital discoveries the film purports them to be. This is mainly because the film never allows such moments to breathe. The elements of the overstuffed narrative come across just as cumbersome as the films clunky action set pieces. The film’s climax ends up in a muddy quagmire, which amused me, as this is how I felt about the piece in general.

Directed by Daniel Espinosa (Easy Money) is more than capable of crafting taut, commercial thrillers. Safe House (2012) is a solid example of that. Here, however, his talents seemed bogged down by a predictable screenplay (a rare misfire from scribe Richard Price), which holds a truckload of moving parts. Despite the valiant efforts of its brooding cast, so many of the film's characters feel on the periphery of the narrative. There’s a nagging feeling that one or two players had more moments left on the cutting room floor. Then again, this could have made Child 44 possibly longer. Which for myself, could have been more torture than being sent to a gulag. A contrived line? Perhaps. But no more than what Child 44 deserves. For the same price of a ticket, you could purchase Fritz Lang’s excellent M (1931) on Blu Ray, which not only deals with similar issues better, but is nearly 30 minutes shorter. The value of economy, eh? 

Review: Pain & Gain

Year: 2013

Director: Michael Bay

Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Rebel Wilson, Tony Shalhoub, Ed Harris

Synopsis is here:

Based loosely on an even more insane true story, Pain & Gain finds Michael Bay at the height of his excesses. The film is homophobic, xenophobic and sleazy in all the ways we expect a Bay film to be. Yet as the film isn't aiming dubious messages at the world’s youth (see Transformers), the blow is softened somewhat. The nastiness of the story the film is based on is in fact perfect for a director like Bay who revels in the delinquency of it all. The film is full of discrepancies (composite characters, altered facts) but it doesn't seem to matter. In his own cartoony way, Bay has crafted a film that at its highest points satirises the desperation that infects some who chase the elusive American Dream. It’s Scarface by the way of The 3 Stooges.

Bay mines all the techniques that make many hate him, but his excessiveness only seems to aid the film. The forever roaming camera captures these exasperated characters in heavily saturated colours. The extreme close ups capture every ounce of sweat drenched anxiety that befouls these despicable creatures. The canted angles and hectic cross cutting only seem to serve the skewed views of these criminals.  Even the multiple voice over narration from nearly every character in the film, plays into the mania of it all. Like soulless vultures; the various voices (full of juxtaposition as opposed to what we’re seeing) highlight the hollowness of these people.

It’s easy to hate Pain & Gain because it captures the vapid nature of its characters acutely. Delving head first into the griminess of its story, the characters talk in infomercial platitudes. They take work out breaks when the grisly shit hits the fan. Bay throws this amped up aggression right in our faces and doesn't let, but I never found myself aligning myself with the characters. I felt there was more than enough distance for me to pity their ignorance and laugh at them then with them.

The films humour is often hit and miss, yet when the lurid nature of the piece hits the right spot, there is an amusement about it that will tickle a few. Bay still really needs to reign in his bizarre issues with homosexuals (there was no elements of this in the actual story), while his attitudes to race and females are still as crude as ever. However, I must maintain that some of this works towards the characters we are observing. To sanitize the nastiness of this story would be a disservice. Fact is, as grim as the tone of this movie may be; it’s still not as nasty as what actually happened.  That Bay manages to mine something “enjoyable” out of this, says more about me than anything, but there’s something in the blackness of it all that entertained me. I've said it before; you gotta laugh, or else you’ll cry.

Pain & Gain looks to attack the worse aspects of American materialism in plain sight. From the garish colours, and over indulgent direction (although Bay has eased up on his editing), to the arrogant, dunderhead performances (Johnson’s relapsed, meatheaded addict is a highlight) of the main cast. Everything plays into the sordid mentality of culture that’s able to cultivate sociopaths and all of this is wrapped within a high octane package that only Bay could deliver. I have to admit that after the 447 minutes of robot smashing that Bay gave us, Pain & Gain seems much more toned down and focused in its action. Again, nothing hits the peaks of some his earlier works, however compared to the fallen revenges of the dark of the moon, everything is little bit more engaging. I guess one of the reasons is that Bay isn't shilling this to adolescents.

Review: Pacific Rim

Year: 2013

Director: Guillermo del Toro 

Screenplay: Travis Beacham, Guillermo del Toro 

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day

Synopsis is here:

For me Pacific Rim works because its director,Guillermo del Toro, knows how to economise storytelling. The film rattles along at great speed, but we never lose sight of anything. We feel more to be done to fill in the gaps, and yet throughout, the dynamics between characters are solid, the set pieces never feel extraneous (in fact the detail is often gorgeous) and the absurd story still manages to stay intact. Tropes and iffy dialogue are a plenty, yet the execution of it all side-swipes such issues like an elbow rocket.

For a film that is effectively Robots (Jaegers) smashing the scales off Monsters (Kaiju) it sweats out reference out of every orifice. Anime fans may mention Evangelion, Sci-fi fans can spy Godzilla. Gamers could smile at the Shadow of the Colossus feel, while guys like me may very well find themselves transported back when they first watched (and fell in love with) Independence Day (aged 12). The wealth of pop culture that seeps through scene after scene I found astonishing.

But its how all these references are stitched together which I found so appealing. The template is telling. Yet the beauty of the visuals, the spunk and energy of the performances and the boisterous thuds and clunks of mecha on flesh held my interest. Del Toro’s strength here is in taking a platter of well known aspects and rearranging them to feel fun again. The action loses the hyper active editing; we can see what’s happening. The length of the film is much shorter than some of the more hyped movies released besides it. It simply says what it needs to and doesn’t push for time to give the pretence of “epic” storytelling. The film feels big on its own regard, because of the films eye meltingly gorgeous design.

But while I found the look of the film often breath-taking (it ranks with Avatar for me as some of the best CGI), the actors that helped me suck up some air and kept me fighting the good fight. Charlie Hunnam gives an earnest display as Relight Beckett. Idris Elba channels Richard Crenna in First Blood and chomps at scenery.  Rinko Kikuchi bypasses some of the issues that have kept some of the other female characters from being anything interesting (thank god for the screenplay giving a damn). Meanwhile Charlie Day’s performance is not only welcomed by the fact that I’ve been binging on It’s always Sunny in Philadelphia, but by giving a performance that strangely reminds me of Rick Morris in Ghostbusters. That can only be a pleasant thing.

But Pacific Rim is full of such pleasant things and I don’t need my blockbusters to reinvent wheels when released (say that three times). But I do want that sense of fun that can be found. Pacific Rim doesn’t feature the comic book anxieties and origin stories that have almost become a mainstay during the summer period. It also doesn’t rely on name brand nostalgia to make an appearance of being decent. There’s none of the grubby “humour” that litters the likes of Transformers and thank goodness. Del Toro’s ability to see his blockbuster ideas through the prism of a small kid is important here. Pacific Rim manages to capture some of that imaginative feeling before cynicism set in. All Transformers seemed willing to give you is Megan Fox giving you a blank stare and a humping Robot.

Review: Warrior

Year: 2011
Director: Gavin O'Connor
Screenplay: Gavin O'Connor, Cliff Dorfman, Anthony Tambakis
Starring: Tom Hardy, Nick Nolte, Joel Edgerton

Synopsis is here

I had the wonderful pleasure of watching Warrior in a cinema all to my self today. While I understand that the U.K is going through an Indian summer of sorts with all this sun despite going into October, my love of cinema always beats out my wish for a decent tan. It was a joy to have a screen to myself for a film like Warrior; the problem however, is that I had the cinema all to myself. Much like two years ago with Whip it, I found myself watching a sports film that does almost everything right and yet, empty seats...Their loss I guess.

It's not just here in the U.K either though, as Warrior's takings in the U.S were very weak also with takings that would make a premiership footballer wet himself with laughter. I've not looked into any of the reasons offered to why Warrior failed but it's pretty unfortunate for a film which has all the traits of a modern update of Rocky. Much like Stallone's crowdpleaser, Warrior comes out as America is in a state of discombobulation. However while Rocky came out during the back end of Watergate and the Vietnam War and won over audiences who had been gorging on a diet of brilliant (yet ambiguous) American new wave. The fact that Warrior has struggled to set the box office alight against a backdrop of economic stress and middle eastern wars while millions was spent on horrid nostalgia fuelled multi-metal nightmares with dubious philosophies shows that not only William Goldman is still right and "nobody knows anything", but in terms of film viewing we have a vastly different audience when it comes to going to the cinema.

I really hope Warrior finds a fanbase on DVD as despite it's flaws, the film is an highly entertaining Drama in a similar vibe to The Fighter and The Wrestler. It has a more intriguing family dynamic, but is unfortunately held back by the typical cliche minefield that the sports film can bring. The film is very obvious in it's direction with it's clear as a bell indicators (family photos and the like) and we can guess what's going to happen a mile off. It doesn't help that the film makes sure that our "split loyalties" fall heavily over one of the fighters. Ambiguity is not an option. We can also add to the list that for a film that is 140 minutes long, the central conflict feels slightly abstract. I'm a bit surprised more wasn't made from it.

None of this however, detracts from the fact that Warrior has three solid performances that make sure that make the drama work. Tom Hardy's dark and brooding performance show that it's not only the frame that make him a prime choice for Bane. Joel Edgerton (last seen in the brilliant Animal Kingdom) is on winning form here as he has what I would consider a harder part to play. Nick Nolte is the glue that holds everything together and gives an Award baiting performance. Usually such displays can annoy but Nolte hits the nail on so many scenes that it's more than worthwhile.

Warrior is very much a film of it's time, with it's fighters not only dealing with their relationship problems (this is a family of men ripped apart by aggression), but also the socio-political issues we face at this very moment. Hardy's Tommy is a post 9/11 fighter whose past is troubled with what was seen in the wars of the middle east, while Edgertons Brenden paints a worrying picture of a man whose hit hard by the economical downturn. The idea that those who teach the next generations cannot sustain themselves is something is is quickly hitting home, with a pivotal scene in a bank proving that those below the breadline are merely statistics in the green tinted eyes of the banks.  The film plays out such moments with more than enough confidence.

My review of Warrior comes across as more negative than it should be. The film is solid, glossy, life-affirming entertainment all the way through. The MMA fighting hasn't reached the visceral punch that certain boxing films have but for the first MMA feature, the fights have enough crunch to them. The drama is held up by great performances and the film has Kurt Angle as a silent Russian cage fighter (what's not to love about that?). The film does what a decent sports drama should do and that's having you punching the air at all the right moments. As I had the screen to myself I did so with gusto.

Megan Fox is too hot for hollywood

Megan Fox has been making a lot of headline lately but the one headline that really caught my eye is this one: Fox Slams 'Superficial' Hollywood

RIGHT ON SISTER! It's about time someone came out and spoke about this. Hollywood has dubious double standards and it good that she brought this up...however it's hard to take what she says seriously due to this:




Your big break was Transformers....your not fooling anyone!

Don't care for superbowl....care for film ad spots though

While there's nothing I'd like to see less than a bunch of testosterone filled jocks hugging each other, Superbowl did not disappoint when it came to upcoming movies. Yes most were jumped up toy movies but that didn't take away the fact that most of them looked fun on the bun.

Lets start with the bad though...



Angels and Demons looks to be as long and boring as The Da Vinchi Code. I hope the film isn't too bad as it would cap off a great year for Ron Howard whose Frost/Nixon was pretty damn good.




Fast and Furious looks like it has a lot of teen masturbation imagery going for it (hot girls, Vin Diesel, fast motors) but now the franchise seems to have gone so far over the top that it misses the cheesy point break charm that made the original memorable (to me at least).


But the good....



Transformers: Revenge of the fallen looks set to be the robot movie to see. It's 30 sec T.V spot makes the film far more interesting to see than the whole trailer of T4. For me the first movie seemed to be a uneven mixture of fanboy nostalgia, story elements ripped off from Independence Day and action which varied from brilliant to blocky. ROTF however looks set to sort some of that shit out. Just one thing Mr Bay....please can we have a story this time? I'm sick of Micheal Bay movies that have 30 mins of story and plot within a 2 hour plus movie.




G.I. Joe: Rise of the cobra I was never a G.I Joe fan although I did have one 1985 manual once. The action in the T.V spot....looks pretty slick in my view although the film looks very likely to suck balls in the plot and acting department (looks like well known actors sleepwalking though lines again.




I'm now really looking forward to Star Trek. I've never given a shit about the program or films before until now. It looks like it could be a blast. (fuck the fanboys)




My favorite however will have to be UP by Disney Pixer....I have never seen a Pixer film that disappoints me and this looks to be business as usual.


Plus can someone tell me whats going on with Simon Pegg on the Star Trek trailer web page? seriously.....he looks fucking weird.

Crank 2 Trailer released

So I checked out the Crank 2 red band trailer....after the long (for a trailer) montage of swearing....what we get is more of the same crazy shite that was seen in the original movie. However the two directors have decided to go even more over the top than before and it doesn't look too bad. I did have my doubts about the second film after how the first film ended (quite a perfect closed ending to be honest).

The link for the trailer is here.

So while I took the first film far too seriously the first time I watched it, after a DVD rewatch I enjoyed it a lot more. The second film ups the stakes in bat shit insanity and I reckon I'll find this sequel will be far more enjoyable than some of the other larger budgeted follow ups released this year (I am talking about Transformers 2 here).

BUT! I just checked out the Crank 2 blog website and for some reason the filmmakers decided to place Geri Halliwell in the movie....So with this said Micheal Bay will probably win again in the hot woman in action film casting.

Video Lame

With Halo in development hell and Resident Evil winging its way to the U.K. very soon (at number one in the U.S. as I write this) I think yet another Video game to film blog should be made.

Video games are evolving. Colleges are advertising degrees video games and computer science, gaming magazines are full of adverts of company's looking for designers and technology is evolving to an extremely immense state. The games are becoming more realistic in looks, the storylines are getting deeper and the argument on games as art has reached an advanced stage.

While many still consider them a menace, there is reason for that. This is because, of course games are becoming more involving. They are becoming more than 2D Sprites jumping on mushrooms and becoming worlds of their own. I remember how big Super Metroid was when I first played it...compared that to Mass Effect and you'll see how far the industry as grown.
So if this is the case. WHY CAN'T THEY GET VIDEO GAME MOVIES RIGHT!


1. They depart away from the actual material

There used to be a time when American children recognized Mario easier than Mickey Mouse (I'm guessing now it would be Master Chief). Mario was the real deal all over the world during the 80's and 90's. How many kids have those games imprinted in their head? Fuck you can now go on youtube and check out speedruns. People love Mario*, so why deviate from the original storyline? The film was shit. Real shit. It was like Bob Hoskins was in a terrible sequel to Brazil....but without the awesome visuals and ideas. The tone of the film was way out for it's target audience and everyone else was asking "what the fuck?"

The same goes for most of the VG adaptations. Double Dragon any one? Who hard is it to fuck up a game with such a straightforward story? Few things would need to be padded out but seriously, better films have been made with less of a description.

Doom? Event Horizon has a closer plot line to the original game than Doom does.
Final Fantasy? What the hell? And it was MADE BY THE COMPANY WHO MADE THE BLOODY GAME! Cold, clinical and light years away from what made the games interesting.
Stick to the material and all would be well....or maybe....

2. They stick TOO close to the material.

Silent Hill Film is very faithful to the games. From the plot to the visuals and characters. It's almost like your following a character in the game. Problem is it's like watching someone else play the game. Silent Hill is famed for it's puzzles as well as it's horror and the film shows far too much of Radha Mitchell wandering around searching for clues, not talking to anyone and shoddy explanation near the end of the film. The film itself is actually not bad but these small moments detach the viewer keeps them at a distance. We as fickle viewers/gamers want the film to engage us as well as be faithful. Bastards aren't we?

3 Uwe Boll.

With his unique way of funding and Ed Wood-esque zeal. Boll is on a mission to make as many video game adaptations as possible. However from what I've watched of his output, you see that Boll is trying to make game adaptations as badly as possible. Boll's films are cobbled together as quickly as possible and no quality checks seem to be made on the script or the rushes. From what I've seen, his films are bad, almost so bad they're good. Boll himself comes off as an arrogant twat. Beating up his detractors for publicity, throwing his toys out of the pram when criticised. The more I read about him the more he comes off like one of those asshole message boarders he hates.

I don't want to say too much about this guy. Watch the movies, see for yourself....and he's the guy making the most video game adaptations.


And yes even though there are flashes of the game throughout that shot, that's pretty much the only thing that links the film to the game (that and the name).


4. Lazy Casting

I must admit Jolie as Lara Croft makes sense but Tara Reid (Alone in the dark)? Clint Howard (House of the dead)? The Bunch of wannabe nobodies in Mortal Kombat: Annihilation? Maybe if they got the right people for the right parts then the films may fair better. But this could be because...

5. The filmmakers usually don't give a shit about the project.

Comic books had to die a cinematic death before people realised that if you give the material to writers and directors that are interested in bringing about the vision of the original material to life then good things can come of it. Spiderman, Batman Begins, Sin City, the writers and directors have a certain respect for the people they are making the film for. Superman returns didn't make the splash that people want but Bryan Singer still managed to give an interesting story about a hero who has lost is place in his own world (Singer loves that idea of finding identity). Paul W.S Anderson (not Magnolia) is hated by most video game fans. But at least he tries to give fans what they want. Mortal Kombat was very close to the game, and Resident Evil has it's bashers it is much closer to the games than people give it credit for. If you still don't believe me then fine but the final moments of the first film have more passion about the games than ALL of that Super Mario Bros film. Those fuckers didn't even get Yoshi right. Pricks. Anyway. Peter Jackson gets hold of the Halo project and seems to have a basic understanding of how Halo should be and what happens? Oh no....too expensive. The fact that people got hyped over THAT toy movie and went in droves to watch it tells me that Halo would do just fine about now.


6. Critics just don't understand.


Now I'm not a critic basher per say. In fact I enjoy reading reviews (most of the time). But many reviewers like Roger Ebert have clearly never played a recent game before and never will. In fact I could swear most serious reviewers hate video games in general. I feel many of the films never have a chance in the first place. The video game movie is at times reminiscent of the modern horror film. It has an uphill struggle before it even starts to run. Reviewers like to talk a good game (no bad pun intended) about bias but many of course their reviews tell a different story. Their talk of sensible plots and in depth characters can seem silly to true game fans who just want to see the right incarnation of the material.

7. Fans are fickle

Lets not beat around the bush guys. We are wankers when it comes to crap like this. Look at the list I've written. We want too much. The perfect video game for me would be flexible enough to give the story and characters room to breathe but still have enough time to kick loads of ass. The director and scriptwriter must be die hard fans of the material but understand that you can't just make it exactly like the game...etc. Well we want it perfect don't we. To be honest, I feel Paul W.S Anderson did well with the original Mortal Kombat and did ok with Resident Evil. I also Feel Christopher Gans produced an uneven but creepy looking Silent Hill (ash snow visuals + assorted FUCKED up creatures = awesome). Fact is many are looking for this fantastic adaptation of their favorite games which they spent hours completing when they could be playing them again.


So there we have it folks. The reasons why Video Games "aren't right" in my opinion. Despite my dislike for the shoddy treatment of Double Dragon, Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros, Alone in the Dark, Doom, House of the dead, Resident Evil 2....etc. You know that I'll be like 700th in line for Gears of War or something and I'll still have something to bitch about. With this said, think about what I said before. The games are evolving. The stories are becoming more involved than their Hollywood counterparts. Halo's religious overtones, intense fire fights and epic scale, wipe the floor with such "great" ideas such as...fuck it do I have state some? Take your pick.



*Expect for my grinchy mate Richie. Who claims he likes games....but hates Nintendo