Is there some kind of evil curse on videogame-to-movie adaptations that they almost always come out terrible?
Although the Max Payne movie isn't going to be showing in theaters until the 17th, early reviews are already out, undoubtedly to distributor Fox's consternation, who is reportedly timing a late press release to prevent bad reviews from appearing till after opening weekend.
Latauro from Ain't it Cool News writes on the Mark Wahlberg flick:
Horrid dialogue, surprisingly bad acting across the board, and some really dodgy sound editing -- have you ever noticed sound editing before? ...me neither -- helped to drive an already sub-standard plot further into the ground...
...Nobody comes out of this thing looking good. The damn thing's 85 minutes and you swear you've been in there for about two and a half hours by the time it's over. All the buzz you've been hearing about how this film is good is coming from people whose jobs depend on it making money. Do not give it the time of day.
Perhaps the most scathing remark came from Finnish outlet, Suomen Kuvalehti. Reviewer Kim Kinnunen notes that given a choice between Max Payne and an Uwe Boll film, Boll actually wins out.
One should note, however, that many critics might not be familiar with the source material for Max Payne (namely, the video game) so perhaps we should take their opinions with a grain of salt. Fan service is, after all, a real and significant part of a game-to-movie adaptation's appeal. I seem to recall a certain critic-bashed movie featuring a man in a batsuit and that one turned out to be okay.
