V.G. Movies #3: Super Mario Bros.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

Last time, I discussed the origins of the Super Mario Bros. game. Today, I'm just going to briefly expand on that. The basic story of the original Mario was that Princess Toadstool (later re-named Peach after Super Mario 64), who rules over the Mushroom Kingdom, has been kidnapped by a giant dragon/dinosaur named Bowser (sometimes called Koopa, due to it later being revealed as his first name). Two brothers, Mario and Luigi, live in the Mushroom Kingdom and are tasked with saving her. As I said previously, this is a game that basically saved gaming in North America and is the second best-selling game of all time.

So of course there was gonna be a sequel. Originally there was in 1986, Super Mario Bros. 2: The Lost Levels was released in Japan... but not until years later in America. Why the difference? Because it was considered way too hard for American gamers. So in 1988, another SMB2 was released in America. It's drastically different from other games of the series, mostly because it was a completely different game and was altered to become a Mario game later. It involves the gang in a dreamland, and they can pick vegetables to throw at the enemies, etc.

But a SMB3 was still in demand. However, while they were converting SMB2 for American gamers, there was a lack in ROM chips which caused a delay in the release. This caused the company to have a little extra time and actually promote the game in a film. This film was called The Wizard, which was about a gaming tournament and included this particular game that hadn't been released yet. This third game in the series involved Toadstool getting kidnapped by Bowser after turning the king into a random thing and Mario and Luigi having to save the day. The game did well, and the series continued.

On the Nintendo Gameboy, we were given Super Mario Land, which introduced us to Princess Daisy (later revealed to be Peach's cousin, and Luigi's love interest). Daisy is kidnapped by an alien, and it's up to the brothers to save her. Then, in 1990, we were treated to Super Mario World... the game to introduce us to Yoshi. Mario and Luigi, after saving the Mushroom Kingdom, are having a vacation in Dinosaur Land. Of course, Princess Toadstool disappears, and it's up to the Brothers and Yoshi to save her from Bowser.

Clearly, it wasn't long before the popularity of the series demanded a film adaptation. It's considered the first actual Hollywood film based on a video game. Unfortunately, the movie was given a married couple director pair who argued about everything, never talked to each other or the actors about what should be going on, and apparently made life on set a living Hell. Most of the actors involved still proclaim this to be the worst experience on a film they've ever had. And while it does have numerous references to the games up to the point of production, the film is notorious for being nothing like the games. But upon further inspection, does it actually deserve its infamy... or is it actually not all that bad? Let's find out.

THE FILM

Mario (Bob Hoskins) and Luigi (John Leguizamo) are plumber brothers in Brooklyn just looking to catch a break. But one day, an archaeologist named Daisy (Samantha Mathis) gets kidnapped by a couple of doofuses, Iggy (Fisher Stevens) and Spike (Richard Edson), who are cousins to an evil King, Koopa (Dennis Hopper). Koopa rules over a parallel universe called Dinohattan (though Koopa makes an off-hand comment calling it a "mushroom kingdom" at one point). He has taken the throne from the previous king, Bowser, and wants a meteorite shard that will merge their world with Earth (since they're just a parallel universe of evolved dinosaurs that came to existence when the meteorite hit). Now it's up to Mario and Luigi to save Daisy and stop Koopa before it's too late.

When I was a little kid, I really did love this movie. I thought it was a lot of fun, and it never bothered me that it was nothing like the games (which I was also a fan of). But you know what it's like when you watch a kid-favorite film as an adult. It usually turns out awful. And as this film is already considered awful, I was marginally scared of how my thoughts on it were going to change. So did they?

Nope. I still think the movie is totally fun, and it doesn't deserve the bad reputation it has. Before you write me off (if you didn't already do that years ago), let me explain why. Let's start with the first part anybody ever notices in a movie adaptation of anything--the cast. I actually think Bob Hoskins was a perfect choice for Mario. Now, John Leguizamo looks nothing like Bob Hoskins (and is about 22 years younger). But it was actually explained pretty well that Mario adopted him, which was a pleasant and unique twist. I don't know if he is the absolute perfect choice for Luigi, but I think he did well with the role in this film, albeit sometimes a bit awkward. Mathis was perfect as the blonde Princess--she had attitude and spunk, and if she were to be cast today, it would be Elizabeth Banks (who Mathis looks like here anyway). Then... yes, Dennis Hopper as Koopa is great and over-the-top as you would expect a dinosaur-based evil king to be. So was anything wrong with the cast? I don't think so.

What usually falls apart in older films are this type are the visuals and/or special effects. But you know what? The effects in this film still hold up. Hell, I would say there are some movies today (*cough*SeasonoftheWitch*cough*) whose CGI is actually worse. There really isn't a whole lot of CGI; a lot of the film is practical and looks good because of that. And the computer effects that are there were apparently top of the line, as I didn't feel they were really all that bad or cheesy (including the "flying through the dimensional vortex" moment).

So I guess that really leaves the problem with the story. First, let's look at the story as a standalone, not as an adaptation. There's a nice setup where our heroes meet Daisy, get to know her a bit, and then have to chase after her when she gets kidnapped. They end up in a dystopian world where a tyrant(asaurus! Sorry...) has taken over the city from the old king, de-evolving him into slimy fungus. The king wants to merge the worlds to regain his rightful place on Earth and, thus, rule it all. Ignoring the adaptation aspect, it's a pretty solid story. There aren't really any major holes that I could decipher. It gives us a world and its rules and it abides by them. So for all intents and purposes, it's solid. And it's not boring, giving a mix of wacky action, adventure, and comedy.

But then you look at it as an adaptation... and this is where things fall apart. Neither Mario nor Luigi are Italian (nor is Luigi a blood brother). Where is Peach? Well, as we discovered earlier, Peach wasn't so named until the era of the Nintendo 64, which was after this film was made. Prior to that, it was Toadstool... and who is going to be walking around with the name Toadstool in a Hollywood movie? Daisy, a secondary princess in the series, was available, so it was used instead. Now, Daisy is Luigi's love interest, and they kept to that in the film. Although Mario ended up with some regular woman from Brooklyn (which kind of destroys the classic Mario/Toadstool dynamic). Anyway, the Goombas are enormous with tiny heads, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the games. Toad is... well, he's not even close to his game counterpart. Koopa isn't in a dinosaur form (well, he is for about 10 seconds at the climax, but that's about it). Don't even mention how Koopa has taken over from the previous king, Bowser (Bowser and Koopa are the same character!). Et cetera, et cetera.

But what is typically looked over are how many details the movie did keep from the games. The story is more of a mix of Super Mario Land and Super Mario World than Super Mario Bros. The world of the movie is closest to the Dinosaur Land of World (including Yoshi's appearance in this film and having eggs everywhere), while Daisy being kidnapped by somebody from another "planet" was taken from Land. You see the Shy Guys of SMB2. You see Bullet Bills as the ammunition for the jumping boots (which I'm assuming is a reference to the giant boots in SMB3). There's a Bob-omb, and a mushroom that is used to protect Mario right before he briefly grows in size (when he disintegrates to return to the Dino world). The king is transformed, like in SMB3. Big Bertha is there to represent the giant red fish in the games. There are the fireball guns. And the connections go on and on, even including some sound effects.

To me, this film is more of a re-imagining of the games' ideas than a straight adaptation. Because, seriously, how are you going to adapt a story about a dinosaur kidnapping a princess so that two Italian plumber brothers must travel through multiple worlds to fight turtles and other dinosaurs using mushrooms that make you big, flowers that make you shoot fireballs, and stars that make you twinkle invincibility. It's a damn near impossible story to tell, especially if you attempt to adapt it straight--as shown in the Japanese anime version. Personally, I feel that this was a smarter route to go. Now, could it have used a little more work? Definitely. Even as a re-imagining, it wasn't perfect. There are some painful aspects to this movie, and, yeah, it can get really cheesy/dumb at times. I think they could have done slightly more justice to the games. But as it is, I think the film is good cheesy, charming, and fun in its own right. I think it was unjustly given a bad reputation in its day, but looking back on it, it's really not all that bad... especially if you look at it as a children's film. I mean, damn... it's certainly better than 90% of the kids films that come out today.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

GAMER.

I'd wanted to see this movie from the first time I saw the first trailer. I totally loved the concept, and it looked like excellent fun. But did it live up to its potential? Well, let's start off with the story. In the near future, a man named Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall) invents Nanex, a collection of nanobytes that are injected into your brain and allow others to control you. It first spawns a game called Society, the ultimate Sims (kind of like a real-life iLife). But then it extended into the prison program for death row inmates, to where if they can win 30 games, they're set free. It's called Slayers. Kable (Gerard Butler), with his player Simon (Logan Lerman), is the closest person to get to the 30 wins, and all he wants to do is get home to his wife (Amber Valleta) and daughter. But Castle won't have it, though he has to contend with a group of hackers (Ludacris, Aaron Yoo, and Alison Lohman). And then there's the media woman, Gina (Kyra Sedgwyk). And... hell, there's a whole lot of stuff going on, with little actually happening. The movie also includes John Leguizamo, Zoe Bell, and Milo Ventimiglia.

The movie is completely style over substance, though it tries to throw in some substance in the latter half of the film (I'll get to that later). But its stylistic nature is still pretty cool. However, I'm not sure that the Slayers stuff was done to its fullest potential, and it's really only in the first half of the film. And because the movie is more style than substance, it brings us to the film's biggest downfall: it's chaotic feel.

Especially the first half of the film, we get a whole lot of nothing. There's literally almost no story, as well as any character development or... well, anything but violence and style. Eventually, we start getting some semblance of a story, but then it doesn't really take it all to its fullest potential, either. I saw so many great places the story could have gone, but it didn't. It stayed at about as basic of a level as possible story-wise (though I suppose the bad guy motivations revealed at the end are pretty cool).

I would also have liked more out of the characters. They're all so one-dimensional, it's--dare I say--ludicrous (sorry, I couldn't help myself). The acting is fine, of course, and Michael C. Hall gives one heck of a performance for a character that could have been so boring otherwise. Though Terry Crews' Hackman was way over-the-top, though that was probably purposeful. Anyway, some characters were just a complete waste, like John Leguizamo's. He didn't really have much of a point except to extend on one portion (or type of character) of "Slayers" that is hardly mentioned or expanded on to begin with. Milo Ventimiglia must have just been desperate for a paycheck, because he just has some weird-ass role for only a couple minutes of screen time. And Kyra Sedgwick, while a key player, basically walks around cussing the whole time. There was no background to any character, no home lives, no anything. I would have liked to at least see maybe Simon's character delved into a little more, maybe add some psychology or something to it. It was just all so... flat.

Don't get me wrong, though. The movie is still quite a bit of fun. I especially like it around the middle of the movie where, essentially, Slayers meets Society. I really don't have too much to say about the movie. It was total style over substance, but a little more substance would have made the film so much better. It's entertaining for what it is, and the premise is still great (as are the last few twists of the story... which I still feel could have been delved into deeper). Oh, and be warned those of you who have a dislike for shaky cam. There's a good bit of it in the movie... and unfortunately, a lot of it during the Slayers bits, so you can hardly see what's going on half the time, anyway (those scenes should have decreased some shaky cam and added more time to make them longer and more fun). Overall, it was fun, but it could have been better.

I Am McLovin!

THE HAPPENING.

I really have no idea what to say. I was hyped for this movie for the longest time, then I started reading horrible reviews about it… and now that I’ve seen it… I feel somewhere in the middle. The Happening is about this event that happens only in the north-eastern United States that causes people to become disoriented before killing themselves. Everybody thinks there’s been another terrorist attack of some kind, but then the likelihood of that slowly starts to dwindle away. So when science teacher Elliot (Mark Wahlberg) hears what’s going on, he, his math teacher friend Julian (John Leguizamo), Julian’s 8-year-old daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez), and his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel)—with whom he’s having troubles with relationship-wise—hop a train out to go out into the middle of nowhere where Julian’s mother lives. Unfortunately, the train stops in an even more middle-of-nowhere place because they lost contact with ‘everybody’. So now the gang has to try and find a way to get away from the north-east region of the US to where it’s safe.

So, yeah, not sure what to think about it. There were some tense moments, sure, and there was quite a bit of comedy (I think it was funnier than it was scary). In fact, if the movie hadn’t taken itself so seriously, it might have made a decent horror-comedy. The gore is there, yet it isn’t there. They typically cut away right before showing much of anything (though some stuff was showed). And some of it was more ridiculous than others (such as the lion cage one).

The actual cause, which is revealed pretty early on, is borderline cool and just plain silly. At first I thought it was a bit weird and absurd, but I eventually got used to it, and the movie did garner some good suspense. Either way you look at it, though, it’s rather unique and original. Did it work, though? Semi-sorta.

The movie’s biggest downfall isn’t really in the script or the directing, though (so it really isn’t M. Night’s fault). The biggest downfall is the acting. Mark Wahlberg can be a pretty good actor when he wants to be. I’m not sure he really wanted to be this time. And I usually love Zooey Deschanel (in a lot of ways), but even she was ‘blah’ in this movie. John Leguizamo wasn’t too terrible, though. And Jess, the daughter, was really good… though that’s probably because she has all of two lines or so in the entire movie. Even worse than the main actors was the supporting cast. They could be just downright awful. So really, I blame the acting more than anything in this movie, because acting can make a bad script good or a good script awful.

That’s about all I can say about it. The music was good, and the visual style is good, as it usually is with M. Night. There’s no water-love this time around, though, and don’t go in expecting a twist ending, because there isn’t one. But that’s not really a bad thing, especially considering that most people’s main dislikes for M. Night after The Sixth Sense was that he was too predictable. But whatever. The movie isn’t a masterpiece, but I personally don’t believe it’s as God-awful as everybody has been making it out to be. I think people are just out to hate on M. Night, really. It has its moments, but some of the moments can really be negated by the acting. In other words, it’s not a total failure, but it isn’t M. Night’s ticket back into good standing with Hollywood, either.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.