Uncharted (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Chris Will]

Indiana Jones.
Mission: Impossible.

I think Tom Cruise would make a better Drake then Holland.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Nathan Fillian was great as Drake in the fan film (short) he did with Stephen Lang as Sully.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Nathan Fillian was great as Drake in the fan film (short) he did with Stephen Lang as Sully.

I'm 95% sure that I read something waaayyy back when the first uncharted game came out that they based the Nathan Drake character on Nathan Fillion himself.
At any rate he's a 100% fit. Tom Holland is not at all.

 

[Ross Gowland]

I'm 95% sure that I read something waaayyy back when the first uncharted game came out that they based the Nathan Drake character on Nathan Fillion himself.
At any rate he's a 100% fit. Tom Holland is not at all.

Holland’s very fit and agile. He can do backflips and performs a lot of his own stunts.

 

[Alex...]

Subscriber Cover

Newsstand Cover

 

[Alex...]

 

[Malcolm R]

Recent things I've read indicate this is supposedly intended as a prequel to the game(s), showing how the characters first met, so that's one reason they may have cast younger actors.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Recent things I've read indicate this is supposedly intended as a prequel to the game(s), showing how the characters first met, so that's one reason they may have cast younger actors.

I think it is simply another take on the game’s characters and stories, and that it is telling its story earlier in the characters’ lives than the game did.

I can’t see it working as an actual prequel to the games because the games already did that and had Drake and Sully meeting for the first time when Drake was younger than depicted in this movie. Plus, the sequence with the cargo plane is right out of Uncharted 3.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Recent things I've read indicate this is supposedly intended as a prequel to the game(s), showing how the characters first met, so that's one reason they may have cast younger actors.

Yeah, like Sean said, the games already covered that, and it was nothing like what was shown here. Huge fan of uncharted here, and all the movie has shown me is that it's made by some people who saw a trailer for the games, and though hey let's make a movie out of that!

 

[Alex...]

 

[Sean Bryan]

There’s a line from Tom in this trailer that doesn’t seem anything like Nathan Drake but feels exactly like Peter Parker, which has me concerned about the characterization. It otherwise it looks like a fun adventure.

 

[Alex...]

 

[Keith Cobby]

Good trailer, looks like a fun family film (ie box office gold).

 

[Sam Posten]

Verdict:

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Verdict:
View attachment 128990

Probably to be expected w/ a movie loosely based on a video game, heh... Not too many such ever turn out all that good it seems...

_Man_

 

[Edwin-S]

I'd give it a chance if I wasn't avoiding the theatre.

 

[Josh Dial]

I watched this opening night in the good Atmos theatre we frequent.

I thought it was a decent popcorn flick. Holland--while not really the best casting choice for this particular role--was nonetheless his good, charming self. Wahlberg was better as Sully. Holland and Wahlberg have good chemistry, and it's that chemistry that drives most of the movie.

The plotting is extremely (extremely) predictable. The dialogue is servicable and at times even funny: though never near as clever as the games' witty banter. The best jokes are those making fun of Sully's age.

There are a few good action set pieces, but they are marred by being too short and pieced together with odd edits. I think part of the problem was Holland's stunt double was much taller so the sequences had to be cleaned up in the editing bay. I think the melee battles would have been cool had the camera bothered, you know, actually focusing on them. Very odd framing in most of the fights.

Good parkour.

Music was very good, though a bit too omnipresent. Sometimes I wish the score's would have been lowered (or the music removed altogether).

The special effects were excellent. Nothing looked overtly "special effects house-y".

Uncharted is similar but slightly worse than the new Jumanji movies and Jungle Cruise. I did enjoy myself, though. I'll buy it on 4k physical media and watch it every few years when I'm in the mood for brainless action. I bet the inevitable sequel will be way better.

 

[Malcolm R]

part of the problem was Holland's stunt double was much taller

I don't know why they do that. Stunt people come in all shapes and sizes. What's so hard about casting one with the same stature of the main actor?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I know nothing of the videogames on which they based the film - heck, I didn't even know they were related to videogames until a couple days ago! So my reaction to the movie doesn't connect to feelings about the games.

As a movie, "Uncharted" makes it clear it wants to function in the Indiana Jones vein - really, really clear. Paraphrasing lines from "Raiders" clear. Directly referring to Indiana Jones clear.

Unfortunately, "Uncharted" comes without a fraction of the excitement and charm of the Indiana Jones movies. Even at their worst - hello, "Crystal Skull"! - they still offered enough action and thrills to make them enjoyable.

On the other hand, "Uncharted" offers a long, slow journey to nowhere. It packs predictable plot points and flat, undeveloped characters, punctuated with action scenes that never manage a smidgen of pizzazz.

We sense zero chemistry between Holland and Wahlberger. Their attempts to bounce dialogue off each other feel like they were recorded separately and edited together, so they create a dull team at the core of the movie.

The story just feels like something Spielberg and Lucas rejected for an Indiana Jones flick as "too stupid". The characters never feel like intelligent, intrepid adventurers. Instead, they come across like lucky dopes who blunder into treasure.

And even for an intentionally ludicrous movie like this, the action scenes become ridiculous. Nate bounces off of objects like a freaking Looney Tunes characters and never even suffers a scratch.

Of course, that's semi-par for the course, but at least "Raiders" had the good sense to show the toll all that adventuring took on Indy. Here Nate never displays any form of even vague dismay when he crashes to the floor or gets hit by a car.

Again, I get it: no one goes to a movie like this for realism. Nonetheless, the absurdity of the way the leads suffer zero consequences despite all the damage they incur becomes too much to bear.

Of course, if I enjoyed the tale, I wouldn't care so much. If I got caught up in "Uncharted", I could roll with the literal and figurative punches.

Unfortunately, nothing about this flat, generic Indiana Jones ripoff entertained me. The most excitement I found came when the end credits rolled and I could finally go home.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I know nothing of the videogames on which they based the film - heck, I didn't even know they were related to videogames until a couple days ago! So my reaction to the movie doesn't connect to feelings about the games.

As a movie, "Uncharted" makes it clear it wants to function in the Indiana Jones vein - really, really clear. Paraphrasing lines from "Raiders" clear. Directly referring to Indiana Jones clear.

Unfortunately, "Uncharted" comes without a fraction of the excitement and charm of the Indiana Jones movies. Even at their worst - hello, "Crystal Skull"! - they still offered enough action and thrills to make them enjoyable.

On the other hand, "Uncharted" offers a long, slow journey to nowhere. It packs predictable plot points and flat, undeveloped characters, punctuated with action scenes that never manage a smidgen of pizzazz.

We sense zero chemistry between Holland and Wahlberger. Their attempts to bounce dialogue off each other feel like they were recorded separately and edited together, so they create a dull team at the core of the movie.

The story just feels like something Spielberg and Lucas rejected for an Indiana Jones flick as "too stupid". The characters never feel like intelligent, intrepid adventurers. Instead, they come across like lucky dopes who blunder into treasure.

And even for an intentionally ludicrous movie like this, the action scenes become ridiculous. Nate bounces off of objects like a freaking Looney Tunes characters and never even suffers a scratch.

Of course, that's semi-par for the course, but at least "Raiders" had the good sense to show the toll all that adventuring took on Indy. Here Nate never displays any form of even vague dismay when he crashes to the floor or gets hit by a car.

Again, I get it: no one goes to a movie like this for realism. Nonetheless, the absurdity of the way the leads suffer zero consequences despite all the damage they incur becomes too much to bear.

Of course, if I enjoyed the tale, I wouldn't care so much. If I got caught up in "Uncharted", I could roll with the literal and figurative punches.

Unfortunately, nothing about this flat, generic Indiana Jones ripoff entertained me. The most excitement I found came when the end credits rolled and I could finally go home.

In this day and age, just half of that should probably instantly cause you to wonder if it was just another videogame-based action flick, haha... The other half might be enough to confirm it (that it's at least not based on a decent comic book or graphic novel instead)... Well, I suppose there's also a chance it could be based on some Disney theme park ride or some such instead, LOL, although Disney might not allow such a clunker to make it to theaters instead of just straight-to-video...

_Man_