Like most recent adaptations of video games into films, "Uncharted" poses a real problem: what need is there to bring to the cinema a game that is itself based on the archetypes of a cinematographic genre in order to transcend them for the obvious pleasure of integrating the player into it and to fill his eyes with a visual experience?
specific to its medium? If we transpose this typical snake-biting cinema-video-game-cinema cycle onto a level of, let's say... If we transpose this typical snake-biting cinema-video-game-cinema cycle onto a "food" level, it is like someone eating a dish, regurgitating it after digestion and straining what is left of it to feed on it again
The latest "Resident Evil" film in the horror genre or the 2018 version of "Tomb Raider", which can be compared a priori to "Uncharted", are there to prove it: the feature films generated by this implausible chain only lead to soulless products, mindlessly maximizing the winks to the games they come from and their own imagery without knowing what to propose in order to stand out both from them (with respect) and within the very cinematographic genres they are based on. We thought that "Uncharted" would follow the same path -meaning going straight into the wall- but Ruben Fleischer's film surprisingly does better than its elders on this ground.
So, let's be clear, as expected, "Uncharted" is not a film designed to shake up adventure cinema since, as we said, it comes from a series of games that itself condenses the codes upstream. However, here, its rather clever prequel status will allow it to tell an adventure presented as new to the franchise while reappropriating the best of the formula of its stories and the highlights that made it successful.
Obviously, "unseen" is a big word, and we even get scared during the first moments when the prologue, which already reveals one of the two big pieces of the film's bravery, a transfer of a cult passage from the games, gives way to a flashback also copied and pasted on Nathan Drake's youth, which is meant to be winks and more of a brutal elbow to the fans. But, rather than continuing on this uninspired path, "Uncharted" will finally start telling its own story, that of a younger Nathan Drake in his first great adventurer's escapade, fitting in the structure of those crossed in the games, the casual spirit between humor and improbable adventures of its characters and the usual outbursts to other genres (the heist movie in particular). Not without winks (they are now more clever like with "the voice"), "Uncharted" borrows and reappropriates what has already been done in the games but no longer copies it, strictly speaking, looking for a middle ground between originality and duplication on the big screen.
All the obligatory passages (robbery, betrayals, enigmas, explorations, etc.) and some familiar faces whose arrival was expected (the sublime Sophia Taylor Ali in the role of Chloe) are thus present but they are always thought out in order to offer something that stands out at least a little from the game without betraying it. As proof, while it fits perfectly into the essence of "Uncharted" by the madness of the "ring" on which it takes place, the impressive final battle is based on an idea that is this time well and truly foreign to what has already been done within the franchise.
In short, we finally have an adaptation of a video game that has understood what made the brand successful on this medium and that has a good idea of readapting it in its own way in a very respectful show capable of seducing both neophytes and unconditional fans of "Uncharted" (I have platinized all of them for my part).
But does this mean that we have the Holy Grail of video game adaptations? No, not everything is happy from this point of view. The developments centered on the characters are undoubtedly the big weak point of the film by falling into the tasteless repetition of their models, the Nathan/Sully relationship is for example anecdotal repetition despite a few smiles and everything surrounding the camp of the villains is starved to death with Antonio Banderas not really knowing himself what he's doing there (a few surprises will change the deal afterward nevertheless). And then, the treasure hunt as such seems much weaker in its progression than most of those narrated by the games, especially since the film doesn't venture on the extraordinary side associated with the end of Nathan Drake's quests (we won't say more, they must reserve that for the future), which makes it much more forgettable in the end.
Finally, there is Ruben Fleischer's direction, terribly functional, with editing that prevents any hint of epic breath from taking its full measure, as during the final act, whose enormous visual potential is felt without it really materializing on screen.
More than anything else, it is perhaps this last element that levels "Uncharted" to the rank of a minor adventure film, as we would probably have been better able to forgive the other flaws if the visual wonder of the games had been better felt on the screen
That said, and this is far too rare not to be mentioned, "Uncharted" succeeds in the tour de force of being both a faithful port of a video game to the big screen and an effective entertainment for the duration of its running time (the 2 hours pass without boredom). And, if you had any doubts about Tom Holland's ability to do justice to the role of Nathan Drake, the energy spent by the man to take on the clothes of the one who has become one of the most famous modern imaginary adventurers (in addition to a physical resemblance over the course of the film that we didn't necessarily see coming) should win your support.