Skip to main content

Saving the world is not a one-man job.

Warcraft: The Beginning
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Warcraft: The Beginning (promises, promises) is surely exactly what the great unwashed (I know, it’s actually the other way round), pre-Lord of the Rings genre respectability, would have expected from a fantasy epic. Indistinct characters cast adrift in vast empty landscapes, engaging in mighty battles for dreary and/or impenetrably elusive reasons while magical incantations transpire portentously all around, but not terribly impressively. And the whole strung together on the slenderest of threads. Duncan Jones’ film is as deathly dull as ‘80s fantasy misfire Krull, but without the homemade personality that gives that picture, if not a free pass, then at least a mildly endearing rep.


The most curious aspect of Warcraft is not the fact of itself, but that it may even justify that The Beginning subtitle, mustering the appetite for a franchise based on receipts in China alone. But all it really illustrates is that the US doesn’t have the market cornered on making box office hits from bad movies. What is abundantly clear is that the curse of the video game adaptation is unlikely to be lifted any time soon. Treating a property (here) deadly seriously and reverently works no more in its favour than treating it crassly, not if you haven’t thrashed out a decent screenplay to start with, one that doesn’t rely on plot development via reams of lumpen exposition. Further still, if you do decide to go with that misbegotten script, it’s an idea to cast actors who can wrestle their characters and immobile dialogue into something resembling a scenario the viewer can give a toss about.


That’s maybe a bit unfair. Toby Kebbell (seemingly seized by bad choices of late, with the trio of Fantastic Four, this and the upcoming Ben-Hur, and so unlikely to have his motion capture casting cred repealed any time soon) gives good orc as Durotan, so much so that his fate is about the only surprising aspect of a movie you know isn’t going to end on any kind of resolution (that title again).


And Duncan Jones, whose idea it was for the plot to go the route it does (Sam Raimi was attached for a good while, and as reluctant as I am to invest in his judgement after the doldrums of Oz The Great and Powerful, if there’s one thing Warcraft would have benefited endlessly from, it’s great dollops of Bruce Campbell – this does, after all, feature a boomstick), is at least onto something in (apparently, I’ve never played it) following the route of the game and presenting the Orcs as every bit the characters the humans are (indeed, we kick off in their world).


But fidelity isn’t everything. They may work on the computer screen, but the design aesthetic of the orcs just doesn’t pass muster in motion picture form; something about the over-sized bodies and shrunken heads fails to register as feasible to the brain, and even eventual familiarity doesn’t make it more acceptable. It isn’t just the Orcs, though; there’s a general sense of over-pixelated everything. It’s a signal of how engrossed I was that I spent an inordinate amount of time quietly cogitating over how difficult it must be to savour a good meal with those dirty great, chipped tusks getting in the way.


In between the ungainly orcs and insubstantial humans (it’s a wonder they’re able to slay a single Orc, such is the disparity in size and strength) is Paula Patton’s “half breed”, cynically presented as a sexy semi-orc (as in, it’s the most evident sop to financiers’ concerns over audience accessibility; understandable, since they’re so damn ugly), although in terms of plot I guess there is potential, such as it is, in fashioning a potential bridge between worlds. The greater failing is that a green skinned woman clad in leathers is beyond a cliché, and Garona never surmounts that failing.


Still, as awkwardly ill-served by character and miscast as Patton is, she fares no worse than most of her fellow visible actors. Dominic Cooper is a dead loss as the wispy king, while Ben Schnetzer’s young wizard is closer to something out of the ’80s Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series than a sombre fantasy epic (it’s in his company that more typically flippant fantasy movie dialogue tends to surface).


The lead, though, is Travis Fimmel, arrestingly odd in Vikings, and here… he delivers exactly the same twitchy, wild-eyed shtick, but without anything remotely memorable character-wise to justify it. He’s even expected to throw out really awful dialogue like “Hey, clay face, over here!” when battling a great big golem. Jones presumably wanted Warcraft to speak for itself by casting actors who don’t overwhelm the “story”, but all he’s done is expose its paucity. The result is a bit like Godzilla a couple of years back; a promising young British director is promoted to the big leagues, but the very qualities he wielded on a smaller scale are rendered null and void in the process.


There are a few compensations. Daniel Wu is memorable both visually and vocally as orc warlock Gul’dan, with a rather neat knack for sucking the life force out of human victims as if he’s pulling on a thread. The magic material is the closest the picture comes to engaging, as the warfare, while competently staged, fails to ignite. Ben Foster’s human sorcerer, guardian Medivh, bearing a passing resemblance to a young Nicol Williamson as Merlin, but possessing none of the beguiling eccentricity, or the diction and dialogue to savour, is nevertheless the most interesting human character. There’s also Dalaran, a realm of mages (wielders of magic), but that desperately needs a dose of Hugo Weaving to liven it up. It comes to something when actors who normally make a strong impression like Clancy Brown and Callum Keith Rennie are left entirely unmemorable. Ruth Negga does her best, and Glenn Close has a sinister cameo, but the pickings are few and far between.


Even if the characters weren’t so lacking, Warcraft’s landscapes, cities and assorted creatures fail to move beyond the realm of approximately rendered concept art, so there’s little sense of a virtual world coming truly to life on cinema screens. There might be a vague message about power corrupting (and one might read into the orcs, passive to the pronouncements of their leader, devastating their own environment and then moving on to plunder pastures new, the dictates of the technological western world and its remorseless capacity for untapped resources), and refusing to allow hatred to be passed down from generation to generation, but it’s relatively feeble when set against the main takeaway; the warring parties’ common ground is the nobility of the warrior’s code, slaughter in an agreed and acceptable manner.


Can anyone crack the nut of a computer game at the core screenplay level? For some reason it seems nigh impossible. Perhaps it’s the removed/experiential barrier, once the player is deducted from the equation, that is too thorny to move past, like the ambivalently plotted portal here. It’s much easier to forgive egregious plotting when you’re distracted by having to interact with and fight stuff in the first person. Quality of game play can forgive a thousand narrative sins. So choosing to translate those thousand narrative sins diligently to the screen is never going to work out. Conversely, departing from the text didn’t do that earliest of game adaptations Super Mario Bros much good either; both it and Warcraft make for woefully oblivious bedfellows in banality.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …