Was That Film Really That Bad??? In The Name of the King (2006)

From the amazingly bad Alone In The Dark to the just plain atrocious Far Cry, Uwe Boll's videogame adaptations are infamous for their poor quality. Hell, his non-videogame output is often worse, so it remains a mystery as to how he managed to get a $60m budget and a cast including Jason Statham, Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Matthew Lillard, Claire Forlani and Ron Perlman together for his take on the Dungeon Siege licence. Yet somehow, he did, and in the process created a movie that Fangoria.com at the time described as his best film yet. Well, yeah, if you've had a dodgy belly and have been producing type 7's on the Bristol scale all week, and you start dropping 4's, you're going to be happy with the improvement. That doesn't change the fact that the end result is still shit. But was that film really that bad??? 

Interesting formatting.

I suppose you want the plot first, so here goes. Farmer (Jason Statham, and yes that is the character's name, at least to begin with), is living the quiet life near the town of Stonebridge (which doesn't have a stone bridge at all) with his wife, Solana (Claire Forlani) and son, Zeph (Colin Ford). One day, the Krug (not related at all to the Champagne brand!), a base race magically controlled by the evil Magus Gallian (Ray Liotta), attack the town. Zeph is killed whilst Solana and other inhabitants are kidnapped. Farmer, aided by his friend, Norick (Ron Perlman), and his brother in law, Bastion (Will Sanderson looking all budget Geralt from The Witcher) go off to find Solana and the rest of the townsfolk. Before that happens, King Konreid (Burt Reynolds) rocks up with his Army Commander, Tarish (Brian White) and Magus, Merick (John Rhys-Davies). The trio of avengers head off, whilst we get a bit more plot about Gallian seducing Merick's daughter, Muriella (Leelee Sobieski) in order to use her magic powers to combine with his own. Along the way, we also meet the wood nymphs led by Elora (Kristanna Loken) and Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard), the King's shallow and vain nephew. We get to see Fallow turn evil, armies switch sides and, in a twist no one could have ever guessed, Farmer turn out to be Konreid's long lost son, Camden. This being a fantasy film, good triumphs over evil and all is well by the final reel.

He can frown too...

As you can see, $60m can get you quite a cast, even if said cast are just there for the money. Statham is his usual good value self, putting the effort into that strong, silent exterior whilst scything down enemies by the dozen. Sadly for him, there is little humour in his role and, if you've seen him in a few other films, you'll know that when he gets to stretch his comedic side, he brightens up the screen. I suppose they can't do much with that since he's just lost his son but I'll get to the tone of the film in a moment. Forlani is not given much to do except look pretty and finish off the movie, whilst Perlman is solid as ever, not quite phoning in his performance (to the degree this film really deserves), but also not giving it any gusto either. Rhys-Davies is suitably serious in his supporting role but you can't help think he's just carrying a variation on his character from much (unfairly) maligned 90's sci-fi show Sliders. Sobieski is mostly there for eye candy, though does give rise to some of the most disturbing scenes in the film, whilst Loken and her team of nymphs just about justify their plot line in the movie though, let's be honest, all of that "vine" work (think rope/ribbons) means every time they are on screen, it looks like a stilted and poorly performed Vegas act.

Lillard Factor 2!

As much as the ladies are relegated to caricatures and plot devices, it's the cast of Lillard, Reynolds and Liotta that raise eyebrows the most. Lillard first and, if you have ready my aged post on Wing Commander, you'll know that his slacker schtick was a one note wonder, even if it did make it into several performances. Here, he doesn't go full Lillard (no-one wants full Lillard), but he gets pretty close to it. Definitely an 8 on the Lillard scale of wide-mouthed slavering and whining. Also, his accent... if it's trying to be "British", whatever the actual fuck that is, then he's certainly geographically close... well within territorial waters of the British Isles anyway... Still, he does snivelling well so he isn't the worst thing in the movie.

Lillard Factor 8!

The late, great Burt Reynolds plays the King in what can only be described as a Burt Reynolds way. He has the gravitas down to a tee, yet also comes across as bored and knowing he is in a really crap movie but that contracted fee will do nicely, thank you very much. There is a hint of a knowing wink from him at times and I am sure on at least two occasions, he actually breaks the fourth wall and gives the audience the "What the hell am I doing here/See what I have to deal with" look. Honestly, he is probably the best thing in ITNOTK. 

He knows, and he wants you to know too...

Finally, we have Liotta. You know the guy. Goodfellas, No Escape (a forgotten 90's gem), Hannibal, and Cop Land. Here, panto level bad guy who is, like Reynolds, aware of the quality of the production but is sure as hell gonna enjoy himself. Kudos to the costume department for giving him an outfit worthy of a Vegas magician (is he sharing the billing with the nymphs, I wonder) and kudos to Liotta himself for camping it up as only the best villains do in the month of December here in the UK. Oh yes, they do! 

Is that sword supposed to go through her like that?

As for the actual film, well, this has its issues.

Accents first and essentially, it's come as you please. Outside of Lillard's "British???" tones, no one puts on an accent. Now I get it, this is a fantasy film, but accent defines place and place has a hefty burden in creating a believable world. By having your cast speaks as they wish, it destroys any real believability you might have about the Kingdom of Ehb. 

That is terrible... and, by the way, welcome to Canadia!

Not that Boll in interested in believability, given that his approach to film making seems to be throw whatever you can at the screen and see what sticks. Those wood nymphs can get anywhere on vines, a single vertical vine per nymph. Tarzan at least swung from place to place. As for the tone of the film, literally five minutes after Farmer has buried his son, there is a "comedy" gorge crossing scene that is supposed to raise laughs involving our trio of avengers. Tonally, it's as deaf as a post. Also, the idea of a much older man (Gallian) seducing a much younger women (Muriella) is pretty off-putting and not really what this film needs, unless it's to show how dark and serious it wants to be... except you have the comedy gorge scene. Let us not forget, however, the ninjas. Yep, they have ninjas in here, which combined with some truly terrible wire work (and I say this having recently watched DOA: Dead or Alive), add nothing to the film. They're just another ingredient in the melting pot of the battles...

Budget Geralt in the background... fuuuuuuucccccckkkkkk!

Oh, the battles. Hadn't talked about them yet. Right, here we go.

There are three big battles in this film and, in my humble opinion, they are the reason this thing lasts over two hours. Now think back to the time when they filmed this. Peter Jackson had completed the original Lord of the Rings trilogy and, after spending $281m in total, seen a box office take of $2.991bn and given us 558 minutes of theatrical hobbiting and dwarf fiddling. That would rise to 686 minutes for the extended cuts, but there is a limit as to how much hobbiting and dwarf fiddling one person can take. There were many battles, many character scenes and a fair amount of interesting, but also only mildly diverting, padding. What Boll seems to have wanted to do here was re-create that epic fantasy film vibe with two thirds of TLOTR: Fellowship's budget ($60m vs $93m) but with similarly epic battles and less character. And he's certainly done that! Each battle in ITNOTK is suitably epic, in the sense that it has a fair few extra's and, for the first two at least, filmed in daylight so you can actually see what's going on. The final battle is held at night and you get the feeling money had become a little more scarce by that point. The problem with the battles is that they last too long. Each is north of ten minutes, with a lot of close ups of Statham swinging his chopper but not much story. 

What do you mean, story?

Look, battles tend to have stages, certain things happen in a certain order, whether due to doctrine, design or fuck up. Jackson kind of does this in TLOTR trilogy and Boll likes that idea, so he certainly tries to copy that feeling for the second battle... in a forest. So what could be a good on screen punch up with set stages to it so the viewer can follow what's going on actually ends up being a confused melee where no-one can see shit and hasn't a clue. Which is kind of true to life but makes bloody poor entertainment. As a viewer, you get tired of watching Statham and his chopper (I would never have thought I would ever utter that sentence...) and also bored of watching the film. You just want to see the fight end so that the main story, for what it's worth, can continue. And let's not forget the ninjas! Oh, and this is a hoot, the background fighting - it's some of the most inept "pretend" fighting I have ever seen committed to film. Add a bit of Benny Hill music and there's a parody in the making. Point is, Boll has no idea what makes a good battle, no sense of what a military force can/can't do and no interest in making it even broadly realistic within the confines of the fantasy world he has to play with. 

No idea why there are Ninja's, and don't much care either.

Less of a hoot is the CGI - it's terrible, be it the establishing shots of textureless castles or the back projection of that gorge scene (no, I won't let it lie). Any kind of onscreen effect just looks terrible for a film. I say that as you'd kind of expect it for a Sci-fi Channel (now Syfy) TV show of the period. Cheap and cheerful, I know that money will only stretch so far, but maybe Boll should have calmed things down a bit. Speaking of Syfy shows (and Canadian-produced TV shows in general), you will see places that look familiar, be it from Battlestar Galactica (2000's re-make), The X-Files, Stargate SG1 and many more. Whereas TLOTR gave us New (Middle) Zealand in all of its glory for the first time on the big screen, by the time ITNOTK came out, viewers were already very familiar with what Canada had to offer. Ok, that's more of a niggle, but also takes away from the epic sense of fantasy when you know you've seem the same valley a month earlier in Eureka... ( and yes, I know, the justification on this paragraph is different - blogger is being a pain!)

It's so difficult to tell which part is real, isn't it... 

Earning back just $13.1m at the box office, this film was definitely a bomb. However, Boll made two sequels,  ITNOTK: Two Worlds and ITNOTK: The Last Mission, which had budgets of $4.5m and $3.5m respectively and exist purely because he still held the rights. Mixing modern day and distant past settings (although still attached to the Kingdom of Ehb), they ignore the events of the first film completely. 

Truth be told, ITNOTK was a tedious film to watch. The characters are broad outlines yet paper thin, the action is tiresome and even when the cast are knowingly having fun, the sheer weight of boredom stifles what joy you might find. Yes, this is Boll's "best" film and as part of that is being able to afford a decent enough cast to lift it from the dross he usually makes, but having money is not enough to make a good movie. It's a terrible waste of your time and I even begrudge the £1 it cost from CEX. Yes, it really is that bad. Except the song that plays over the end credits, that gets a pass. And it tells you the torture is over.

Popular Retro - Review

Popular Retro began life as a download-only magazine focusing on gaming, toys, comics, music, film and culture of yesteryear. It scratched an itch for those of a nostalgic nature, looking back to the cool stuff we remembered from our formative years. With the release of sixth issue (or volume two, issue one as they call it), we have the first physical issue. I paid the required £7.71 (including postage) and waited to see what turned up.

The magazine arrived quickly and it was obvious to see that money has been spent on the physical quality. I know I mention this with every physical magazine I buy but it is important to note that, as you're paying more than a typical newsstand publication price, it's pleasing to see that publishers don't skimp on the quality of the stock. At 56 pages (including covers), this seems to be the typical length of such niche mags and whilst there are ads included, these are limited to the inside front cover and both sides of the back cover. In other words, you get 52 pages of actual content.

Speaking of content, there are pieces on 80's TV classics  Airwolf and The Real Ghostbusters (which had 21 episodes written by J Michael Straczynski who, if you have an interest in how US television worked back in the 1980's, covered the topic well in his excellent autobiography 'Becoming Superman", reviewed here), a nice look at the ZX81 on the 40th anniversary of its release and some reviews. These cover a new release for the Spectrum (Valley of Rains), a PC release in the style of a Spectrum game (PanGEMic) and a micro-budget straight-to-video horror movie (Evil Spawn). If it were just that, it would be quite a decent magazine. But there is more.

An interview with the man behind Psytronik Software also includes a centrefold poster that'll bring back memories of 1980's computer game artwork, there is a look at Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms album, and a guide to essential vampire-themed comics. Ok, some of this I am unfamiliar with but still an entertaining read and I now know more than I did before I read the mag.

The key article (and providing the cover star) is about the Philips CD-i. At 19 pages, this takes up pretty much the back third of the issue and is a proper in-depth look at this failed multimedia machine from the early 1990's. I am a fan of the CD-i despite its many limitations and there is a 205 model in a cupboard upstairs that did see a fair amount of use before the last house move. This piece really made the magazine for me and it should be the starting point of anyone interested in learning more about this impressive but flawed machine.

Any criticisms?  A minor one which has already been acknowledged online: there are a couple of typos. Like I said, just a minor thing and this is something that I am very aware about with this blog, as more than a few have made it into posts in the past, and I shall not be throwing stones in this glasshouse. Other than that teensy thing, there is absolutely nothing else wrong with Popular Retro and I will definitely be keeping an eye out for the next issue. 

You can find out more about Popular Retro and buy the latest issue here.

Was That Film Really That Bad??? Split Second (1992)

I don't know about you, but when I see a DVD released under a "cult" label, it always makes me think that this was originally a box office bomb (or just ignored upon release) and they're trying to entice you into buying the DVD because they need to make their money back and so it has "cult" status. Fortunately for Split Second, this didn't work for me as I recall watching this at a mate's house probably around 1993 and thinking it was really cool. As a considerable amount of time has passed, the question must be asked, was that film really that bad???

Cool title, no idea what it means about the film.

Set in the (then) far future of 2008 (how quaint!), global warming has started to take its toll and London is a partially flooded mess... The story follows hard-boiled cop Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer) as he tracks down the serial killer who murdered his partner (a barely visible Steven Hartley) three years prior. As he's a bit of a loner and a loose cannon (hey, aren't they all), his boss, Thrasher (seriously!!!, played by local lad Alun Armstrong), pairs him up with intellectual rookie cop Dick Durkin (again, seriously, not making this up, and he's played by Alastair Duncan). As it turns out, it's not a serial killer, it's a monster and darkened, wet shenanigans ensue. 

There is a remarkably decent supporting cast. Joining Armstrong is Ian Dury as a blink and you'll miss him nightclub owner, and the tremendous Pete Postlethwaite as an arsey police colleague. For some reason, we also get a cameo from Michael J Pollard for about a minute and a half total screen time as well. Finally, a youthful Kim Cattrall plays Michelle McLaine, the widow of Stone's partner but who also having an affair with Stone. Messy. Still, she adds something different to the faux-testosterone bromance that develops between Stone and Durkin, and seems to be reusing the same hair style/wig from her stint as Lt. Valeris in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. 

"Two pairs of gravity boots." Damn it! Wrong film!

This is not an original story and, to be fair, although simplistic, it feels like everyone is giving it their all. True, these people are walking stereotypes but they fit together well. At 90 minutes, you wouldn't expect a great deal of character development although Stone's redemption plays hits the right notes but subtlety is lacking as Durkin evolves from a pencil necked geek to cigar chomping gun nut.

Dick Durkin in the 21st and 2/25th's Century!

I can't really continue without commenting upon the film's budget. At $7m in 1991 prices, this is not a micro-budget indie but it does suffer from a lack of money. Lighting choices make scenes either too bright, too soft or both, and that blatantly shows the nature of the plastic prop guns the extra's use. Even the main cast's firearms look a little too... make believe, and that detracts from the grittiness the director is aiming for. As for the gunfire, the director seems to have settled on the idea that every gunshot should create sparks, no matter what is hit... very 1980's Dr Who... Similarly, the police station set could, with the cages taken out, be taken straight from an episode of Prime Suspect, and the nightclub scenes look like the long-forgotten ITV game show Scavengers. Other sets also look suitably cheap and there is a wobbly wall when Durkin gets smacked in the face. Sensibly, they keep the creature out of shot until near the very end, which is to its benefit. Incidentally, the creature work was completed by Stephen Norrington, who would later move to bigger and better things, directing Wesley Snipes in Blade and, allegedly, get to the fisticuff stage with Sean Connery in The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. 

Would you buy butter or beer off this guy if he knocked on your door?

Despite it's dark tone, this film does go a little silly at times: Stone placing his leather coat over a body at a murder scene, the leather trousers they force Hauer to wear that really do nothing for him, Stone's addition to coffee, sugar and cigars means that he should be just a short stair climb away from a heart attack, the blood on the ceiling that handily only drips when the plot demands it, and that really daft demonic map carved into Durkin's chest that he seemingly shrugs off after a brief wobble. Yeah, probably best not to think too much about the plot. And that tease at the end? Stupid and undermining to pretty much everything that has happened over the last hour or so.

You don't see this until the end, which was probably a good idea.

Anyhoo, as a mis-matched buddy cop movie, Split Second has its charms and the night time filming of Durkin driving around the centre of London is effective enough, certainly to the point where you can get away with it being a quaintly unchanged 2008 London - though they did stretch the budget to have a mini-hovercraft in it so I'll give it some slack there. 

That pigeon got a BAFTA nod, you know...

Where slack shouldn't be given, nor any asked for, are the performances of the central trio. Hauer, Cattrall and Duncan are all 100% invested in the film and that fact alone, makes Split Second a very watchable film. Sure, Duncan over-eggs it once he gets his balls under control, but Hauer knows exactly what he is aiming for and nails an OTT interpretation of a loose-cannon cop. It's a likeable performance and a bit different from what he is usually remembered for. The film's score should also be appreciated for delivering what it needs to onscreen and hitting that just bombastic enough style to work for the film. 

Split Second, then, is a low budget genre mix-up that survives on charm and endeavour. Where I think this might have worked better is as a two part TV movie, giving the cast and characters more time to breathe as well as develop certain aspects of the story more fully. As it is, this is another perfect Friday night beers and pizza movie (though that was not how I originally watched it... drinking at 16... never... ). Give it a go if you can find it on DVD, my copy was only a fiver from Tesco's so it's definitely out there, and it does meet the criteria for "cult" status in my eyes. Just one question remains though: What the hell does the title have to do with the actual film???

From Gamers Magazine - Review

Regular readers will know that I am a sucker for a physically printed publication. As various mainstream magazines have declined and shut down over the last few years, there has been a rise in the popularity of bespoke publications. Be it long term niche periodicals like Archive Magazine, Amiga Future and SAM Revival or newcomers like Amiga Addict and E1M1, there remains a demand for magazines that you can hold in your hand. This continues with the latest entry to the video games market: From Gamers Magazine.

Now that is n eye-catching cover!

Funded by a Kickstarter that raised $6,000 from a $5,000 goal in April this year, From Gamers aimed to produce two issues with that initial round of fund raising. The first issue was released into the wild a couple of weeks ago when backers were given a download link and, at the same time, they started posting out the physical copies. Given it was coming from the US, receiving my copy a couple of days ago didn't feel like too much of a wait and it was with some anticipation that I opened the well padded envelope to see what my pledge had paid for. 

First impressions and the cover is really nice. Heavy duty, you can feel the quality, and there is no skimping here. Same with the binding, which feels solid and there is little fear of pages falling out. There is definitely a professional feel to the mag. The pages themselves, 52 in all, are full colour on high quality stock. Each page is well laid out and there isn't a propensity for "white" space, something that is definitely becoming a thing, especially in UK published mainstream magazines. Included in the magazine were a pair or cover art post cards, a note about promoting the magazine on Twitter to enter a competition to win a $10 Amazon voucher, and a lovely (and totally unexpected) handwritten note. It's the little things in life, it really is, but that was a nice touch.

Content wise and we have a full page dedicated to the staff behind the magazine (there are quite a few contributors), as well as a list of the Kickstarter Team (yours truly is on that). A nice editorial and a well designed contents page come next, followed by a cracking opinion piece on the rise of cinematic gaming, using Miles Morales on the PlayStation 5 as the crux of its argument. I have to admit, I am with the author on this one.

There is some cool art work inside the magazine as well as on the cover.

A piece on franchises that should return comes next and, again, I agree with the selection of titles included, especially Alpha Protocol. The rest are worthy but it's that under-appreciated RPG that really needs a continuation. A focus on three concept artists who worked on The Last of Us II is a wonderful look at how concept art is used to define a world prior to actual game creation and just how close the initial artwork can be to the final product. 

Two developer interviews follow. Jorge Garcia, co-director and producer of Tunche, a 2D beat 'em up and Andrew Willans, Game Director at Sumo Digital's Newcastle team. Both good reads and nice to see an interview with a local developer (Newcastle is ten miles from home as the crow flies). Deathloop gets a great introduction and how developer Arkane's past has defined its latest title, whilst Halo warrants three pages on how the series could return to its glory days. The Far Cry franchise gets a four page history guide and a look at what is coming next, and Far Cry 6 is also covered in the Previews section, alongside Little Devil Inside, Back 4 Blood, and the latest Ratchet and Clank release, Rift Apart. A nice touch for each of these is the inclusion of a printed QR code to view the latest trailer.

Five games are reviewed, as well as a book. Persona 5 Strikers, Bravely Default II, It Takes Two, Monster Hunter Rise and Outriders are the games covered, each getting two pages. There are plenty of screenshots and they provide an "out of ten" scoring system. The book review is of journalist Jason Schreier's latest tome, Press Reset, which details the physical and mental cost of working in the games industry. I enjoyed the review and the book was already on my Wishlist so I'll be buying it on it's UK release date tomorrow.

There are just a few ads in the magazine, but not so many as to take away from the content and it was also nice to see a list of Kickstarter supporters included as well (and yes, I'm on that too).

From Gamers Magazine, then, has had a fantastic first issue. The quality of the writing is high, topics are varied and it's a great start. The second issue is due out around September and they are asking for pitches from would-be contributors up until the end of June. You can find out more here, as well as buy the first issue and pre-order the second here. I know I'm looking forward to the second issue and, seeing where they go from here, supporting future issues as well, be it from a subscriber drive or another Kickstarter. Well done to all concerned.

Was That Film Really That Bad??? DOA: Dead or Alive (2006)

It's the early noughties and a good ten years since videogames movies started hitting the multiplexes. You're a producer looking for a new hit movie to appeal to the increasingly large videogame fan market and you want a reasonable chance of a financial return. Mario flopped in the early 90's, the two Angelina Jolie-starring Tomb Raiders did OK but signs were not promising for any future follow ups and Resident Evil managed to be quite the success despite not really appealing to fans of the actual games. What do you do? Well, you look at what made Resi work and you look at the genre of videogame film adaptations that seemed to have the most success and you combine the two together. This mash up of Paul W.S. Anderson (Wor Paul) and Streetfighter/Mortal Kombat delivers DOA: Dead or Alive.

Budgeted at a modest $30m and made in China, you'd have thought hopes were high that a martial arts style movie based on the popular beat-em up series (and very popular volleyball spin offs with realistic "breast physics"(!)) would coin it in at the box office. $7.7m proved otherwise. Indeed, the film was delayed in the US because of the tepid international release and was eventually pulled out of the US market after just 21 days. But was that film really that bad???

Hey, it's one way to win the next Eurovision...

Plot first, and we have a large corporation inviting the best fighters in the world to a competition where they can win $10m. The film focuses on three of these competitors who each bring a sub-story with them and, this being a videogames movie, there is a fifth plot line just to tie things kind of together. There's also nano-bots cos, hey, videogames.

Devon Aoki plays Kasumi, a Shinobi ninja princess (that LinkedIn profile must be a hoot) looking for her brother (Hayate, played by Collin Chou) who disappeared during a previous DOA contest (and because she is now on the run from her family, is being chased by Ayane (Natassia Malthe), an assassin and Hayabusa (Kane Kosugi), a friend of her missing brother. Whilst she kicks this story off and has a connection to that fifth plot line, Aoki only gets fifth billing which seems more than a little unfair. Top billing goes to Jamie Pressly, playing superstar wrestler Tina Armstrong who wants to prove herself as more than just a superstar wrestler but also has to contend with her father (real life wrestler Kevin Nash playing Bass Armstrong) being in the same DOA competition. Rounding out the trio is Neighbours alumni Holly Valance, playing Christie, a master thief and assassin who is followed by her slightly dodgy companion Max (a youthful looking Matthew Marsden who had previously had stints in Emmerdale, Coronation Street and would later make the move the US).

Oh dear...

The rest of the cast are a mixed bag and whilst they do what they need to, three other cast members deserve comment. Sarah Carter plays Helena Douglas, daughter of the competition's late founder. By rights, as she finds out what nefarious scheme is being played out behind the scenes, she should be the dramatic foil to that plot, yet the actress doesn't achieve that. I think this is a script and directorial choice rather than the actress as she has done a lot better in other roles, but here falls flat. Steve Howey is stereotypical computer nerd Weatherby (the running gag about people not getting his name right is pointless and unfunny), and whilst there is a character arc for him, I think the term "voyeuristic pervert" sums up the starting point quite well. Ok, there is redemption for him but still, his introduction is not a good one. Last, but not least, is Eric Roberts. Yes, Julia's brother, this time with long hair and more than the look of a gentleman who shouldn't be hanging round dressing rooms... Now hold on, I know what you're thinking. Yes, he had a good start in acting, with an Oscar nod in 1985 to boot, but given that he very much became an actor for hire with over 600 credits to date, you can't help but notice the tendrils of concern reaching into your brain as you realise that if it stars Eric Roberts, you may not be watching the best quality movie or TV show. He plays Dr Victor Donovan, the guy running the competition and also behind the reason the competitors are injected with nano-sensors - he wants to use their fighting skills in a pair of augmented reality glasses to make the wearer the best fighter in the world. Obviously, he wants to sell this tech on and become stupidly rich. Ok, not a bad back-of a-napkin plot but neatly forgets that whilst you might be the best hand-to-hand fighter in the world, if your opponent has a gun, you're buggered. Still, videogames, nano-sensors and another plot line to pad out the slim 83 minute run time. 

One man and his multi-coloured porn collection...

DOA follows the videogame movie template set up by Wor Paul with Resident Evil (and he produced this film too so no surprise there), with its explanatory computer screen graphics (this time showing who is fighting in each round and the winners moving forward) and it keeps the same focus on a specific marketing demographic - the horny teenage boy. After all, it's a movie based on watching slim, attractive, partially dressed women fight in various arenas, including a rain soaked beach. High brow, this is not, though there is a bit of a nod to the silliness: as the trio of ladies discover that their every move has been recorded during the competition, one comments that the people who set this up were a bunch of pervs - is it wise to comment on the majority of your audience like that or would you expect them not to notice? That pandering covers the plots as well, as we see Kasumi eventually find her brother (Donovan was keeping him for the nano project), Tina prove she is a better fighter than her dad and Christie, whilst not getting the money, hooking up with Max instead. Weatherby gets hooked up with Helena and Donovan gets his comeuppance. To call this simplistic would be an injustice to simple things. 

As a fight-based movie then, you'd expect some decent fight scenes and you do, kinda, get them. Director Corey Yuen is not someone unfamiliar with action scenes (he directed The Transporter and his body of work has some notable titles in it) and at times, there are some decent sequences (keeping within the 15 rating). However, some of the wire work is slow and unbelievable, and that scaffolding climb at the start of the competition is laughable, though so is the CGI showing it blowing up at the film's finale. When scenes should be fast and kinetic, they drag and look like it was a fan creation at a cosplay event. The use of crap CGI is also noticeable at the very beginning where the zoom shot appears to have untextured doors on the virtual recreation of Kasmui's palace. It doesn't help that they used the real location a few seconds later and also further into the film (when dressed up) in a fight scene where it's supposed to be a completely different location. This gives more than a little of the air of a cheap BBC sci-fi drama (yes, looking at you again, BUGS), and that had little to no CGI at all. Still, we get the fight scenes, but it has to be said that the final scrap between Donovan and the ladies cannot get away from the fact that Eric Roberts is not a fighter. Once or twice, I did think they'd told him to get long hair so that, with those AR glasses on, you can't see whether it's him or his stunt double. 

Nope, no idea either...

Typical of videogames movies of the time, the music is all loud, guitar heavy punching beats that are supposed to make you think that what you are watching is exciting but can just be headache inducing. The same can be said if you start thinking of the events that drive the plot. For example, at the beginning where Kasumi wants to escape the compound she is being held in, there is a fight, she dives off a cliff, reveals she has a glider in her backpack (I'm not kidding!) and then, and only then, a flying shuriken comes out of nowhere to inform her she has been invited to the DOA competition. With Tina, it's after four "comedy" pirates are defeated trying to capture the boat she is on, a similar shuriken comes out of the sea. And with Christie, it's when she's on a motorbike after escaping the law from a hotel bust... whilst said bike is motoring down a busy city street. Once again, we're in the "it looks cool but it's complete bollocks" school of film making. Let's also not forget the fight where a guy sets his shoulders and they've added the sound effect of a gun being cocked over it. Yeah...

Characterisation is also weak - the motivations of each character are plain to see and to be fair to each of the cast, they are not exactly burdened with carrying the plot forward much. The quality of the acting isn't that great either, but as noted above, each has done better work elsewhere so it's the script and direction that get the blame here. 

DOA: Dead or Alive is a crap film, and yes, it really is that bad. However, get past the wonky acting, terrible and over-packed story, dubious wire work and fight scenes, cardboard characters and the every so slightly uncomfortable feeling that you really shouldn't be watching this (so only a few things to get over) and what you do have is the perfect Friday night film. I would recommend at least three or four strong beers to begin with, just to stop the higher brain functions trying to make sense of what your eyes are seeing, but at less than an hour and a half, DOA does not outstay its welcome. I expected much worse from what Laila had told me about this film but since it was only £1 at CEX, it wasn't a total waste of money. DOA, then,  is a testament to the braindead and simplistic way videogame adaptations keep being handled by filmmakers. What I can say is that at least it was not an Uwe Boll film...

Many thanks to Laila for suggesting this one. If there is a movie that you think fits into this type of post, you can comment below or contact me on Twitter here.