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with the trio of Fantastic Four, this and the upcoming Ben-Hur, and so unlikely to have his motion capture casting cred repealed any time soon) gives good orc as Durotan, so much so that his fate is about the only surprising aspect of a movie you know isn’t going to end on any kind of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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…