MOVIE REVIEW – Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg take on the mockery of Nathan Drake and Victor Sullivan (Sully) in Uncharted, a movie that has been in the works since 2008 (!) and is finally in cinemas. It was obvious from the trailers that the filmmakers hadn’t even tried to follow the games one-to-one, so the question remains: was the adaptation entertaining enough and did it meet the standards expected of an Uncharted film adaptation? And last but not least, will it break the video game adaptation curse?

 

 

There are few genres as cursed as the video game adaptation. Ever since the disastrously bad Super Mario in 1993, Hollywood’s blockbusters have been trying to bring the adventures of pixel heroes to the big screen. Still, most of these films have been very mediocre at best.

It would take too long to analyse the reasons for this so common failure. It’s not the subject of this article, so let’s see if the adaptation of the video game series that has been running since 2007 finally hits the mark, or if it is a somewhat faithful adaptation or just one of a series of failed video game movies.

 

 

The tough guy and the OK boomer

 

Again, one could spend pages debating whether Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg were the right choices for Nate and Sully or which actors would have been better choices. With Holland, we think of Spider-Man every time we see him, and with Wahlberg, it’s also hard to forget that he was once considered to be Nathan Drake, but he was also Max Payne in the horribly botched video game adaptation. Well, this is Uncharted, and the question is for fans and not so fans, how well the two actors bring the eternal heroes of the Uncharted games, or would we be better off not setting foot in the cinema because we’d be running out with our eyes raised to the sky?

Well, the truth is that it really does take a lot of goodwill and at least half an hour and a quarter of an hour of film time to get used to Holland and Wahlberg in familiar roles. The still puppy-faced Tom Holland is a fine actor and has honed himself for the role, but try as he might, he still reminds us more of Peter Parker than the sometimes cynical, often slick and tough-guy treasure of Naughty Dog. The truth is that Nathan Drake’s karate and adventures are inspired by films such as The Emerald Romance (Michael Douglas) and The Indiana Jones Series (Harrison Ford), and we could imagine the younger selves of these two actors a thousand times better than the slightly too ‘good guy’ and ‘neighbourhood bully’ Tom Holland. The main problem is not that Holland doesn’t look like Drake in the play, but that his acting repertoire somehow lacks the big-talking smoothness and hint of depravity that makes Drake, among others, so much fun and necessary for the role. That said, Holland is a great actor (he’s proven himself in several films outside of Spider-Man), and his Nathan Drake is likeable and sympathetic, but you have to accept that he’s not the Nate we know from the game.

 

 

Buddy movie

 

Similarly, Mark Wahlberg’s Victor Sullivan is different from the Victor Sullivan we’ve come to expect from the game. Sully is also a big-talking, older, big bully who was just as big aces as Nate at his age (a side of him we get to see more of in Uncharted 3, where he meets the teenage Nate), but he quickly becomes a kind of jovial father figure to Nate, who is also his partner in adventure. The most we see of all of this is the former ace of aces in his fifties, played by Wahlberg, who typically fools almost everyone (including Nate, of course, a few times) and is actually a full-fledged action hero and adventurer in this one, not just Nate’s sidekick in the games. Wahlberg, who is also basically a snot in the film, wanted the role of Drake for a reason, and it somehow comes through in this film, although he complains about his ankle in one scene, but in another, he beats up one of the badass characters attacking him.

Because Wahlberg gets as much screen time as Holland, his role in the story is just as important. Far from being a ‘sidekick’ as in the games, he is a full-fledged protagonist, and it makes enough sense that the cinematic Uncharted is more of a genuine buddy movie – a sort of modern Tango and Cash – than a proper adaptation of Nathan Drake’s adventures. Who knows, it might have been better to have forced the two characters into the original roles because they can use their acting repertoire to better advantage.

 

 

Those who are less good

 

So the two main characters are entertaining but can only be compared to the original characters with reservations, but what about the other characters and the film itself? Sophia Taylor Ali, who plays Chloe Frazer, may be somewhat compatible with the original character in appearance (she’s just too thin), but the film version of Chloe, who is a seductive ‘dog’ and a full-fledged adventurer and gunfighter, is a pale imitation of the original – in every sense of the word. Taylor as Chloe is a bit like Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft – not bad, but they could have done better. Too much “soul” and less cool than the original character, that’s for sure, although it’s pretty much true that she’s always fooling her fellow characters. (Perhaps too much of a bender for the in-game hero.)

As for the bad guys and bad girls, Antonio Banderas brings his usual tired routine and is highly formulaic as Moncada. Tati Gabrielle is a little more exciting as Moncada’s right-hand man Braddock, but the script so irredeemably pigeonholes her as a completely negative character that we cry back to Nadine Ross, who is somewhat modelled on her.

 

 

What’s true Uncharted and what’s less so

 

Despite the uneven acting, the film’s story is quite good, even if the twists and turns are highly predictable (except for one). The usual treasure hunt of the Uncharted games is the central motif, with some logic and action sprinkled in. As for the latter, there could have been more of it, especially the firefights, because while they take centre stage in the games, Nathan hardly shoots at all. OK, it couldn’t have been reproduced the same way, because PG-13 would have made a Desperados-level shooting orgy unrealistic (if the adaptation had been faithful in this respect, Roberto Rodriguez would have been the obligatory choice for director), but at least Nate could have pulled a little more gun or rifle if that’s the central motif on the cover of all the games.

 

 

A pretty good and entertaining adventure film – nothing less, nothing more

 

Uncharted is undoubtedly one of the better video game adaptations – even though, in many ways, it has nothing to do with the source material. Whether Holland and Wahlberg are good, Nate and Sully or not, or how acceptable or disturbing it is that they are pretty different, is something every fan has to decide for themselves. In any case, this cinematic Uncharted is sufficiently exciting, spectacular, exotic and relaxing for a good two hours – if you’re up for that and not looking for the original franchise everywhere and at all costs, you’ll have a good time; otherwise, skip this adaptation and instead revisit Nate’s latest remastered adventure.

-BadSector-