Was That Film Really That Bad??? - Far Cry (2008)

Boll is back! Even if you didn't want him to be. At a time when videogames rights holders weren't too picky about who they licensed their titles to, Uwe Boll was usually the first in line grab the film rights. Here, it's Crytek's classic, Far Cry (before it went and got all Ubisoft'd, for better and for worse). Could the Movie Man of Mediocrity finally deliver a film worthy of the source material? Or would it be the case that, once again, he's created a pile of complete Boll-ocks? Find out as I ask of Far Cry, was that film really that bad???

Let's get the "plot" out of the way first, and, to be honest, I shouldn't be that disparaging. On a remote island in the Pacific Northwest, dodgy scientist Dr Krieger (Udo Kier) is experimenting on behalf of the US Government to create super soldiers. This doesn't sit well with some of those attached to the project, in particular Max (Ralf Moller), who is secretly passing on information on the project to his niece, Valerie (Emmanuelle Vaugier), who happens to be an investigative reporter. She journeys up to the nearest port to the island, charters a boat captained by former Special Forces dude and functioning alcoholic, Jack Carver (Til Schweiger), who used to serve with Max, and tries to find out what's going on. Along the way, they clash with Katia Chernov (Natalia Avelon), Kreiger's head of security, Mike (Craig Fairbrass), leader of the US Special Forces guarding the island, and Emilio (Chris Coppola), a food delivery guy and alleged comic relief for the film. 

If you see this in future, RUN!

Taking a broad view, there are some similarities to the plot of the original game, and we do get a horrible Hawaiian shirt for good measure, but as you can probably tell, as a Boll meisterwerk(!), it's got its issues. 

Audience looking for the good bits, your humble scribe in the background after watching the film.

To cut a long story short (too late, Clue fans), it comes down to watching a film directed by someone who either a) hasn't the money to do justice to their vision, b) is going through the motions or c) is just a little bit shit at this directing malarkey. The answer, by the way, is all of the above. Budget-wise, this was a $30m production, which is respectable for a Boll movie and not bad for a video game adaptation either. Max Payne, released the same year, was made for $37m, and that had at least a sense of style. Where it seems to go wrong with Far Cry is that, to do justice to the source material, more money was needed, so you get the best that Canadia can offer and some truly terrible performances. 

NOT how to load a break barrel rifle. EVER!

In fairness, the majority of the main cast range from decent to actually quite good, even if their characters are two dimensional at best. Kier is always tremendous value, even if in this instance, he seems to be channelling Yuri from the C&C Red Alert games. In any case, his purring menace is pitched just right here. Schweiger is also decent, if a tad wooden and blank. Not exactly leading man material in action scenes but he can do light comedy now and then, but the less said about the "rating" running gag, the better. That's a prime example of pitching to a teen boy audience - which is funny as the DVD version is rated 18 in the UK. Avelon plays it hardball all the way, whereas Vaugier does have some good moments opposite Schweiger (aside from the "rating'.. dammit! I wasn't going to mention that again!). Fairbrass is Fairbrass, which is playing to his strengths, although it must be said that his "American" accent veers from almost ok-ish to "bloody hell, mate, you havin' a bubble" levels of silliness. Bless him for trying though. Even the late Don S Davis takes time out from Stargate Command to rock up in a neat little cameo. 

Budget James Corden. Fuck off, bonny lad, then fuck off some more!

However, it is the inclusion of Coppola that really grates, even more so than the bit-parters I'll get to in a minute. Emilio is the "food guy," a loud, annoying and almost never quiet sidekick that the film really doesn't need. He ruins every scene he's in, overacting, underacting and wandering free, Emilio's pointless, pointless is he. Think James Corden in The There Musketeers. Actually, think James Corden in anything! An obvious graduate of the shouting school of acting, it's almost enough to make you stop watching, but then you'd miss the bit part players. The newspaper boss whose as genuine as a politician's smile. The harbour couple, running the dock Jack uses - straight out of a Canadian sitcom (and with very poor air gun handling skills, I must say). Finally, the American tourists who want to watch whales. Stereotypical tourists, but so terribly overacted and pitched so badly it hurts, you kind of wish they'd get stuck on the island just to shut them up! However, as bad as the cast might get, there is still Boll's directing to consider...

Rate my set up...

Far Cry features car chases, boat chases and numerous fight scenes. These are actually boring, combining a penchant for being overly linear and being edited in such a way that all sense of fluidity and comprehension disappears in the final cut. Rather than making the fisticuffs feel real, it's as if you're watching a highlights video of the training sessions. And as for the gun play... 

SHUT IT!

Look, I get it. Until the turn of the 21st century, most action films tended to stick to the "hold gun in a cool way and pull trigger as there's a magic bullet supply" technique. It worked for Arnie and co, so why not here? Well, over the last couple of decades, the presentation of firearms use has changed, and in many instances mirrored the real world use as the actors would be trained by those who know. Here, we have "Special Forces" (my ring piece they are) acting like they're just walked out of a paintball competition. Boll's direction can't even make that look good. 

The new Smurf movie goes really dark.

That lack of realism extends to other weapons, like the RPG that acts like a Javelin. If you don't know, then fair enough, but watch enough action movies, play enough games or be interested in military history anyway, and you'll know. There's the helicopter and harpoon bit (like, seriously, just no!), and a scene where scientists literally just stand around as a dude with an M60 sprays across a room. And let's not get onto the make-up of the super soldiers. Ok, let's! If you ever want to know what a zombie Smurf movie would look like, then the exact shade of dead Smurf flesh is right here. 

The Mitchells if Eastenders was set in the military.

Given that Boll can't do action, can't do characters and really can't do story, what is left from the hodge-podge of Predator, The Island of Dr Moraeu and even the video game Far Cry? Not much, and yet...

For all of it's faults (for they are legion), Far Cry isn't as bad as some of Boll's other films (although I have yet to see Postal). It's not good. It's barely passable in fact, but it lacks the flaws that hammer some of his other efforts - the overly long and confusing battles in In The Name of the King, the absolute phoning it in style of Bloodrayne and whatever the actual fuck was happening in Alone in the Dark. However, saying it's not as bad as his others is like saying a type 6 is better than a type 7 on the Bristol scale. It is, but you'd never want to experience either if you could avoid it, so yes, Far Cry really is that bad, but there are shades of (Zombie Smurf) grey here too.