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the trio of Fantastic Four, this and the upcoming Ben-Hur, and so unlikely to have his motion capture casting cred repealed any time soon) gives good orc as Durotan, so much so that his fate is about the only surprising aspect of a movie you know isn’t going to end on any kind of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

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 waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

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…

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

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…

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

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.