Max Payne

As everybody said Max Payne was a major pain in the butt when it releases a couple of years back, I didn't go to the theatres to see it. Last night, it was coming on TV and I thought, hey let me give it a try and sat down to watch it. The concept wasn't too bad, but the execution is very shoddy and amateurish.

Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg) is a New York City police detective and he is haunted by the murder of his wife and baby's death even after three years. He killed two of the murderers, but couldn't kill the last one. He is a tortured soul who wants nothing more than hunting down the last murderer. During one of his routines to gather new leads and information about his family's murderer, he befriends Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko) who is murdered and her sister, Mona Sax (Mila Kunis) wants revenge. Jack Lupino (Amaury Nolasco) is her murderer and both Payne and Mona team up to get their revenge. But, is Lupino the real antagonist or is there someone operating behind the curtain?

First of all the cinematography is excellent - I loved the feel of the movie, the score is not overbearing. But what really is a drag, is that there is nothing in the story that drags the viewer in. The starting of the movie kind of captured my attention, but by the 30th minute, it was getting boring. Mark Wahlberg only has one expression in his face throughout the movie and it is a major pain in the ass when he portrays the same expression when he is happy with his family too. That is kind of confusing, wasn't he happy with his family when they were alive or what? Bad casting choice there and the writer seems to have no job here, as there are hardly any dialogues and whatever there is seems to be drowned out by Mr. Major Pain. Olga Kurylenko - why does so many of you think she is sexy again? She can act (Quantum Of Solace), but she isn't sexy (they should have roped in Megan Fox, now that is one hot babe) and she plays only a cameo which didn't add anything to the story. Amaury Nolasco (Prison Break) as the bald Lupino who is high on drugs, looks and acts credibly, but there is not enough scope for his acting ability. Mila Kunis is also wasted. Why were there huge man-crows (or 'angels' like they call them) flying through the skies of NYC in the minds of people? I only got it, when they showed that all of them were druggies. This film seems to be telling us not to get addicted to drugs, we get it. Move on, will you? I don't do drugs (I am a 20 year old guy) and nor will anyone else who knows what drugs can really do. The slow motion scenes were good, but there was only a couple of them and the dark angels were very cool.

Though the film was somewhat boring, I can't give it a 1, because the visual treatment was excellent and I like some of Mr. Wahlberg's previous works. By the looks of it, there seems to be a sequel coming which I definitely won't be watching if the reviews are the same as this. Don't watch this at any cost, unless you are a teenage boy and get real high seeing girl-on-girl kiss.

4/10

No spoiler here - it doesn't need one, its already spoiled!

OK so I am biased, having played both games to completion several times over I loved them both - dark, gritty, twisted, film noir greatness. the games, as most will no doubt know, were almost a scripted story board that was ready to go as a movie - seriously it should have been easy - don't bother with script writers - the script was already there, the games are a screen play! even down to camera angles and lighting - it should have been a no brainer. I would love to know what would have happened in the production crew and actors had actually played the game, but alas I suspect they had a treatment to work with and they just ran with that - Mark was an awesome choice for the role of Max but there it stops.

My big question is if your going to make a film of a great game why risk alienating the original fan base by not sticking with the already existing story line and instead running with an "off the shelf" plot (that was on the shelf for a good reason - it sucked!) and just putting in the appropriate names.

So whats next? do we have to now watch as Hollywood works it's way through more games - maybe Halflife? or Deus Ex - both could make awesome films but if this is what they are going to do with them why bother.

Simply put if your going to make a movie from an award winning game that sold in the millions - STICK WITH THE f*&KING STORY! games designers spend a lot of time making great games with great stories - gamers spend a lot of time enjoying them where the hell does some half arsed hack of a director get off knocking out crap like this. Yes its a given you name a film after a game with this sort of following and it will sell seats in the cinema - but do a good job of it- stick to the story and it will be a blockbuster! - it can be done - they said that Lord of the Rings and The Watchmen couldn't be done - but they were and were fantastic - granted they aren't games but the principle is the same - you research the material of the story before you make the film - get some of the original artists and creative producers involved instead of knocking out crap like this, it's not fair on the fans - and thats who the film is made for surely - do it well and they will market the game via word of mouth far better than any amount of trailers and hype will ever do and that means more money for the producers, I really don't understand why you would do it any other way.

Poor Mark Wahlberg. Ever since he obtained a fully deserved Oscar nomination for The Departed, he has struggled to hit it as big again: Shooter was enjoyable but unmistakably shallow, We Own the Night received very mixed reactions, and The Happening was one of the most unjustly panned movies of 2008 (well, minus the plastic plant scene). None of those, however, is as bad as Max Payne, which just about tails The Truth About Charlie for the title of Wahlberg's career low.

But hey, few people expected Payne to be any good in the first place. For starters, it's based on a video game, and those never turn out well on film. Secondly, it's directed by John Moore, whose body of work is all but encouraging (he remade The Omen, for crying out loud). Plus, it comes off as a mix of fantasy, action and revenge thriller - in short, a mess.

For those not familiar with the game, the story centers on the titular cop (Wahlberg), a brilliant homicide detective who's been reassigned after the brutal murder of his wife and kid. When a Ukrainian girl (Olga Kurylenko) is found dead with his wallet in her pocket, he's immediately charged with the murder, and the only way to clear himself is to find a thug named Lupino (Amaury Nolasco), who might even have something to do with Mrs. Payne's death (go figure..).

With some minor adjustments, this could easily be the latest installment of Death Wish. If only things were that simple: the plot is twisted even more with a subplot concerning a mind-altering drug called Valkyr, which makes everything look like Hell on screen and destroys Norse mythology's credibility off screen. Then again, decent scripts are rare when it comes to this sort of flick, so Moore is supposed to redeem himself with visuals and action scenes: in the first case, he delivers more than enough; in the second, he disappoints, and big time - not counting the first ten minutes and the last twenty, there's a serious lack of pace and ass-kicking.

Last but not least, the acting. Wahlberg does pretty much the same he did in Shooter: gritty and watchable, but never exploits his huge potential. Mila Kunis, who plays the "Payne girl" (sorry, couldn't resist), is totally miscast, being too young and with the wrong background (That '70s Show), except for the fact that she is of Ukrainian descent like her on-screen sister Kurylenko. Beau Bridges, generally a fine presence, manages the unenviable task of becoming worse as the picture progresses, and Nolasco's villain is as lifeless as they come (and let's not even get started on Ludicrous' "acting").

Long story short: if this were a game, it would reach the "Game over" stage after twenty minutes. Compared to this, even Tomb Raider looks decent enough.

We know that Mark Wahlberg refused to play Rockstar's "Max Payne" game before performing in this film, but, in addition, I must assume that neither the director nor the screenwriter ever played this game before, either. If there weren't so many shots of the background scenery that tied in with the game (although they were never fully or, in some cases, partially explored), I would assume that no one involved in the movie had even seen cut scenes from the game. I would have assumed that they got a one paragraph synopsis on the game, with character names, and just made up their own story that barely connected to the game storyline.

When this movie was made for a "PG-13" rating instead of an "R" rating, most of the fans were nervous. And, after seeing the train wreck this film became, it's clear to see that our worst fears were realized. Worse even than whether this works as a movie adaptation of a video game is whether this film would works as a movie if you have no knowledge of the video game. Unfortunately, if you went to see this film looking for an action flick, you would say that this was one of the most boring, yawn-inducing films you'd seen in the action genre.

The lack of narration throughout this film, the lack of a solid action director like John Woo (who knows how to do slow-mo), and the lack of anyone from the Rockstar team helping with screen writing added up to what can only be described as a hollow, dull film that has virtually no tie to the amazing game that spawned it. The studio system strikes again.

I have never played the Max Payne games, so I have no idea if the movie was faithful to its origins. I've heard some people say that it was and others say it wasn't. But in any case, this really wasn't as bad as everyone seems to think. No, there wasn't as much action as you might get in a "Transporter" movie, but that didn't really bother me because sometimes I like movies that have a little more thought behind them. There were still some really awesome action sequences though and it was definitely beautifully shot. The atmosphere that they created with the lighting was great.

However, there were still some things that I didn't like about this movie and that they could have done better. First, most of it, especially the beginning, seemed very jumbled and hard to understand. The writing and the editing were sub-par. Second, and this is probably due to the bad writing and editing, you never really connect with any of the characters and so you can never really feel any overwhelming emotion about their situation. The whole thing seemed slightly hollow and empty, as if the writer and director themselves were not quite sure what they were trying to get at. Third, the acting sucked big time in some scenes. It wasn't horrible throughout the whole movie, but it still left much to be desired. Fourth, there were many things in the story that weren't fully explained, which only contributed to the hollow, confused feeling of the entire movie.

So, overall, it is not a bad film, but I was slightly disappointed. It really could have been an amazing movie, and I blame the writer and editor for almost completely ruining it. The only thing that saves it is the few awesome action scenes and the cinematography. But please don't believe anyone that says it one of the worst movies ever because it's not. It's just not as good as it should have been.

7.5/10