cericsso

There is no denying that "Taken" does belong to the group of mediocre no-brainer action movies. As a story, it moves from point A to B to C with a lot of stylized, violent action in between. But all the same, there is something very rewarding about it. Being a classic vendetta story of a father (with a CIA past) finding his kidnapped daughter in a foreign country, the movie becomes much more personal to watch than most other movies of the same caliber, and a huge part of that, if not entirely, is thanks to Liam Neeson, who plays the role with an emotional fervor only he can pull of. Similar to "Frantic" (1988) in both nature and setting (but with much more violence), "Taken" sets up a hopeless situation and brings the viewer along on a ride of revenge. The only problem is, we kind of already know where it ends.

Reviewing movies based on video games is always a bit tricky. On the one side, you need to consider the movie as a separate entity, a movie in itself, just like when reviewing any other movie. But then again, like the past has shown us, game-based movies are hardly even close to "regular movies" in quality, and as such, they'd all be completely crushed in reviews. So, maybe the only way to be fair and objective, is to look at it from a gamer's perspective.

I remember back in 2001 when Finnish Remedy Entertainment finally released "Max Payne" on PC, to much hyping and a rigorous marketing campaign. And man, was it a blast! Combining all the elements of neo noir and renegade cop movies with a nice plot line and excellent graphics, the game just rocked (as a matter of fact, still does!). And even though I was very skeptical of a sequel, I have to admit, "Max Payne 2", launched in 2003, blew the roof out. So, there's my baseline. Now, I've never been a fan of game-movies, quite the opposite, in fact. I also felt it all along, that a movie adaptation of this franchise would end badly. But still, the fan in me just couldn't resist checking it out when the DVD was released.

As a cinematic adaptation, "Max Payne" is actually not that bad. Taking the basic elements of the games' plot line and twisting it up to add some dramatic value, it actually manages to hold on to it's core without falling apart TOO badly. And, in accordance with the games and their nature, there's action and violence galore (though very clearly, director John Moore has chosen a PG-13 approach), and it looks good. I would even dare call it beautiful. The overall visual effects and camera work is also nicely done, with some clear references to the games. I must also applaud the movie for not overusing the bullet-time effect too much. Since the "Max Payne" games were the first to implement free bullet-time in games, it would have been easy to use them too liberally here. And after "The Matrix", this seems to be the dogma of action movies these days. Casting was also good, even though I was a bit surprised to see that many A-list actors for a movie of this caliber. Contrary to fans' objections, Mark Wahlberg as Max Payne still turned out pretty nice, even though Dignam (from "The Departed") still rocks a bit harder. I do however feel a bit sad for Olga Kurylenko, whose only role in the pasts, except "Quantum of Solace", have been rather meaningless.

But, for all it's worth, "Max Payne" still leaves a lot missing. First and foremost, adapting a game based on previous movies, into a movie just doesn't really turn out good. It felt more like watching a re-run of all the elements that made the games good. The problem is, nowadays, they've all been done, and in a time where mediocre movies are a dime a dozen, "Max Payne" just doesn't stand out. And the fact is, there are some characters involved that don't drive the storyline in any way, rather making it messy. So all in all, the movie adaptation of "Max Payne" feels more like an attempt to make the game fans happy by keeping all the elements, but doesn't make the movie-fans any luckier.

As an actor, Ben Stiller is a disappointment. Every movie he has starred in is simply a clone of his previous works ("Something About Mary" & "Meet The Parents" being perhaps the most obvious ones). Even his numerous cameo appearances share this trait. So what can you expect from a movie that not only stars Stiller, but is also directed, written and produced by him. And, as if the bar isn't already set low enough, he even got Jack Black involved. Well, as expectations weren't too high, I'd have to say I was pretty convinced. "Tropic Thunder" isn't all that bad, and at times, it's even good.

"Tropic Thunder" is clearly a parody and a satire, but not in the traditional Scary Movie/Hot Shots-sense, where every scene is a cheaply done comic version of a previous blockbuster hit (although there are a few clear references to earlier Vietnam movies here). And neither is it a cleverly done Hot Fuzzish parody. It's rather something in between, where the movie itself is just so ridiculous, silly and cheap that, at times, it works. And while most of the elements are perhaps a tad bit overdone or overused, some steal the show completely. I'd say the saving grace here is Robert Downey Jr. and Nick Nolte, two guys who generally said, really deserve credit for their works. "Tropic Thunder" may not be the first movie featuring movie-within-a-movie elements (faux product placements, actors and trailers), but it does bring out some new focal points and laughs. It's not a clear winner, it's not Movie of The Year, but it does fulfill it's primary mission: it's two hours of fun.