UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35777
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#1 Post by AndyDursin »

Great read from The Telegraph (UK), one of the better written reviews I've read in a while. :lol:
If some pitiless sadist fed a copy of The Da Vinci Code through the Hollywood Marveliser, Uncharted could easily be the result. Spun off from a popular series of PlayStation games, it’s a plastic archeological swashbuckler which goes through the genre’s motions with all the elegance and verve of a glazed-over gamer Pavlovically prodding the buttons on his joypad.

Fresh-ish from Spider Man: No Way Home (though in fact Uncharted was shot first, during the first year of the pandemic), Tom Holland stars as Nathan ‘Nate’ Drake, a direct descendent of Sir Francis – or so his parents told him, before whatever tragic event left him and his elder brother Sam in an orphanage, from where the two steal out under cover of darkness to relieve a local museum of its antiquities.

Fast forward into Nate’s early adulthood and Sam’s gone AWOL, while our still fairly young hero is mixing drinks in a chic New York bar while picking the pockets of its bourgeois clients.

Enter, with a clunk, Mark Wahlberg, jarringly miscast as debonair treasure hunter Victor Sullivan, who enlists Nate in his search for a legendary cache of gold hidden somewhere or other by the crew of the Magellan expedition, and never seen again for 500 years.

As a blue-collar stoic or preening meathead Wahlberg can be terrifically good value, but he proves about as natural a fit for a suave surrogate father figure as would a ballgown for an orangutan, and the very thought of him leading young Nate into a cutthroat netherworld of ruthless artefact collectors doesn’t ring true for a moment.

Nor, sad to say, does the netherworld itself, which largely consists of Antonio Banderas’s gravelly oligarch and his small team of henchmen, one of whom is armed with a non-native Scottish accent which – hoots, mon – even Russ Abbot might have deemed a touch de trop.

Banderas’s character is the kind of strategic mastermind who will murder an enemy in broad daylight in a car park beside a major tourist hotspot – while a plot twist that feels more like the result of a scheduling clash than screenwriter daring leaves him offscreen for the film’s entire third act, during which Tati Gabrielle’s Braddock, a knife-toting mercenary, finds herself promoted to villain-in-chief by default.

At this point, things mercifully warm up a bit. The climactic action sequence, which takes place across two ancient galleons as they're airlifted from an island cave to a waiting cargo ship, is a nice idea well executed, even if the scene’s improbable physics attest to Uncharted's video-game roots.

Elsewhere, the action is dire from every angle: lots of pushing artefact A onto plinth B in order to make secret door C wobble open.

There’s also a fight in and outside an aeroplane’s cargo hold in the rough style of the iconic stunt from The Living Daylights, which the film is evidently so pleased with that it shows it off twice: once in truncated form in a quick flash-forward prologue, then again in full when it occurs in the course of the plot around two thirds of the way through the film.

But every frame is so obviously green-screened, airbrushed and otherwise climate-controlled that it unfolds without a squeak of peril – the stakes couldn’t have felt lower if an extra-life counter were sitting in the corner of the screen. As for the script, you can almost hear the words NEEDS TO BE FUNNIER written in capital letters in the margins at least once per scene.

Even as a test of Holland’s star power beyond the Marvel franchise, Uncharted feels like an ill-advised choice. He’s just too lamblike to convince as an open-shirted heartthrob in the Harrison Ford mould, and his chemistry with Sophia Ali, who plays on-off adventuring partner Chloe, is foot-shufflingly meek.

Of course, when a whole generation of stars have been purpose-grown for franchises that shrink in horror from human sensuality, this is the embarrassing result. Buried treasure in the Philippines is all well and good, but wait until you hear about sex.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/unchart ... 55431.html

Eric W.
Posts: 7685
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#2 Post by Eric W. »

I like the games but I couldn't be less interested in this.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7540
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#3 Post by Paul MacLean »

After reading that review I sought out the trailer.



Pass.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35777
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#4 Post by AndyDursin »

The line about a "green-screened, airbrushed and otherwise climate-controlled" visual look instantly reminded me of INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. The difference between an ACTUAL location and a stock green screen set is huge -- and it made the failings of that movie even more obvious since it didn't resemble the previous, location-based movies that came before it.

This is a video game movie to begin with so I guess it's less important, but man, it makes all of these types of films so less appealing. The CGI guys have so little imagination these days, the blandness of all of these films is such a comedown from the artistry of DP's from decades ago -- even in a movie like this.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7540
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#5 Post by Paul MacLean »

AndyDursin wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 11:55 am The CGI guys have so little imagination these days, the blandness of all of these films is such a comedown from the artistry of DP's from decades ago -- even in a movie like this.
I agree, everything looks the same these days. I remember Alejandro Inarritu saying he refused to shoot The Revenant on a green stage because "it would look like sh*t!"

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10561
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#6 Post by Monterey Jack »

Has any wildly popular movie produced as many bad ripoffs as Raiders Of The Lost Ark? Aside from Romancing The Stone, it's hard to think of one that's even watchable, let alone good. :|

BobaMike
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:57 pm

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#7 Post by BobaMike »

Monterey Jack wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:28 pm Has any wildly popular movie produced as many bad ripoffs as Raiders Of The Lost Ark? Aside from Romancing The Stone, it's hard to think of one that's even watchable, let alone good. :|
I would rate the first Brendan Fraiser Mummy as good (not great). Although it's more a horror/adventure hybrid.

I do find myself sucked into watching the terrible King Solomon's Mines every time I see it on tv though. It's so cheesy, I enjoy the Goldsmith score, and I really enjoy Sharon Stone's shorts getting shorter with every scene.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10561
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#8 Post by Monterey Jack »

BobaMike wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:06 am...and I really enjoy Sharon Stone's shorts getting shorter with every scene.
Definitely. :)

People who bag on Kate Capshaw's performance in Temple Of Doom should subject themselves to Stone's performance in King Solomon's Mines. They'd probably want to personally apologize to Capshaw after that. :lol: Hard to believe Stone would become a major star and an Oscar nominee in the 90s considering how awful she was throughout the 80s.


User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 35777
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#9 Post by AndyDursin »

Beyond the first MUMMY, HIGH ROAD TO CHINA is fairly entertaining, Bess Armstrong was at least cute back in the day. B-tier Barry but I find the movie likeable enough. To be honest I've always felt Tom Selleck would've been just as capable as Indiana Jones -- sacrilege maybe to some, but the role was intended for him and I think the film would've been just as big a hit. Insert him into the exact same movie and it still would've worked gangbusters. Ford is obviously great and all, but it's not a "deficient movie" he needs to single-handedly carry and the script was sound.

NATIONAL TREASURE I guess could fit the bill and the first one was pretty entertaining.

KING SOLOMON'S MINES is bad -- but I agree with BobaMike, it's also very watchably bad. It looks good, the cast is interesting, Goldsmith's bubblegum score is okay. And it is pretty well-mounted for a Cannon production. And it's light years ahead of the horrific ALLAN QUATERMAIN AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD!

Put it this way -- I'd rather watch KING SOLOMON'S MINES over modern fails like the TOMB RAIDER movies or SAHARA which resurrected, and immediately killed, the Clive Cussler movie genre just as "Raise the Titanic" did years prior. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 10561
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: UNCHARTED - February Junk The Way Hollywood Used to Make It?

#10 Post by Monterey Jack »

6.5/10

It's like Red Notice: The Better Version, meaning it's still a slice of processed Velveeta, but at least a tastier one (and with a far less obnoxiously smug, over-compensated cast). But it takes a while to get there, the first hour rife with mediocre banter between Mark Wahlberg (underwhelming as usual, his breathless, high-pitched voice not really selling him as any sort of laconic, Han Solo-esque badass) and Tom Holland (limber and boyishly engaging as always, although you have to wonder if he's ever going to mature past this state of gee-whiz gawkishness...he's bucking to be the weightless Michael J. Fox of the 2020's), and kicked off by one of the weakest "heist" scenes in recent memory. Seriously...it all boils down to Wahlberg getting handed the Historical Thingamajig they need to kick off their adventure during an auction and literally walking out totally uncontested! :shock: Thankfully things pick up in the second half, with a pair of legitimately well-staged action sequences in the last forty minutes or so (a cargo plane fight that meshes together The Living Daylights and the underrated Terminal Velocity and an absurd -- but fun! -- airborne clash between decrepit pirate ships being held aloft by helicopters). Charismatic newcomer Tati Gabrielle also makes for an easy-on-the-eyes and moderately threatening villain henchman (even if the way the movie shoves ostensible head baddie Antonio Banderas over the side is jarringly abrupt).

There's really nothing especially noteworthy about this until the second hour, but if you hang on, it becomes an agreeable (if disposable) good time. I know jack about the video game series that birthed it, but this is one of the few game adaptations I can think of that works as acceptable big screen escapism.

Post Reply