Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I had the pleasure of watching the movie "Hitman" yesterday night. It's based on the popular video game series from Eidos. "Hitman" had a really cool opening credit sequence in which you see how the child assassins are trained. Too bad this sequence was ripped off of "Dark Angel." Oh, I don't mean ripped off in concept. I mean, they literally cut the footage from "Dark Angel" and pasted it in their movie. Like stock footage, except it's footage from an actual TV show that has nothing to do with the movie.
"Hitman" boasted bad acting, bad delivery of lines, bad dubbing, bad plot, and bad dialogue. That said, it had a number of cool (though not "Matrix"-level) action sequences and great cinematography. So essentially: it was a live-action video game. Except the Agent 47 from the game I played bears no resemblance to the awkward, easily love-struck 47 from the movie. So essentially: it was worse than the video game. Why make a film of this caliber at all?
Why is it assumed that movies based on video games will suck, that the suckitude is inevitable? Video games are one of the most lucrative forms of entertainment we have. Why do the movie studios feel it is OK to crank out unspeakably bad movies based on them? Is it a budget issue? Are they rushing these films out the door to meet a certain timing concern (perhaps to have the movie coincide with the launch of the new game)?
Look, I can see how in them "olden days" adapting a video game to film can be sort of awkward: "Super Mario Bros." comes to mind. I mean, does Frogger really need to be turned into a film? But take a concept like Bioshock. That game should be like a blueprint for a really kick-ass motion picture. You do not automatically hire Uwe Boll to direct "Bioshock" the movie. You do not have Uwe on speed-dial just in case a video game movie script arrives on your desk.
Rant over. Having watched "Hitman," I feel primed for "Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever."