Movie Review: Mortal Kombat

The 2021 Mortal Kombat movie is the movie they should have made in 1995. Swear to God, this movie would have seemed awesome twenty-six years ago. I know we all have fond memories of the campy, cheesy, stupid, bloodless flick that dropped back then, but nostalgia's doing that movie a lot of favors. What the 90's needed was a campy, cheesy, stupid flick with blood, and now... here it is, a few decades late.

Is it too late? Maybe. Probably. Depends how generous you're feeling.

This is... it's fine. Not good, mind you, but fine. The movie does a solid job adapting the core of the game and a passable job assembling that into a format resembling an actual movie. Mostly passable. Sort of passable. It comes a lot closer than most video game adaptations, anyway. But structurally, this is still more like a fighting game than a movie. Was that intentional? Probably. Was it advisable? Probably not.

I'm tempted to say this is likely the best version of this premise we could have hoped for on the big screen, but the truth is a version of this with interesting character dynamics wouldn't have been all that difficult. I'm not saying we needed awards-caliber writing, but the reason, say, Infinity War works without much of a story is that the banter is fun and the relationships are engaging. Here, it's mostly just filler and exposition between fights. Only a few characters have relationships to each other, and those are clichés. When the most compelling character is the video game equivalent of Captain Boomerang, you've got a problem.

That's the larger issue, at least as far as this thing's entertainment value is concerned. There are some pretty big structural and pacing issues, but to be frank, I think issues like those come off as more academic than fatal flaws in movies like these. They're the kinds of things that don't bother you too much unless you stop and think about them, but whether it was wise or not...

...I stopped and thought about them. So, uh, spoilers.

The weirdest - I don't think "flaw" is even the right word - choice, maybe? The weirdest choice the movie makes, in my opinion, is to not actually do the Mortal Kombat tournament. The tournament is supposed to happen, the lore from the games (or at least my limited understanding of that lore) is largely intact, the main characters spend the first few acts getting ready for said tournament, but instead they just kind of fight all the bad guys one-on-one outside of the tournament. Then no one really explains if the tournament is postponed, if the villains forfeit, if it's still going to happen in a couple days with new or resurrected bad guys, or what's going on.

And here's the thing: the one-on-one fights were shot in a way they could have been the tournament, they just weren't. Like, we weren't watching the tournament on a technicality. My running theory is they originally were part of the "official" tournament, then the movie got recut and streamlined into it's current form. Maybe they couldn't swing some reshoots because of COVID, and this was the workaround?

I also have my suspicions about the "big fight" at the end, mainly because it *wasn't* really a big fight, at all. The movie's climax is a fight between one ninja fighting two ninjas, and the two ninjas win, because [checks notes] there are two of them.

Meanwhile, the main character takes out Goro at the end of the second act. Given how much of the Goro fight is CG, I can't help but wonder if maybe the order of those fights got flipped at some point. Because, as it is, there really isn't a "boss fight" at the end of the movie, which feels wrong for a fighting game adaptation.

Again, none of this is necessarily a major problem; just... weird. The movie feels like it doesn't quite click together, but... does it have to? The fights are pretty good, and that's the selling point of this thing, anyway. I wish they'd held back more from the trailers, but the "good parts" are indeed pretty good. Does a Mortal Kombat movie need to be a coherent, well-made film, or is "people fighting" enough? I'll leave that to philosophers to decide.

Let's talk gore. Yes, there's blood and occasionally guts and brains and stuff, but honestly... I thought there'd be a lot more. This isn't a complaint - I'm squeamish, so I didn't miss it - but it's notable the fatalities in the movie are significantly less gruesome than some I've seen in the more recent games. Again, not a complaint: I was just a little surprised.

Along with Detective Pikachu, this is easily one of the best video game movies I've ever seen, but if that's not damning with faint praise, I don't know what is. I can't imagine spending additional money to see this on a big screen, but if you're already paying for HBO Max... hey, it's right there. That's certainly how I watched it. Not sure this qualifies as a recommendation, but I suppose you need to ask yourself how bored you are.

Movie Review: Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

Whether or not you should rush to the theater to see Detective Pikachu can be answered using an absurdly obvious litmus test: do you have any love for this property? If you do, have I got good news. Detective Pikachu does a phenomenal job adapting the cartoon creatures of the video games, anime, card games, and... I don't know? What else is this multi-media empire built out of? Whatever it is, the movie finds a way to upgrade it to three dimensions in a manner that's believably tactile without losing the distinctive look of the source material. Think more Bumble Bee and less Bayformers in the approach and execution of the world.

Incidentally, I do not have any real background with this stuff, so the nostalgia grenade I just described did very little for me.

Okay, full disclosure: I know what a handful of these creatures look like, partly because they appear in the Smash Bros. games and partly because I exist in this civilization. But I was a few years too old to care about the anime when it came out, and I never played a single Pokemon game (unless you count the aforementioned Smash Bros. series).

That's a long-winded way of saying I had to approach the movie as if it was, well, a movie and enjoy it (or not) on those terms. Specifically, I approached it as a genre movie, and more specifically than that as an "ALL the genres" movie, as it incorporates elements of fantasy, sci-fi, adventure, romantic comedy, drama, slapstick, noir, superhero, and maybe just a dash of horror watered down to PG.

If you think that sounds a little overstuffed... yeah, that's the movie in a pokeball. The world is beautiful and fascinating even without much background on its inhabitants, but the movie never really coalesces into a unified whole, nor is it willing to commit to a tone long enough to really draw you in. Ultimately, you're left with more a vignette of sequences than a concrete experience.

If we'd gotten better characters, I think this could have worked anyway, but with one exception, everyone was fairly bland and two-dimensional. Fortunately, Detective Pikachu was that exception: he's still two-dimensional, but he's anything but bland. I'm tempted to call him the movie's MVP, but the setting already won that title in a cage fight against a charizard.

While Pikachu's good, the human characters are just kind of dull. The actors do solid work, but every human in the movie is written like they stepped out of a video game. The main characters lack interesting traits or arcs, and the plot is about as by-the-numbers as you can get. If you didn't figure out the twist ending from the trailers, you'll piece it together within the first 15 minutes of the movie.

Instead, the movie incorporates a lot of comedy, and not in a good way. Rather than build characters and allow the humor to arise organically from their interactions with a whimsical world, it tosses in a great deal of physical humor, most of which falls flat. I honestly think this movie would have been far funnier if they'd skipped the jokes entirely and trusted the world to be funny on its own. I also think this could have benefited from being a little darker, say PG-13 rather than the PG they went with.

Okay, I know it sounds like I'm saying I wish this had been Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but... actually, yeah, I do honestly just wish this had been more like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Really, shouldn't all movies strive for that?

All that being said, the world this is set in really is incredible, and I imagine it's even more so if you give a damn about these ridiculous, adorable monsters. If Pokemon was a part of your childhood, by all means seek this out and enjoy the fluffy, electrically-charged jolt of nostalgia it offers.

The rest of us could honestly do a lot worse. This is almost certainly the best video-game movie ever made, and I genuinely enjoyed the weird-ass final act where rationality went out the window and it turned into a zany superhero adventure. But don't go in expecting brilliance: this is a very flawed movie with a few saving graces, not a game-changer.

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a great movie, in that it accomplishes everything it sets out to do.  The story is competently told, the tone is conveyed, the direction and acting are good, and the visual style is incredible.  But, with the exception of that final aspect, the movie still managed to disappoint us, not because it failed to achieve its goal, but rather because we never clicked with the movie.

Simply put, we weren't really compatible with Edgar Wright's vision for this movie.

There were several wedge issues, beginning with this version of Scott Pilgrim.  Many have blamed the casting, but we actually rather liked Michael Cera in the role.  It was the role itself that grated on us.  Scott was whiny, shallow, and self-obsessed.  This wasn't exactly a flaw, though, because it was clearly intentional: the movie was a story of self-discovery and personal growth.

That, incidentally, was our second issue.  We've seen these sorts of character journeys before: they're a dime a dozen on the sitcoms we grew up with.  From this movie, we wanted something a little lighter or, barring that, something as original as its appearance.

And, from a visual standpoint, the movie was absolutely awesome.  The fights were fast paced, intriguing, and fun, and the effects were a joy to watch.  Unfortunately, the movie dragged when the punches stopped.  The characters, while adequately developed, weren't particularly likable, making it difficult to care what happened to them.
 
Still, where the substance disappoints, the style reigns.  Michael Cera was an action hero, and an imposing one at that.  The battles were engaging and exciting, and the movie is well worth a trip to the theater.

In terms of tone, the movie almost reminded us of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; a jarring experience since we'd entered expecting something along the lines of Shaun of the Dead.  Of course, Eternal Sunshine offered a more original story to support its innovative use of effects.

The visual style is almost reminiscent of Speed Racer, which time and reflection has elevated to five-star status.  Against that metric, we award Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World three and a half stars.

Scott Pilgrim demands respect, and the action sequences are a joy.  Unfortunately, the movie is easier to respect than to love.

Movie Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

As a rule of thumb, movies based on video games are poor in quality, as are video games based on movies.  The movie, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, may actually be the best movie based on a video game ever made, though we will certainly understand if fans of the Resident Evil franchise wish to file an objection.  But 'best' does not always equate to 'good', not that either is necessary for a movie to be enjoyable.  Prince of Persia is, at the very least, one of the best video game movies out there, and is certainly enjoyable.

It's still not all that good.

But this is far from enlightening.  What's most intriguing about this film is that, in approaching good, we have finally determined to our satisfaction why it is so difficult for movies derived from video games to cross that threshold.  We have heard it said, from time to time, that video game plots lack the substance or the complexity to be developed into good movies.  Yet the game this was based on has a far more developed plot than, say, the Pirates of the Caribbean ride that gave birth to that franchise.  And those movies - especially the original - are far better than this.

The difference between them is that the filmmakers who crafted Curse of the Black Pearl sat down and answered a single question: "What do you mean by 'based on'?"

It is the question all adaptations must confront, and it is likewise the question that tripped up Prince of Persia.  Is this adapted from the game or merely inspired by?

The video game actually has a surprisingly thoughtful story.  It's not really a complex story, but it's thoughtful nonetheless.  While the game also deserves praise for its design and action sequences, the plot is what ties it together.

However, that plot is ultimately limited to three characters: the prince, the princess, and the vizier.  While such reductionist stories may function well in game environments, it's difficult to craft an entertaining film from such a skeletal structure.

So, when transitioning from game to movie, they abandoned the story entirely, opting instead to base their film on imagery and sequences from the game.  And this is where the film floundered.  While the sets and fights were certainly amusing, there was a sense in which the movie felt shackled to its source.  If you've played the game, than you've seen these environments.  You've explored them, in fact, in more depth than the movie has time to.  You've used the Dagger of Time and have mastered it.  Watching its application in the movie is somewhat akin to seeing a child pick up the controller without learning the controls first. 

Meanwhile, the back story has been entirely changed to better appeal to a wider audience.  The original portrayed the prince as spoiled from birth: the events of the game teach him the meaning of consequences and the significance of responsibility.  Rather than deal with such complexity, the filmmakers have re-imagined him as a street thief who was adopted by a wise and benevolent king.  The arc we're left with is of a man who begins the movie as a brave and noble warrior and ends as a warrior who's learned to trust his already brave and noble heart.

In some ways, this is as much an adaptation of Disney's Aladdin as it is Sands of Time.  Ultimately, though, a live-action Aladdin starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Alfred Molina as the genie would probably have been a better film.

In addition, the princess from the game had more depth than appeared here.  It didn't help that her animosity towards the prince seemed misplaced here, as Gyllenhaal was, as previously mentioned, brave and noble from the start, and was clearly as much a victim of circumstance as she was.  As a result, her continued attempts to ditch or, on one occasion, murder him, come of as foolish, petty, and anti-productive, hardly an appropriate portrayal for the sole female character with a name.

In attempting to skirt the line between allowing themselves the freedom of being inspired by the source material and trying to faithfully adapt the game environments and ideas, the movie leaves fans of the game stranded between what we've already seen and what we miss.  There's not enough new to intrigue us and too little of what we loved about the game for us to fully enjoy as an adaptation.

Compare this with Pirates of the Caribbean, which playfully tipped its hat to its inspiration then moved on to a new story, new settings, and new characters.

This isn't to say there's nothing to enjoy.  Ironically, we actually did enjoy this film, thanks to the solid acting, amazing sets, and exciting action.  We enjoyed it throughout, but, aside from the first big battle and the flashback to the young Dastan, we never loved what we were seeing.

Perhaps, if it should manage a sequel, Prince of Persia will be able to find its own footing.  Certainly the elements are in place: Jake Gyllenhaal is a fantastic choice for the role.  Now that its dues to the game have been paid, we'd love to see an original swashbuckling adventure story in this world.

Such prospects seem unlikely, however, as the theater we went to was mostly empty.  There's little indication this will make enough to warrant another picture.

This movie clearly wants to be Pirates of the Caribbean, so it seems only appropriate to grade on that curve.  If Curse of the Black Pearl is a five star film, than Sands of Time is good for two and a half.

Ironically, if you've never played the game this is based on, you're likely to enjoy the setting and fights more than we did.  This isn't bad for an adventure movie - it manages to retain a quick pace and light tone throughout.  But, frankly, with movies like Iron Man 2 in abundance, we have higher expectations.

A Few Notes

As you've no doubt already realized, The Middle Room is more analog than digital. We tend to avoid the topic of video games in most instances. It isn't that we look down on our electronic brethren; it's just that we feel the subject is better treated elsewhere. Besides, while we keep a Game Cube plugged in here, our funds are devoted to other ends: movies, comics, and of course the action figures you see around you.

But from time to time we feel the need to say a few words. In this case, it is DC Vs. Mortal Kombat (or Mortal Kombat Vs. The DCU or... whatever they end up calling it) that has captured our attention.

While the notion of Batman beating Sub-Zero into pulp intrigues us, there is something about the game's concept we find intrinsically troubling. Putting our reservations into words could prove problematic, but fortunately that won't be an issue. Everything wrong with this pairing can be distilled into a single image, ironically released as marketing for the game. Were we working for Midway, we might have spent money PREVENTING that image from entering the vast electronic sea known by some as the Internet.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that several elements of design in the game have managed to impress us. In particular, it occurs to us that this design for an "armored" Batman is far less offensive than, say, this one.

But we may have more to say on that subject when The Dark Knight enters theaters.

A New Challenger....

In The Middle Room, we play few video games. It isn't that we do not respect the medium: nothing could be further from the truth. It is only that our time is taken by other endeavours. You are far more likely to find us studying the sacred intricacies of the twelve vertices of a twenty sided die... or, perhaps the twenty vertices of the twelve sided (there are mysteries here mortals are not meant to know).

But do not mistake our preoccupation with role-playing games and comic books for indifference. All aspects of Geek are embraced within these walls.

When one face of the icosahedron is smeared, the entirety is marked. Likewise, we consider an attack against video games an attack against us all. And certainly nothing that geeks love has been attacked more in recent years that the infamous video game.

But fear not, for a warrior has risen. As is very often the case, Stephen King (iD&Di: .88) has shown us the way.