Why Are Videogame Movies Rubbish?

If novels, plays and comic-books can be successfully adapted into films, why can't videogames? Why are videogame movies always - always! - rubbish? Max Payne is just the latest in a long series of videogame adaptations that has been critically trounced. In this case, even the CEO of the company behind the Max Payne games has weighed in saying, "There are several fundamental story flaws... in the film that have me shaking my head in bewilderment." The blunt answer to the question would be: because a lot of videogame movies are directed by the man frequently described as the world's worst director, Uwe Boll. And most of those that aren't made by Boll come from the stable of Paul WS Anderson. In fact, if anyone can be blamed for this entire cycle of bad films, it's Anderson, as it was the success of his second feature, Mortal Kombat (1995), that kicked things off. As well as bad directors making bad films, there's also the problem of games as a medium. Games feature narratives but, first and foremost, they are an interactive activity. A good videogame achieves something even a good movie can't - it makes you the protagonist. It takes you on a journey that can be involving in a way that's closer to getting embroiled in a good novel. In a movie, you can't help but be external to the action on screen. In a novel, the story plays out in your mind's eye. In a game, it plays out somewhere in between, and is controlled by your own manipulation. It can be profoundly intimate and even when it's not, such as with beat-'em-up fighting games, it's hands-on.Given that Mortal Kombat was based on a beat-'em-up, a genre not known for its narrative virtues, it's remarkable that it was transformed into a movie at all. But transformed it was and, on a budget of $20 million, went on to make $120 million worldwide. Mortal Kombat wasn't the first live action movie based on a videogame but it was the one that made producers sit up, dollar signs in their eyes. Two years previously, Hollywood had acknowledged the runaway success of the landmark Nintendo title 'Super Mario Bros.', which to this day remains the bestselling game ever. Unfortunately, the film was a box office flop. Street Fighter (1994) - Van Damme! Kylie! - was similarly critically mauled, though unlike Super Mario Bros, it was able to earn back its budget.

During the 1990s, the videogame industry continued to grow, to a point where by the turn of the century it was overtaking the movie industry in economic terms. In 2004, a 'San Francisco Chronicle' story said the industry "generates more revenue than Hollywood". In part, this was due to the phenomenon of blockbuster games like 'The Sims', 'Halo', 'Grand Theft Auto' and 'Tomb Raider'. The original 1996 'Tomb Raider' game gave its publisher, Eidos, significant profits and Lara Croft broke out into popular culture. With such a significant icon, it was inevitable that Hollywood would want to capitalise. For while Hollywood might be exploiting an existing market for its product, the movie also serves as a giant commercial for the game. It's a win-win situation. For producers. Not for audiences. By 1998, Eidos had done a deal with Paramount. By 2001, the Tomb Raider film, costing $80 million and directed by Simon West (Con Air), hit cinemas. It received another mixed critical reception but that faded into the background as the film cleaned up internationally, taking a meaty $300 million plus. It remains the most financially successful videogame movie ever. The $100 million budget 2003 sequel failed to follow this pattern, however, providing a key lesson: even if you have a ready-made brand and market, the less you spend on the movie, the bigger the profit margins. The paragon of cheap but profitable videogame movies is Uwe Boll, critic-boxer and canny businessman. His first videogame movie, House of the Dead (2003), might have squandered the source material but, by costing only $7 million and making $10 million, it was a financial success. This despite being the worst videogame movie ever. Even the financial disaster of his In The Name Of The King (2007) (the $60 million film failed to gross more than $10 million) didn't give Boll pause for thought: he produced four more videogame movies during 2007-2008. At the same time, Anderson was having a run of success - in business terms - with the Resident Evil films. But then, everybody loves zombies, even if Anderson's films aren't half as interesting as the excellent, almost entirely unrelated Capcom videogame. Anderson and his production partner Jeremy Bolt have also found time to make DOA Dead Or Alive (2006), and are working on Spy Hunter and Castlevania (both due out in 2009).

While Capcom's survival horror franchise was getting mangled into movies, the comparable Silent Hill also got the film treatment. Silent Hill and its sequels are acclaimed games that draw on Jacob's Ladder, David Lynch, Stephen King, Richard Matheson (who wrote the original Omega Man novel and Steven Spielberg's Duel) and Japan's own unique tradition of supernatural stories. With moral choices and a disturbing tone, the games are powerful experiences. Silent Hill director Christophe Gans and screenwriter Roger Avary - a credible pair - took the task of adapting the games very seriously, and looked like they could break the mould of bad videogame movies. Although the resulting film met with another mixed reception, it has come to be considered by many the best videogame movie yet. The fundamental problem with the film, though, is that it's not you exploring the creepy world of Silent Hill. The movie may have captured something of the tone of the games, but it just couldn't give you the chills, thrills and challenges of the games. As such, it painfully highlighted that troubling distinction between the media. With 28 Days Later, Alex Garland co-created an effective, intense horror-drama. With Pan's Labyrinth, Guillermo Del Toro took us into the mind of a young girl faced with the horrors of war. And with The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson created the epic trilogy to end all epics. Without doubt, these guys are masterful when it comes to the movies. But it's doubtful even they could have captured the essence of what it means to play 'Halo', what it means to actually be its universe-saving hero the Master Chief. Thankfully, the Halo movie they were attached to has been cancelled, all involved presumably realising a guy in armour whose face you never see would fail to make for film protagonist as satisfying as his game avatar.Similar concerns loom large for impending videogame movies as Prince Of Persia, where Mike Newell directs Jake Gyllenhaal. The one-time Donnie Darko might be a personable actor, but he's not you. All of which isn't to say a decent movie based on a videogame is impossible, it just feels extremely unlikely given the quality of talent involved, the way these properties are treated by producers and the profound differences between the media. But hey, we'd love to be proved wrong.