Uncharted movie review

The release of the Uncharted movie sees the seemingly inevitable finally happen. Indeed a movie featuring Nathan Drake as the lead character has taken a surprisingly long time to be released. To many people it seemed like an obvious and natural transition to make, given how movie like the games already are in nature. I somewhat question that logic myself, which I'll return to in a while. A movie was first put in development way back in 2008, the year after the release of the first game in the series Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, in 2007. The development hell it went through from there could make for a tale to tell in itself. Directors, writers and actors came and went. Mark Wahlberg was cast as Nathan Drake from between about 2010 to 2014. Perhaps most symbolic of how long an Uncharted movie has been stuck in development is the irony of Mark Wahlberg ultimately returning to the project to instead play Nate’s older mentor Victor “Sully” Sullivan.

An inevitable question, certainly forefront in the minds of the millions of gamers, is should an Uncharted movie even exist at all? What can it add? The games effectively out action movie the movies they’re inspired by, whilst putting the player in control in a way a purely linear movie never can. They are every bit as well produced as the movies they homage, the characters are well drawn and likeable. Indeed Nathan Drake himself as acted by Nolan North is every bit as likeable and charismatic a leading man as any Hollywood action hero you could name, with a supporting cast to match.

So, does the final product justify it’s own existence by being a piece of entertainment in it’s own right beyond the games which inspired it? Let’s find out, by way of me taking you on my own personal journey to my Uncharted movie viewing experience.​

I’ll freely admit that as a massive fan of the Uncharted games I was skeptical about this movie. While I appreciate Tom Holland, who seems like a likeable guy who I enjoy as an actor, I was certainly not initially sold on him as Nathan Drake. Our usual image of Nate is of an age range roughly early thirties to mid forties across the games, with flashbacks to his younger days occasionally. The concept of this being an origin story with a younger Nate helped bring me round to the idea, and early production photos, including Tom in classic Nate costume did good work on selling the idea. There was no getting away from the fact of Marky Mark Wahlberg just not feeling like the right fit for Sully, and the lack of Sully’s iconic moustache in set photos didn’t do anything to disprove that notion. That feeling has never fully gone away to be honest, although seeing Tom and Mark in interviews it became clear they had a certain banter based chemistry which at least felt like a good fit for Nate and Sully.

As the release date approached we got to see a couple of different full trailers for the movie, with plenty of action, setting and character content to take in. It started to become clear that despite being an origin story, it would draw quite heavily on key scenes from the games, effectively placing the younger Nate in much the same situations which the games somewhat more mature Nate found himself in. The big showcase scene which really stands out for ticking that box, is of course the whole cargo aeroplace sequence from Uncharted 3: Drakes’s Deception, with Nate falling out and dangling from cargo netting sequence before he finds himself sky diving in search of a parachute.

So how does the movie itself stack up? For all my misgivings about certain casting and so on, my mind was open to taking it for what it is, not what it isn’t, and giving it a fair chance. Indeed I wanted to like it, in the way anyone who loves something wants to see it treated well. Now while gaming is massively popular, with revenue exceeding that of most Hollywood movies, it is nevertheless a fairly niche market. Many people outside of that world will have never heard of Nathan Drake and his adventures. Having an beloved series suddenly put before the gaze of the uninformed non-gaming masses, naturally means I want to see it be enjoyed by the general public and not be dismissively derided.

STORYLINE

​For a movie that sets out to be an origin story, it really doesn’t dwell much on the backstory of it characters. It’s more about telling their version of a young Nate first meeting Sully, one which does differ significantly from the games. We do get a small amount of backstory of a younger Nate and his older brother Sam, at a time they where both living at an orphanage run by nuns in Boston. This scene set 15 years in the past and forms the true start of the movie’s storyline, following the opening teaser of Nate hanging from the back of an aeroplane on cargo netting. Sam earns his third strike and is ejected from the orphanage - there doesn’t seem to be concern expressed, at least such as we aren’t told, where Sam is expected to go.

The overall aim and narrative thrust of the movie is all about setting up the bond with Nathan Drake and Victor “Sully” Sullivan, played of course by Holland and Wahlberg. Also setting up a tentative friendship and potential Nate love interest with fellow treasure hunting adventurer Chloe Frazer as played by Sophie Ali. It is clear that Chloe has her own agenda too and trust for her is thin on the ground, especially from Sully. There’s a fun play on the idea of “double crossing” in dialogue spoken by Sully, when Chloe figures out that 2 crosses literally need to be placed together to form a key. Trust, or rather the noticeable lack of it, is something of a theme of the movie in fact. Nate is not at all sure of whether to trust Sully, who despite recruiting him doesn’t seem completely convinced by Nate's trustworthiness and abilities either.

This feels like a far cry from the Nate and Sully of the games, who from the very beginning have an almost unbreakable bond and rarely doubt each other. Nate seems to have been recruited as a stand in for Sam who mysteriously disappeared. As for Chloe, while she is played as apparently double crossing them, it is later revealed she is only appearing to do so so that the bad guy Flynn doesn’t suspect her. I was a bit concerned that the movie did her character a disservice in that respect, given she should be pitched more as an equal for Nate and effectively a secondary lead character. Hopefully there is still room to bring her back into the circle of trust.

THE BAD GUYS

A weakness of the movie is that the bad guys feel rather underused, lacking in screen time and not expanded upon as characters. The apparent lead bad guy Santiago Moncada as played by the always charismatic Antonio Banderas is especially under utilised and his talents feels rather wasted. The main threat turns out to be Jo Braddock as played by Tati Gabrielle, who is supposedly a rival from Sully’s past. The trouble is we learn little about her, and none of the bad guys motivations besides the primal one of greed for treasure are ever really explored. In truth I had to look up the character names for both of the above antagonists, as they made so little impression on me while watching the movie. This is an example of a way in which it doesn’t compare favourably to the games, which have very memorable villains, ones which they often go to great efforts to portray them having own agenda and to lend a certain sympathy to them.

DOES IT CAPTURE THE SPIRIT OF THE GAMES?

Well... kind of. Where the movie does capture the spirit of it well is in the subtle little things it does which add to the overall feel of it. Early on in the movie there’s an exciting parkour rooftop chase sequence which feels familiar. It also happens to play well into Tom’s natural physical abilities, who would only partially have had to have a stunt double for those scenes. The hidden chamber and puzzle sequence with the 2 crosses had a very game feel about it, and they had Nate light a flaming torch - a moment kind of lampshading by them having him say he’d always wanted to do that. Get used to it kid, you should be doing much more of it! There was a fun nod to gameplay with Nate giving Chloe a boost up, again kind of drawing attention to by having Nate groan in pain as he’s stood upon. That's a popular game mechanic that’s taken for granted, which probably wouldn’t feel great in reality honestly. There’s some lovely little touches such as several times Nate holds up a card or letter or similar object, looks and it then flips it over to look at the back. Something I’ve done many times in gameplay and a nice subtle touch to include. If we’re to believe a TV interview we have Tom to thank, who as a gamer himself, pointed out the need to include moments like that. While more of a classic adventure movie than a game reference, I liked the repeated use of an aeroplane flying over a map to indicate travel to another country.

Amongst my less liked uses of game content in the movie was how the famous Nathan Drake “Sic Parvis Magna” ring (greatness from small beginnings) was sort of just shoe-horned into the start of the movie. They have Sam give it to Nate, as he is packing to leave following his ejection from the orphanage, with no explanation for why he has it. It has the feel of being treated like an Easter Egg reference, when it has great meaning in the games including a direct link to Sir Francis Drake and is repeatedly quoted.

As already alluded to, Tom and Mark have a good chemistry as Nate and Sully, which while not quite capturing the feel of the game characters, works on it’s own terms well enough. I do feel it wouldn’t have taken much to slap a reasonable looking moustache on Marky Mark, to at least passingly have him smoke cigars (I understand not wanted to dwell on that point) and for crying out loud put him in the iconic Havana shirts! Tom is more convincing overall as the younger Nate they are depicting. Despite some token nods in the direction of iconic Nathan Drake wardrobe, it is probably for the best that they’ve actively encouraged Tom to make Nate his own. Nolan North’s voice and take on Nate is so recognisable, it would ultimately be self defeating to try and imitate him, especially given the younger age of the character. Despite a few quippy remarks here and there, Nate is notably less cocky in this movie, which given the origin nature of the storyline, that is probably for the best too.

Something I took a note of to look up was the apparent age gap between Tom and Mark. I couldn’t help feeling that they seemed too close in age on screen. Mark is still a leading man action star in his own right, there was the feeling of almost upstaging Tom at times. The truth is that there is in fact 25 years between them, which is exactly the age gap Nate and Sully are supposed to have. It just doesn’t come across as much in the movie.

Tom for his part has been doing workout training to bulk up a bit for the role, something we are also shown Nate doing onscreen - which makes sense considering the physical ability he is shown to have. He also acts notably more mature as Nate especially as compared to the high schooler Peter Parker. Credit to Tom that you don’t at any point think “hey I’m watching Spider-man hunt for treasure”. He’s also obviously done some cocktail waiter training to be able to confidently play working a cocktail bar, perhaps the best recreation of that since Tom Cruise starred in Cocktail.

RECREATING GAME SCENES

I’d like to clarify that I have no issue with the movie treading it’s own path in terms of origin and storylines deviating from that depicted in the game series. Rather I actively encourage the idea. What would be the point of a verbatim scene for scene retelling in live action of already well produced movie like games? Seems like an exercise in futility to me, pointless. So fair play to them for choosing to forge their own version, an alternate universe Uncharted if you like, which stands on it’s own.

With that in mind I have somewhat mixed feelings about just how many well known game scenes they used prominently. Any time a movie or show does something like that, it can’t help but feel a least a bit like fan service. Not that you can’t have some fan service, as long as it’s not at the expense of everyone else in the audience. The plane sequence is undeniably very well done, it does a great job of transferring that iconic memorable scene to the movie screen. While the events surrounding it and those involved differ, the sequence itself is brought viscerally to life in a way that’s every bit as exciting as it is in the game. Kudos and a round of applause is due to them for that. A definite crowd pleaser.

My concern is what they intend to do next. I don’t think they need to recreate game scenes necessarily, but if they intend to do so they have rather squandered some excellent future material. Uncharted 4 stands out to me the most in that regard, not least the auction scene. While it bears a surface level similarity to the Italian auction scene in U4, it doesn’t realise it fully. The ships in the cave is similarly reminiscent of Drake finding Henry Avery’s ship in U4. The difference being it happens far too quickly and easily, the ships being a mere breath hold underwater swim away.

OVERALL

Any movie based on a well loved game series inevitably walks a difficult line between giving fans what they think they want, while being both entertaining to the non-gamer viewing audience and also making it’s own mark as reason for being. Overall Uncharted does a pretty good job of walking that line and being entertaining while doing so.

To return to the question of whether it justifies it’s existence, I’m inclined to say yes it does... just about. I have to wonder just who it is intended to appeal to. A large chunk of the audience will of course be game fans, who will always prefer the games. Those fans don’t pay it’s way alone of course. To be a bit hit any movie has to attract the general public. They will inevitably draw the comparisons to Indiana Jones (Uncharted is smart enough at least to acknowledge this by referencing it - which the game were of course genuinely inspired by) along with such things as the National Treasure movies, which tred very similar ground. That said, I feel there’s enough different about it and it’s entertaining and charming enough to mostly convince the general audience.

If Rotten Tomatoes are anything to go by (and I’m no fan of them), their audience rating of 90% suggests the general audience have largely embraced it. What is truly shocking is just how disparate their critic rating is versus that audience rating, currently only 41%. It is clear that the movie critics have jumped on a bandwagon of being dismissive of it, while the popcorn munching general public are enjoying it. Snooty movie critic’s ability to wildly misjudge what people want to see never ceases to amaze!

So what then did I make of it myself? I really rather enjoyed it, in fact it’s turned out better than I dared have hoped. Of course it is what it is, a popular entertainment movie. It’s not going to win the Best Picture Oscar obviously. Not that that is any measure necessarily - “Shakespeare In Love anyone”? (Another okay enjoyable movie that isn’t THAT good.) It’s a perfect enjoyable way to pass a bit under a couple of hours, which doesn’t do any serious disservice to the franchise which inspired it. It also leaves the way wide open for a sequel. During the mid-credits bonus scene (when most of the audience have already left) Sully FINALLY sports as moustache, holds a cigar, and wears a classic Sully Havana shirt. Just keep them in the sequel goddamn it! Let’s hope we get even better movie next time around. Hopefully featuring Nate’s true love interest and future wife Elena Fisher, who was conspicuous by her absence!