
Creating movies out of video games has always seemed a little like creating a car to look like a horse-and-buggy — fine to reassure those skeptical about the transition, but really, what’s the point?
That’s probably why we’re always a little surprised when a film adaptation of a video-game works at the box-office. A video-game that springs from iconic moments from, for example, “Scarface” appeals because it’s a cool bit of merchandising that extends the life of the original. But the other direction makes less sense — if you can actually become the character, why pay money to see a pale and static version derived from him?
Which is another way of saying that we’re surprised at the $18 million success of ”Max Payne” at the box-office this weekend. Audiences uncharacteristically bent to the bigscreen, controller-less version of the underdog crimesolver, a lot more so than the did many previous vidgame-derived disappointments (”Doom,” “Silent Hill,” “Final Fantasy”). (”Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” of course did a hefty bit of business, but that was drawn from a game with an unusually sophisticated backstory and also had what anthropology grad-students might call the Angelina factor.)
“Payne” got shelled by critics (17% on Rotten Tomatoes) and gamer friends say filmmakers did little to satisfyingly deepen or extend the mythology. Like with other adaptations, the film couldn’t reinvent itself for the screen.
Still, the movie succeeded financially, at least in its devotee-friendly first week, and for Fox that should be enough. But creatively it also seems like another example of how, for all their respective virtues, the twin forms of vidgames and movies are too often shoehorned into one another. It’s a continuation of the problem, in reverse, of too many movies unconsciously taking their cues from video games; look at how Indy 4 wandered from level to level–um, storyline to storyline–without narrative cohesion.
Don’t get us wrong — there’s plenty of creative, even cinematic, expression in video games, and tons of opportunities for cross-pollination between the two worlds as a result (check out the way the new outerspace shooter Dead Space owes a debt to James Cameron’s “Alien,” while “Payne” itself draws strongly from John Woo.) But the worlds may need to evolve more fluidly than they do with adaptations.
We once heard Paul Schrader say that the 20th century was the century of film but the 21st century would be one of another, far more interactive, medium. That strikes us as prescient. And as a reason why Payne may turn out to be a flash in the pan.