If there is one genre that divides audiences it's the movie adaptation of successful video-games. Computer games are designed to be addictive and offer players immediate visceral thrills, but translating a thrilling game into a great movie is something that has never quite been achieved.With the release of Silent Hill looming, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at all the movies that started life as pixels on computer screens...
The genre began life not too long ago, with Super Mario Bros. (1993). Nintendo's plumber mascot Mario and brother Luigi are still the quintessential figureheads for gaming culture, despite Nintendo taking a battering in the gaming market ever since the Playstation replaced the Super Nintendo as the must-own gaming machine. But, back in '93, Mario ruled the world.
It was perhaps fitting that the diminuitive plumber take the first dive into movie territory, but it unfortunately resulted in a turgid mess. The plot behind the Mario games is difficult to adapt, or even make sense of, but the movie does an interesting job of presenting is with Dinohatten (a Manhatten in a parallel universe where dinosaurs never became extinct). Mario and Luigi, played by Bob Hoskins (good) and John Leguizamo (bad) cross over into Dinohatten to rescue their archaeologist friend Daisy (Samantha Mathis).
To be fair, the movie did an interesting job of providing a half-decent premise for the movie, but it was just too dark and unexciting for audiences expecting something fast-paced and colourful like the games. Still, Hoskins was well-cast as the moustachiod Italian, there are a number of neat injokes (watch out for the Nintendo SuperScope!) and Dennis Hopper chews the scenery as King Koopa.
Super Mario Bros. took just $20 million at the U.S box-office and is considered a massive turkey in film history, although it does have a loyal cult following.
A year later, in 1994, the video game that had been dominating the world for the past few years was given its own movie spin-off. Street Fighter: The Movie was the perfect choice for a movie adaptation because films already existed that were structured around various fighters competing in world tournaments. The Street Figher II game itself had detailed plots and histories for all its characters, and plenty of iconic images and fighting moves that would be fantastic to see performed in live-action.However, the movie just got it all wrong. The creators chose to ignore the game's complex backstories and, perhaps for budgetary reasons, ignored many of the game's special moves and more challening characters. So, we never saw a Blanka with green skin electrocuting people, or Dhalsim stretching his limbs like Stretch Armstrong. Hey, we didn't even get a f*cking fireball from Ryu or Ken! Very poor stuff. Why was Jean Claude Van Damme playing Guile, when Ryu should have been the lead? Why was the great Raul Julia subjected to the indignity of playing villain Bison for this, his last ever screen role! Oh, the injustice!
Street Figher did marginally better than Mario, with a $33 million take at the U.S box office, but failed to entice general audiences and angered fans who expected so much more.
Further salt was rubbed into the wound with the 1994 release of Double Dragon, a classic side-scrolling beat 'em up translated as a bad movie starring Mark Dacascos. It took a paltry $2 million and is best forgotten.
A year later, the genre finally had its first success story with the release of Mortal Kombat, from British director Paul W.S Anderson. The key to Mortal Kombat's success was obvious. It treated the game with respect and gave fans what they wanted -- lots of martial arts and special-effects. While the movie wasn't as blood-spattered as the infamous game (no spines being ripped out, etc) it had a style that retained the game's creepy atmosphere. Kombat took a very impressive $70 million.Two years later in 1997, a sequel was released entitled Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. However, while the general sensibilities of the original was kept, the plot and additional characters were more uninteresting. The lower budget also meant it couldn't compete with its own ambition. MK:A took $35 million, half that of the original.
Wing Commander (1999) continued the downward trend, starring Freddie Prinze Jr and Matthew Lillard. The movie had a ridiculously low budget that couldn't create a compelling atmosphere and was panned by critics and fans alike. It recouped a pathetic $11 million at the box-office.
An interesting twist occurred in 2001 with the release of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. This was a movie based on the successful series of Final Fantasy games, but differed from its movie predecessors because this was animated using CGI. Essentially, this meant the entire film felt like a big-budget Full-Motion Video (FMV) that usually bridges levels in games. The film was trumpeted as having photo-realistic CGI humans, but despite its impressive effects, the plot and characters were poor and ill-conceived. Final Fantasy took just $32 million.
Another iconic character bowed onto the silver screen in 2001 -- Lara Croft, the British archaelogist who had seemingly inherited the gaming icon crown from Mario and Co. since the birth of the Playstation generation. Angelina Jolie (a true movie star!) took the lead in a frothy adventure that boasted some entertaining sequences, but nothing else. But, strong marketing and character appeal ensures Tomb Raider became the first blockbuster movie adaptation of a video-game with an impressive haul of $131 million!Writer-director Paul W.S Anderson returned to the genre after the success of his Mortal Kombat, with another property that seemed perfect for movies -- Resident Evil (2002). This time the game itself had been inspired by zombie movies, so the movie was an easy adaptation. However, Anderson put his own stamp on the property and used the game only as a reference point, meaning hardcore fans of Resident Evil were very disappointed. The lack of scares was also a contribution to Evil's failure, for while the game was infamously terrifying to play, Anderson's movie had more sci-fi action than horror tension. However, it managed to scare up $40 million which wasn't to be sniffed at.
Lara Croft returned in 2003 with Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle Of Life, from director Jan De Bont (Speed). Sadly, audiences were tiring of the Lara Croft brand, so the sequel was a massive failure -- taking just $65 million, less than half the original.
Notably bad director Uwe Boll released House Of The Dead (2003) to total apathy. The movie was a prequel to the game (where players had to shoot creatures with a light-gun). However, the film did sell on DVD and made back $10 million.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) continued the franchise, again written by Paul W.S Anderson. Despite even worse reviews than the original, the sequel actually made more money ($51 million), perhaps because it featured more direct links to the games.
Uwe Boll returned after the panning of House Of The Dead, with an adaptation of Alone In The Dark (2005). Starring Christian Slater, the movie works as a sequel to the last game, but is most notable for receiving two Golden Raspberry awards for Worst Director and Worst Actress for Tara Reid. It made a pathetic $5 million.
Now in 2006, we have just seen the release of Doom with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Karl Urban. Doom was a classic game of its era, but many people felt the film was ten years too late. Despite this, it is reasonably enjoyable and contains an impressive sequence where the camera suddenly becomes the moving POV of a soldier in true First Person Shooter game-style. Doom made a poor $20 million at the box-office.Refusing to go away, director Uwe Boll returned after the flops of his other movie adaptation with Bloodrayne. This vampire movie starred Kristanna Loken (Terminator 3) in the titular role, but was critically savaged upon release. It made a truly woeful $2 million at the box-office!
And this brings us to the latest adaptation -- Silent Hill. Another adaptation based on a horror game similar to Resident Evil. However, Silent Hill is directed by talented filmmaker Christopher Gans (Brotherhood Of The Wolf) and written by Roger Avary (Pulp Fiction). Despite its pedigree, reviews have been very mixed.So there you have it. There are quite a few films in the new genre after just 13 years, but very few successes. And even the successes like Resident Evil and Tomb Raider aren't considered "good films". It seems the genre is still the domain of untalented hacks who think directing and writing films based on video-games is easy because the premise and characters are ready-made. But it's not that simple.
Video games have plots, whereas films need narrative. Put another way, lots of cool events and sequences can be strung together to make the plot of a game... but a film needs a narrative to bring these moments together into a cohesive and emotional whole with watchable characters. So far, no adaptation has achieved this this... but that's not to say it's impossible.
Particularly as the worlds of movies and games continue to grow closer in style...
Coming soon for fans of the genre: Mortal Kombat: Devastation will try and duplicate the success of the original, Vin Diesel is perfectly cast as Hitman, The Rock returns to the genre as Spy Hunter, supernatural action hero Dante makes his big-screen debut in Devil May Cry, Lord Of The Rings' Peter Jackson oversees the creation of Halo, Prince Of Persia becomes an adventure movie, Quake tries not to make the same Doom-sized mistakes, the espionage game Splinter Cell hits the screen, Tekken is another fight tournament movie hoping to succeed where Street Fighter failed, and Resident Evil: Extinction continues the strangely successful series.
