The Awful Uncharted Raises the Question: Are Video Game Movies Art?
Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg star in another timid, lifeless video game adaptation.

More than a decade ago, legendary movie critic Roger Ebert caused a minor uproar by arguing that "video games can never be art." Ebert, of course, did not actually mean never as in never, ever, ever, and he allowed that his opinion might change if the form evolved. But he insisted that the games that had already been made failed as art, in part because none would survive the test of time.
Video game players do not, on the whole, come across as a very chill bunch, especially when talking about games online. There are exceptions, of course, but the most vocal are obsessive, particular, demanding, hyper-focused, and deeply defensive about their favorite games. So rather predictably, Ebert's column started an extremely online argument among gamers sticking up for their hobby, and younger culture critics eager to make the case for games as culturally important. Of course games are art, they said, and then pointed to a game or handful of games to prove it. I myself participated in this discourse on multiple occasions, and at this point I consider the matter largely settled. Video games are obviously art. (Have you played Disco Elysium?) The matter is settled.
And honestly, even if they aren't, it doesn't really matter, because digital games are so embedded in the cultural firmament. Almost everyone plays digital games of some sort. Even if you are not logging in for a 19-hour push through the latest Destiny raid, and have no idea what that even means, you're probably wasting a few minutes at a time with Wordle or some other app-based trifle. Social media now incorporates gamelike elements, encouraging users to rack up likes and shares. Cops in Los Angeles ignore obvious robberies to catch Snorlaxes in Pokemon Go. Video games are the mortar between moments. They are how we occupy, and waste, our time.
As games became a default mode of cultural consumption for so many, they have infiltrated other mediums as well, most obviously the form that Ebert spent his career writing about, the movies. Hollywood loves adaptable properties, especially those that already have some cinematic elements, like comic books and video games.
And thus the inevitable march from the console to the big screen has raised a slightly different question from the one that Ebert asked: Are video game movies art? And there I think the answer has to be a pretty firm no.
The latest bit of evidence comes in the form of Uncharted, a big-budget adaptation of the popular PlayStation game series. In theory, the Uncharted games should translate easily to the big screen: They are story-heavy and smartly written, with strong characters and loads of can-you-believe-it blockbuster action. If you are not much of a gamer and you sit down to play an Uncharted game for the first time, you might be surprised by how cinematic these games are. Yes, there is plenty of actual gameplay, built largely around a combination of stealth, shooting, and complex climbing. But even the gameplay tends to come across as cinematic, with increasingly tense buildups inevitably leading to grand, delightfully orchestrated Spielbergian setpieces. It should be easy to transform this franchise into a fun movie.
Apparently, it's not. Directed by Ruben Fleischer, who most recently made the turgid yet annoyingly successful Tom Hardy comic book movie Venom, Uncharted is dull, witless, and entirely tension-free. The big setpieces are CGI slogs that somehow come across as more video game–like than the games themselves, but without any of the cleverness or exuberance.
The treasure-seeking, puzzle-solving elements that make up the movie's middle chunk might have worked in a game scenario where you're trying to solve the environmental challenges yourself, but in the movie it just looks like a bunch of people running around slotting rare treasures into crevices on what are supposed to look like ancient ruins but are obviously just soundstage sets.
The dialogue between the two big stars, Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg, sounds like a screenwriter filled page after page with "insert quippy banter here" and never got around to writing anything. It's an entirely lifeless and joyless product, devoid of any of the pulpy pleasures of either classic big-screen adventures or even the games themselves.
Instead, it plays like a rote checklist of elements that fans of the games might like to see on screen. It does not try to please fans of the games so much as placate them. Indeed, in an interview with gaming news site IGN, Fleischer seemed to hint at this. Asked about whether his experience with Venom, a comic book movie about a fan-favorite Spider-Man villain, he responded by noting that both properties "feature a very loyal and passionate fan base for whom the source material is precious and they're very protective of." It's not surprising that at times Uncharted seems almost afraid of its fanbase, too scared to try to do anything interesting, lest the gamers revolt. It's made entirely in a defensive crouch.
It's not that it's impossible to adapt video games to a more conventional scripted format: Netflix's Castlevania and Arcane adaptations are both excellent, although both are series rather than standalone features. Neither is unfaithful to the source material, but in both cases, the games serve as inspirations for well-told stories that are somewhat independent of the games. They build on the games rather than simply repeating familiar elements.
In contrast, Uncharted comes across as desperate to avoid the wrath of gaming's most obsessive, outspoken fans—the same cohort who responded so defensively to Ebert. But that deference, and the creative timidity it produces, has consistently led to game-based movies that try to honor their games but end up failing them. Warcraft, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Doom, and, yes, Uncharted are all properties ripe for adaptation and translation. Instead, the movie versions are all trash. That's a shame. It's a strange thing to say, but video games deserve better.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Of course video games are art -- to some. Not to all. Art is entirely in the eye (or ear, or touch) of the beholder. Declaring all video games as art, by fiat, as if nobody can demur, is ridiculous. You may as well call all bumblebees "art", or the night sky, or the Earth's core, or the mathematics which describe the Standard Model imperfectly.
Joe Biden announced Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home site open this link...............VISIT HERE.
Not to derail everything with "are games art?" but the problem was always rhetorical. There are components of video games widely regarded as art. Acting, drawing, music, etc. Traditional combinations of such components have manifested in theater, movies, and other widely regarded art forms. These mediums are even created primarily for entertainment purposes, so games shouldn't be treated any differently.
That aside, most of us laughed at the idea of an Uncharted movie because for years, Uncharted has been criticized and joked about as being too much like a movie. Adapting the premiere movie-inspired game to be a movie really shows a level of ignorance and lack of understanding about games and gamers.
Same issue exists with anime and manga adaptations, most recent example being Netflix finding a way to ruin Cowboy Bebop of all things.
I have never seen any so called 'nerd culture' item adapted by normies in a respectful manner. I think that's the largest problem with these movies. They're made by people who just don't get it.
All that and somethings don't translate well to the "big/silver screen". Most video games deal in player agency while movies are a more passive experience. So when they make the Halo movie/series, will they feature one of the games great features, "teabagging" and how will that relate on the screen - to me it be goofy and out of place in a movie but it was so fun to do to your vanquished foes.
[JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. Last month I got cheek of nearly 30,000$. yui This online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go office, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
..
SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
Battle Angel Alita was a pretty decent adaptation. So all it takes is one of the better directors currently making movies who is personally invested in the IP and has a shitload of money to work with.
I greatly admired Roger Ebert as movie critic, but the "video games can't be art" argument was stupid. As is the "video game movies are not art" argument.
Art is, by definition (borrowed from Scott McCloud) is "any human activity which doesn’t grow out of either of our species’ two basic instincts: survival and reproduction.”
Do video games arise out of a survival or reproductive instinct? No. By definition, they are art.
Do video game movies arise out of a survival or reproductive instinct? No. By definition, they are art.
The question of whether they are *good* or *bad* art is the one that should be asked, and which is more relevant. I think it's possible to have a video game movie which is good art, though I'm not sure we've had one yet.
As for a video game being good art, maybe. I don't play enough video games to be able to judge that. And I also believe that video games are a young enough form of art that we really haven't evolved a way of discussing and critiquing them to determine if they are good or bad art.
And really this contradicts it: "It's not that it's impossible to adapt video games to a more conventional scripted format: Netflix's Castlevania and Arcane adaptations are both excellent, although both are series rather than standalone features. Neither is unfaithful to the source material, but in both cases, the games serve as inspirations for well-told stories that are somewhat independent of the games. They build on the games rather than simply repeating familiar elements. " In other words, you have to concentrate on making a MOVIE, not just a translated video game.
The dialogue between the two big stars, Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg, sounds like a screenwriter filled page after page with "insert quippy banter here" and never got around to writing anything.
Joss Whedon's legacy lives on.
Girl protagonist bitching about ignorant rubes. How original....
I dont remember castelvania having anything to do with teenage girls fighting the scourge of anti science. I couldnt make it through 5 minutes of the second episode. We got it, conservatives are morons that should all die.
Girl protagonist bitching about ignorant rubes.
Not just bitching about rubes, but bitching about the poverty around her where no one appears to have a job and they all hang out around the bar all day. It very much reminded me of Ready Player One where the protagonists complain about how shitty the real world is and how everyone spends all their time in the simulation and how evil the evil corporation is for wanting to monetize the simulation and drive people out. Uh, sorry protagonist, it sounds very much like you are your own problem.
So porn and war movies can't be art?
what I've shot is art 🙂
But is trolling a art?
Ditto. Some games are obviously art. But to date there has been no decent video game movie.
Gamers will vociferously disagree and point to some steaming pile of shit as an exception, but they need to take their gamer colored shades off. Some games COULD be made into halfway decent movies. But only by focusing on the story and not the game. Which they won't do because gamers are their target audience.
Which leads to the next truism: Most game stories are awful. They only work in the context of a game because the user is active in the game. Make it passive and it's awful. The stories work because the user in in charge, just telling the story desanguinates it.
The best one can do for a decent game movie is to make it a "loosely based on" movie. Don't try to recreate the action, or the mechanics, or the incredibly convoluted yet inane lore, etc. And don't assume the suspension of disbelief will come automatically.
My worst nightmare for a movie is one where the characters do nothing but fetch quests for two hours.
There are more types of video games that just MMOs.
And loot the bodies of their victims for gear. Then argue over loot distribution. With characters rage quitting when they don’t get the stuff they want.
Tron (the original, haven't seen the other) was pretty good.
Tron (the original, haven't seen the other) was pretty good.
Admittedly edgy, but I'd draw the line that Tron the game was after Tron the movie. Meaning while Tron is a movie about video games it's distinctly not a video game movie the way E.T. isn't a video game movie despite having numerous video games based on it. Jumanji was a movie about a game but it wasn't a movie about a game the way Clue! was a movie about a game. Also, I feel I should warn you that Gerald's Game has nothing to do with gaming.
I absolutely agree with Brandybuck (and actually go further, as Suderman does) the translation of an active game plot to a passive movie plot is guaranteed to generate a large pile of shit that is going to need to be shoveled. Chopping it up into a Netflix series makes it easier for consumers to swallow several smaller doses of shit and for producers to push the first dose off to the second or third episode, at which point, viewers feel more committed to eating it.
Are video game movies art? And there I think the answer has to be a pretty firm no.
Agreed.
It's not that it's impossible to adapt video games to a more conventional scripted format: Netflix's Castlevania and Arcane adaptations are both excellent, although both are series rather than standalone features. Neither is unfaithful to the source material, but in both cases, the games serve as inspirations for well-told stories that are somewhat independent of the games.
Disagree on Arcane. The graphical art itself is fantastic. The writing is so-so at best and the so-so aspects about it are because the story feels very much bolted on and the on-screen action is exceedingly video game-esque: smaller, weaker characters are portrayed as over-powered in alignment with the game's need to generate equivalent playability. They repeatedly pick up this over-powered nature specifically by simply picking up items. Items that they couldn't have known existed previously or couldn't really know how to wield. But, they find and item and equip it, and they're more unbeatable than they were before. Characters get literally blown up only to survive, heal up, and get back to fighting. Swarms of henchmen facing an OP protagonist who don't stand a chance still march dutifully, in rank order, into a fist-fight only to get their heads pounded in. Also, like a game, we get background stories but, like a game, most (not all) of the background stories don't really affect any given character or change the plot in any way and only to serve as a stage on which to fight. Characters who want to fight choose to do so across any and all motivations. Characters who are initially reluctant to fight are pushed to fight repeatedly. It's better written than any Mortal Kombat movie, but it's still not like Apocalypse Now! or Full Metal Jacket where everyone is involved in a war and we see some characters throwing up because of the violence and inhumanity on display in front of them or truly directionlessly insane characters who don't actually fight anyone directly.
Castlevania is much closer to being art than Arcane (though, as indicated, I don't consider the actual graphic art to be better) and aside from vampires, names, and weapons, draws very little from the actual games themselves.
Characters get literally blown up only to survive, heal up, and get back to fighting. Swarms of henchmen facing an OP protagonist who don't stand a chance still march dutifully, in rank order, into a fist-fight only to get their heads pounded in. Also, like a game, we get background stories but, like a game, most (not all) of the background stories don't really affect any given character or change the plot in any way and only to serve as a stage on which to fight.
It's like an OK Kung Fu film except instead of actual physical feats of prowess and (bad, but good) acting and a complex back story and training montage, it's all CGI characters stating their motivations at each other between fights.
whaddya call a guy on the wall with no arms or legs?
Whatever you want!
Roger Ebert caused a minor uproar by arguing that "video games can never be art."
I doubt he played many video games, though at the time he may have been right. Many more recent games can definitely be called art, especially considering the constant loosening of what "art" means anyway. Also, most of what he *would* call "art" will not stand the test of time, either, so that's pretty irrelevant.
From what I recall at the time, he wasn't explicitly or intentionally being disparaging. He was acknowledging that they are games and while you can create truly masterful chess pieces as works of art or play basketball on a mural, ultimately, they're still sports or games. There's no(t necessarily an) innate competitive nature to art.
Activison’s ‘Pitfall’ was comparable to the work of Rembrandt!
I'm not really the fan base for this movie, but while I have no problem with Tom Holland in general, this was a grave miscasting. Tom Holland is too young and fresh faced for this role.
The problem is that you need a charismatic white dude in his early 30s who looks like he's actually changed the oil in his truck sometime in the last 6 months. Most of Hollywood's casting choices in that age group look like a harvest from a twink farm.
Phrasing! That kind of talk will summon Tony.
I haven't watched the movie yet, but your comments on it as spot-on when I look at the other movies based on video games. The way to succeed is to take the ideas and even cinematic styles of the game and make a character- and plot-based movie with those as inspiration. (As a non-game example, look at the Indiana Jones movies. Some of the sequences could have well been taken from a video game, but the focus was on the plot and those devices were means to that end.)
Sure, you can throw in a few easter eggs that bear direct homage to the game as well, but that shouldn't be the main point. Most video game movies get lost in the fan service with the two you mention (Castlevania and Arcane) as wonderful exceptions.
The real question Suderman should be asking is, are libertarian writers that support progressives over more libertarian choices really libertarian writers?
Oh, gods almighty! Where is our society heading, even if cryptocurrency has become used in gambling? I remember how they pulled my father out of this addiction, and then my son got hooked on https://duckdice.io/dice/xrp-ripple and he plays like he's not himself. And everything seems to be clear, I looked at the site, I understood everything, but still I do not leave the feeling of fear - this is a casino! How can it be safe? God grant that it may be so.
Thank you so much, very useful.