Skip to main content

Hey, I go everywhere with Mr Whiskers, okay?

Uncharted
(2022)

(SPOILERS) The omens never seemed promising for Uncharted, which over the span of almost a decade and a half of development hell, went from a Mark Wahlberg starrer to… a Mark Wahlberg starrer. As unwanted as a Wahlberg Nathan Drake was, though, Tom Holland is straight-up absurd as the video games’ main protagonist; he resembles a twelve-year-old with photoshop pecs, and there’s still no sign of his voice breaking any time soon. Holland’s essentially the new Michael J Fox: tiny, likeable – the teeny girls just love him – and at a stage in his career when he’s still nursing the illusion he can do any damn thing. He will learn, by hit and miss, he can’t.

Rather like Michael J Fox’s character in The Hard Way. Having attempted serious actorly roles during the ’80s, to public indifference – Bright Lights, Big City, Light of Day, Casualties of War – Fox expertly regrouped and mocked himself as shallow movie star Nick Lang, star of Smoking Joe Gunn, an Indiana Jones-type character then embarking on his second outing in Smoking Gun II. Holland’s ride should last at least until he outgrows Spider-Man, though. So probably until he can get into a bar without showing ID. Which, at this rate, will be somewhere around the age of forty.

As for Uncharted, it has confounded common sense and proved a relative hit, in much the way that both (actually, all three) Tomb Raiders found an audience despite being quite dreadful. There’s undoubtedly an appetite for Indy-esque versions of Indy-esque video games, but no one has yet made a good one.

Cocking a snoot at any kind of fidelity to the source material – attempting to tap Holland’s teen-idol cachet, basically, at the expense of the games’ core players – Sony finally got Uncharted off the ground as an origin story: Young Nathan Drake and the Big Boy Pants of Destiny. Which means Holland’s Nick bears zero resemblance to the game version. I know this, partly because I’ve played the game (the first two, anyway) and partly because it’s readily apparent Holland’s Nathan Drake is the same as his Peter Parker, sans the web shooters.

Sony has, of course, displayed prodigious ineptitude with its various franchises for a while now, mouldering things to the extent that Disney had to swing in and save Spidey. Their determination to plough ahead with Spidey spinoffs has, surprisingly, yielded one genuine marvel (Into The Spider-Verse) and one movie that made an enormous amount of money on the basis of its star’s idiosyncrasies, rather than its director’s chops. Which is where Ruben Fleischer enters Uncharted’s orbit.

One might be charitable and suggest Sony was having so much trouble pinning anyone to the long-gestating property, they decided the hell with it, give him a shot. More likely, having shown zero aesthetic judgement in respect of their movies over the last decade, they figured Venom’s $855m gross = Genius Auteur.

Avi Arad as producer probably should have been warning sign enough, and there were few points during Uncharted’s development where it seemed like something to anticipate. David O Russell was perhaps a left-field director pick, but his bringing Wahlberg as Nate (and Robert De Niro as his dad and Joe Pesci as his uncle) disqualified any potential positives. Neil Burger, Shawn Levy, Dan Trachtenberg and Travis Knight were all successively attached (and all, bar Levy – actually, probably including Levy – were more promising than who we got). The only other potential lead mentioned was Chris Pratt, evidence of the dearth of anyone of a certain age group able to fill action shoes rather than particular merit for the project.

We’d surely only have hit the Nathan Fillion jackpot had Joss Whedon or James Gunn come on board; presumably they were too busy, fuelling later #MeToo revelations and making “just jokes” about paedophilia respectively. Fillion actively forwarding himself for the role probably actively put any incoming director right off (because they want it to be their thing), but I broadly agree with those suggesting he’d have been a good choice. Maybe not a profitable one, but a good one.

What we have instead is an entirely vanilla account of the series’ potential, unremarkable from top to bottom. Sure, Holland and Wahlberg have a certain chemistry, but I haven’t known Holland not to show an easy rapport with anyone he’s played against. Wahlberg’s fine, I guess – he tends to fare better in a supporting role than front and centre, where his essential blandness shines through – but he’s as much Sully as Holland is Drake. And he needs to grow a better tache for next time – or get a prop one.

As for the supporting cast, Antonio Banderas is as forgettable as he tends to be in most of his Hollywood roles, so it’s appropriate he’s killed off two-thirds of the way through. There’s scant hint of character, less still meaty dialogue in the screenplay, courtesy of Rafe Judkins (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., The Wheel of Time) and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (such unspectacular franchise fare like Punisher 2, Transformers 5 and MIB 4). This is a movie boasting lines like “So, er, why did you decide to become Indiana Jones?”, “Nuns. Why has it always gotta be nuns?” and “I’m kidding, I don’t really know who invented the cigarette”.

Consequently, Tati Gabrielle, emerging as the main villain, has to make do with being straightforwardly imperious, rather than witty, while Sophia Ali just has to make do. Steven Waddington is given a couple of amusing scenes as the Scotsman, mainly for Nate being unable to understand him, while Pilou Asbæk, who’d show up to the opening of a box of Frosties, is in the mid-credits scene.

The plot is a sub-Robert Langford, sub-National Treasure treasure hunt for the Magellan expedition’s gold. You know, Magellan, who purportedly circumnavigated the freemasonic world between 1519 and 1522. The key to finding such troves of lost loot or artefacts, surely, is to make it appear as if there’s a semi-feasible trail. Raiders of the Lost Ark managed that commendably. There’s never such a sense here, with various extraneous and unlikely connective leads, relics and maps, along with centuries-old Rube Goldberg devices. All, it seems, conceived by the inventive expedition survivors. A lot of time and expertise on their hands, then.

Early on, there are a couple of vaguely decent set pieces; Nate causes a distraction at an auction so Sully can steal a vital piece. A sequence in and around and escaping a Barcelona bar. But the big rockin’ opener (resumed later in the movie), involving a plane and its emptying cargo, and the grand climax featuring helicoptered Magellan ships are empty, overtly green-screened attempts at spectacle that serve to highlight Fleischer’s already evident limitations. He’s a TV director repeatedly thrown big budget keys. His skillset was for Zombieland’s measurements, but he shoots Uncharted exactly the same way as Venom, which was shot exactly the same way as Zombieland. Which means he’s comfortable with scenes involving his performers or very contained action, but entirely flummoxed by the call to paint on a broader canvas.

There’s a message in the Uncharted mix: some reheated gruel about friendship being more important than riches. I was going to say the business with Nate’s brother is typical of the sort of backstory Hollywood vainly believes adds something, but it appears Sam is part of the games as well (belatedly, as he shows up in Uncharted 4). The movie’s success will doubtless see Sony hasten towards a hacky follow up, much as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was poorly received, made money and led to an even more poorly received sequel. I’d advise Holland to make as many inroads to alternative franchises as he can now, while he has the chance. How about Little Jimmy Bond, following in the illustrious footsteps of Woody Allen? He’d be a shoe-in.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi