So I watched 'Uncharted'

 It was about what I expected.

There is an inordinate number of video game adaptations flying towards this industry of late, and it's getting to the point where I can't just put a pillow over my head and pretend it's all not happening. (In fact, I may just have a blog talking about it all either coming out or already out by the time this one drops.) And I think I've made my feelings on these adaptations in general pretty darn clear: I think they're largely all soulless and totally dismissive of the franchises they're lifting from. We've yet to get an adaptation born from someone who is truly a fan of what they're working with and it has shown time and time again. The Sonic movie, which I've still yet to watch, was at least made by someone who enjoyed Sonic as he used to be 25 years ago; but compare that against the Hitman movies, Assassin's Creed, The new Halo show, and you come with a string of 'not quite's and 'missed the point's. Headlining all of this new wave game adaptation nonsense was the big budget, big name, 'Uncharted' movie, bringing one of Sony's beloved console exclusives to the big screen. (Be glad Sony doesn't own a Cinema-chain, else you'd be dealing with viewing exclusivities there.)

And yeah, I actually watched the thing. Figured that I might as well take the bullet and put my money where my mouth is if these adaptations are going to start becoming more prevalent in the industry. Look at this as me setting my baseline for what live-action mainstream adaptations are so that we can watch them slowly improve over the years until we get something as stellar as that short live-action 'Paper's Please' film on Youtube. Do I actually expect an adaptation which perfectly nails the feel of the source material and elevates it with it's presentation like that fan project did? Of course not. Heck, there was a famade Uncharted short movie in 2018 starring perfect casting choices (Nathan Fillion as Nate, Stephen Lang as Sully) and a pitch-perfect comprehension of the world of Uncharted, who the character's that inhabit that world are and how to handle nods to the material that fans respect. (That camera angle trick was genius.) So this movie was going to be doomed to unfavourbale comparisons no matter how it ended up turning out.

But instead of getting that movie, we're getting this one; and right away I'm going to handle the biggest glaring issue hounding this flick since the very first trailer: the casting. It's not great. None of the actors, aside from Sophia Taylor Ali, looks a thing like their characters and, crossing slightly over into my thoughts on the writing, none of them, again aside from Ali's Chloe, feel like their character is supposed to either. Nate, in particular, looks stupidly young. I mean I know there was the joke about how Tom is 'young Drake', but we literally get a collage shot from fifteen year old childhood Drake to adulthood bar-tender Drake where it takes your brain a second to even realise that this is supposed to be an older version of the character. Because Tom Holland literally has the face of a fifteen year old boy. It absolutely fails to sell the illusion of the roguishly handsome, experienced but youthful, thief with a heart of gold, like Nathan Drake is supposed to be. Wahlberg has none of the aged washed-up wisdom to his look, but his performance does a little work to make up for that. When he doubles over wheezing complaining about how running across rooftops is a young man's game, I almost can ignore the absolutely apparent fact that Wahlberg is very much still young-looking and fit enough to be cast in the lead of a heavy action film by tomorrow. 

So the characters don't look how they're supposed to. How do they sound? Like the groggy half-recollections of someone who once had their roommate excitedly explain the Uncharted games to them in the mornings before college for a month straight. There is none of the charm and clever wit of the game's script in the writing for these films, which is galling when you remember that was one the core pillars of that series' heart. What we get instead is a different breed of charm, one tepid and recycled from a dozen other action films, totally lacking in originality or swashbuckling spirit. I kept waiting for that line which would strike me with the out-of-nowhere funnies, like the famous "You took a whore to church?" line. There's not a single joke even close to that offbeat, rapport building, zinger in this entire film, and I don't think writing team is capable of even emulating one on their best day. The best bit they've got is a reoccurring joke about how there's a Scottish thug after them. He's Scottish. That's the joke. He's not even aggressively Scottish, I mean I could understand him perfectly the whole movie and I'm only, like, a fifth Scottish myself. Sully is greedy, like he's meant to be, but he lacks that glint of humanity which keeps you caring about him even when you probably should be holding him to task. Of course, the movie thinks it still has that glint, which is why you get scenes of Tom buddying up to Sully even when every fibre of the movie is telling you they should be hitting each other in every shot.

The story is fine. A mismatch of a few iconic scenes from the game badly interjected into this movie's own narrative, (seriously, why was the bad guy exporting his personal car to a archaeological digsite?) half hearted reimaging's of great Uncharted locations, (I can just tell they were flirting with doing their own version of the Museum heist, but couldn't get the appropriate Istanbul filming rights) and one fresh set-piece which is fun, but which they already spoiled in the trailer. (I'm talking about the pirate ships dangling from the helicopters. That was perfectly in fitting with the tone of the games, I liked it.) But at the end of the day there was no point at which this movie elevated itself above being another low-effort action film in the vein of any one of Dwayne Johnson's movies. Except those movies have an inherently charming lead. (Most of the time. 'Skyscraper' was pretty dire.) Heck, for a good two thirds of this movie we aren't even in uninhabited lands; isn't that kind of the point of the name 'Uncharted'?

In terms of action the movie was generally decent, which is to say that I wasn't assaulted with gratuitous jumpcuts in every scene, although there were a couple headache inducing editing choices. I noticed that Tom Holland's Drake had a lot of mobility in him, in that his stunt double had this one vault-horse move that he liked to do a lot. I don't hate it, it's different and makes his movement stand out just that tiny bit from every other generic action protagonist, but it also really isn't Nathan Drake-like, either. Drake in the games moved with a weight and occasional clumsiness that betrayed the pugilistic stylings of a self-taught street-rat, not these overly choreographed gymnastic feats of athletic prowess. Nathan always moved like a believable human, whilst the fundamental physics of the world around him defied themselves to his benefit; but in this adaptation the man is one baby-blue leotard away from starring in his own adaptation of 'Gymkata'. 

And perhaps you've started to pick up my general feelings on the film. It's painfully average. In it's presentation, in it's story, in it's acting, in it's characters, in it's scale, and I hope in it's budget because otherwise this movie's production team was robbed. What's that? It took $120 Million? (Damn, this film crew made for better thieves than movie-Drake does.) You could go into this movie with totally no idea what Uncharted is about from even a fundamental level and come out not knowing the protagonist's name; it's that inoffensive and sterile, that the experience of watching it just washes over you. Still, from the brief travel time from the one ear in the inevitable route directly out of other, it proved fun enough. I was entertained enough to point and quiz the glaring plot holes and missed narrative opportunities between characters, rather than being so bored that I didn't care. The movie wasn't good, but it wasn't all terrible either.

So if you can call that a victory in any remote way, then I guess Uncharted succeeded in the near decade long journey to get one of Sony's best selling homegrown franchises on the silver screen. Was it worth the wait? Objectively 'no'. Having Nolan North pop in for a quick, if inelegant, cameo was a nice touch; but did sort of highlight the lack of the Nathan character anywhere within this movie's soul. Do I want to see another one? Actually, maybe a little. I know that sounds utterly nonsensical given everything I've said, but for turn-your-brain-off and don't-think-about-it popcorn fodder, I didn't hate the film. I think video game movies deserve so much better going forth, but absolute 'True Neutral', middle of the road, movies have a place in theatres too, I guess. Of course, I'll also not shed a tear if this entire supposed movie series get's canned tomorrow either. But then again, 'Venom' got a godawful sequel, I can't see why Sony wouldn't commission another 'Uncharted'...