Skip to main content

Where's the Craft in Warcraft?

Warcraft Teaser Poster.jpg
          High fantasy is a hard genre to get right, but it can be done well if it does one of two things. Like Lord of the Rings, it could present us with larger than life characters, but still tell a basic story (i.e. Good vs. Evil). Or like Game of Thrones, it could tell a complex story but ground it in a relatable world with identifiable characters. Warcraft does neither of these.
          Based on the mega-hit online game series, the story follows a horde of orcs travelling through a portal from their own wasted world into one governed by humans. But some of the orcs like Durotan (Toby Kebbel) a chieftain of his own tribe distrust their leader, who controls the portal with his mysterious magic. On the other side, the humans prepare to defend themselves, led by a soldier called Lothar (Travis Fimmel), the King (Dominic Cooper) and their own magical protector called the Guardian (Ben Foster). They’re assisted in their defence by a green half-orc called Garona (Paula Patton), and both races struggle to preserve the welfare of their own kind.
          Though I’m unfamiliar with the game and know next to nothing about World of Warcraft, it’s still clear this film is fiercely loyal to its source. Every design from the armour, the weapons, to the architecture of the cities and sometimes laughable orc voices is incredibly exaggerated as it looks in the game. The motion capture on the orcs is also really good, they often feel as much a part of a scene as the humans. Well as close as they can to the CGI-fest of an environment. Very little of the world is practical due to its reliance on replicating the game, which unfortunately gives the sets and the whole world of Azeroth little character. And because you don’t believe in the environments you can’t really get behind what the characters are fighting for. The characters are incredibly bland too, the audience never being privy to their personalities. They’re very much of their world which makes them hard to relate to and invest in. A few of them die during the course of the film, but you never care enough to feel anything for them. Ironically the most human character is Durotan the orc whose motivations and actions are best understood because we see the importance his society and his family have in his life. Actors like Fimmel and Foster though almost mail in their performances, detaching you from an already pretty detached plot.
          There are a lot of things going on in this movie that drive its story from political and cultural crossroads, to historical context, and of course magic. The trailers would have you believe this was going to be a film about a battle for land, the orcs simply needing a new home, and the humans defending their own. But there are other factors that complicate things and really shouldn’t have been there. Fantasy is hard enough to convey with its elaborate character names and rules, and since none of these characters or places have a recognizable context, the story should be streamlined and simple. That basic conflict with both sides having understandable goals could work. There’s another character played by Ben Schnetzer, a mage who gave up his apprenticeship, only to be set up as the next Guardian. I think the film would have been more interesting if he was made a focal point; if his character and journey was emphasized (with the orc war as the backdrop). We would invest more because of his insecurities, potential, and relatable drive.
          The Achilles heel of fantasy storytelling is magic, and Warcraft is a prime example of why magic should be downplayed in the genre (heck, in Game of Thrones it’s virtually non-existent). Without rules, it can be an easy deus ex machina or plot hole. The magic users in this film don’t have clear limitations of their power which creates this problem. And yet when the magic itself is explained it often becomes confusing. 
          The result of these uninteresting characters, conflict, and overly ambitious story is a film that’s visually decent but a slog to get through a lot of the time. Which is really a shame because it’s clear the writers and director are fans of this material. But they get in a bit over their head, and are also too reliant on this film getting a sequel, setting up a number of unanswered questions in the last act. Though better than some fantasy failures like Dungeons & Dragons and Eragon, it sadly doesn’t offer the general public anywhere near what it gives its already established fans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...