Monster Hunter (2020) is the latest work of Paul W. S. Anderson (writer, producer and director), the same person that directed the Mortal Kombat movie (1995) and Resident Evil film series (2002–2016). That should give you some idea as to the level of quality and loyalty (or lack of) to the source material he is known for. Like with the Resident Evil series, Paul has once again cast his wife - Milla Jovovich, as the lead character. Full disclosure: I am not a fan of her acting, or Paul's films, so my opinions may be biased.
Spoilers ahead: I am going to give a synopsis of the plot alongside my observations and opinions.
Summary:
Within the first five minutes of runtime, a United Nations security team on Earth is transported to the Monster Hunter universe through some kind of magical dust storm. The movie explains away this phenomenon as having come from the "Sky Tower" - a structure built by an ancient civilization to travel between worlds. The civilization was ultimately destroyed by the people brought into the Monster Hunter world, but the film never explains how the ancients were destroyed or why they built the Sky Tower in the first place. Obviously none of this is taken from the video games, although the "Sky Tower" could be based on the "Sky Corridor" from the controversial (and non-cannon) Monster Hunter Frontier. Frontier's Sky Corridor was built by an ancient civilization, but to my knowledge it was nothing more than a challenge dungeon and never possessed any cross-dimensional travel capabilities.
Right off the bat I am not enjoying this movie. I like how quickly they jumped into the monster hunter world, but that is where the film should have started. There was no need for the inclusion of real world military. I could overlook their inclusion if they were important to the plot or the protagonist's journey in some way, but no. The soldiers are introduced and then killed off almost as quickly as they appear. Was I suppose to care about this team? If I was, then why are they not given any screen-time? Why were they included in this film at all? Did they think a live action film set entirely in a fantasy realm wouldn't be 'grounded' or 'believable' enough otherwise? Or was it suppose to represent the audience being transported to another land with the cast?
There are subtle background references to the video games, like Artemis' chest swirl resembling the male version of the Odogaron armor.
Transported from Earth to a desert in the Monster Hunter world, the Army Ranger's drive through a Dah'ren (sand shark) skeleton, generating vibrations that draw the ire of a burrowing Black Diablos (a female variant monster in heat). The film actually does a pretty good job of representing the territorial herbivore in a way that is faithful to the source material, but I think the filmmakers missed an opportunity here to juxtapose real world military values and weapons against those from the Monster Hunter universe, which has very little human versus human conflict and advocates for coexistence, respecting your enemy, and being in sync with nature. At least then, however small, there would be some reason for the military's inclusion.
The story is not very faithful to the spirit of the games.
The next part of the film plays out like a horror movie. The army squad retreats to the safety of a cave-like structure where they are beset by a swarm of knock-off Nerscylla (spider monsters) that use living hosts as incubators for their young à la "The Mist". Video game nerscylla are not social, nor do they use living hosts. Curiously, this creature's most defining features - its massive bright red mandibles and tendency to wear its prey like a fur coat, were left out of the film completely. They also sucked all of the color out of Nerscylla's design which made the dark mass of spiders hard to see against the many black backdrops. If the movie needed a grotesque, parasitic, cave-dwelling monster then why not use the leech-like Khezu or Gigginox? Neither one is native to the New World - where the movie is loosely set, or inhabits arid environments, but the same is true of Nerscylla and its primary prey item Gypceros.
To a causal viewer my complaints must seem nit-picky, but the monsters in Monster Hunter are kinda important. They aren't just another enemy you bash a few times to level up. They have a visible role in the ecosystem and an important place in the everyday lives of the humans that inhabit that world; you can watch a Jagras (giant lizard) consume an Aptonoth (dinosaur) in World for example, and follow it back to its lair where the Jagras will regurgitate the Aptonoth for its kin. Each monster has unique habits, abilities, and weak points the player learns to anticipate, exploit, and prepare for. It's a trial-and-error process that rewards Hunters with the parts from these animals, allowing them to harness its powers for themselves. It's why these encounters are so memorable compared to similar games in the genre, God Eater or Toukiden for example, and why these creatures become so endeared to the fans. The film only lightly touches on this aspect of the games, such as during a scene where Artemis and the Hunter use Nerscylla venom to incapacitate the Diablos, but then the two of them never use the Diablos parts for anything - a hunting sin in my book. So why did they kill the Diablos if there was no need? There are non-lethal ways of dealing with the monsters in-game.
I always thought of Nerscylla and the Hunters as kindred spirits because both wear their kills.
Artemis (the protagonist) shrugs off the effects of Nerscylla induced sleep/poison and escapes from the spider den without any help because... I dunno, she got lucky I guess. Up to this point Artemis has had no character motivation outside of wanting to getting back home because that's what you do when you're transported to another world. There is nothing inherently wrong with this goal, but without an established reason for her to achieve it there is no reason for the viewer to care if she succeeds or not. The faintest hint of a deeper motive comes when Artemis fondles a ring just after escaping from the spider den, presumably indicating there is someone back home waiting for her. However, we never learn who this person is, what they mean to her, or why she needs to get back to them. They must not have been that important, because by the end of film, after getting back to her own world, Artemis decides to return to the Monster Hunter dimension to become a Monster Hunter.
At this point it was clear I was watching a story without a plot - a string of random events, actions, and a big battle at the end with nothing to hold it all together. There is no character development or a mutual goal the cast works toward. To make matters worse, Artemis is a Mary Sue; she never needs help from anyone and even fights off a native while injured. The protagonist is also an Army Ranger Captain - a very skilled and battle hardened leader, the perfect person to survive a savage world, but at the cost of being too "badass" right out of the gate. This takes away from the suspense of whether or not she'll survive and in my opinion, if Artemis had been the least equipped person to survive it would have made for a better viewing experience. Even a flaw as minor as arachnophobia would have provided Artemis with a challenge that she actually struggles to overcome. It would also address the emotionally weightless fights that never escalate in difficulty or scope. Sure the monsters look fearsome, but there is nothing more beyond that. At least with arachnophobia, even if the Nerscylla weren't as physically intimidating as a Diablos, it would still have presented an increased threat to the heroine.
Artemis and the Hunter both have family, possibly deceased, but that's all that can be deduced of their backstories.
Artemis is eventually found and taken in by a Monster Hunter (the Field Team Leader) in one of the strangest encounters - assault and kidnapping (for no reason), needlessly cruel behavior (both ways), and then reconciling over chocolate, and not even good chocolate. The random antagonistic behavior conveniently resolved by product placement was just so out of place. Humans are almost never seen fighting in the video games. They have a sort of "we're all in this together" and "the more the merrier" kinda vibe; a strong camaraderie. The Guild is said to punish unsanctioned hunts with death, but the games have never explored that. The closest I've seen to human versus human conflict in the franchise was in MH Stories 2, and even then it was tame; someone getting pushed aside at best.
Humans fighting humans in Monster Hunter?
The two are united with the Admiral during an Apceros (turtle) stampede where weapon magic is introduced without any explanation. The group then turn their attention to the source of the stampede - the big bad of the film, Rathalos (dragon). A lot of new characters are introduced, mainly as cameos and cannon fodder. If you played Monster Hunter World you will know who they are. Otherwise they're just background noise.
Nothing in this movie had to use New World designs; they could have used a unique cast or been set anywhere within the Monster Hunter universe and it wouldn't have effected the narrative. Considering World was Capcom's best selling game ever, and was many gamer's first experience with the Monster Hunter franchise, I suspect the decision to copy designs from MH World was done to appeal to the masses rather than for plot reasons. Paul had also wanted to make a Monster Hunter movie as far back as 2012, so its possible the main story beats were decided upon long before World existed.
The Meowscular Chef is the film's token Palico and the way he winks at Artemis is uncomfortable.
The film bloats the size of the Rathalos (it changes between scenes) and has it burn down whole forests, seemingly for no reason at all (the complete opposite of the games). The Hunters proceed to fight the dragon using arrows with bad fletchings, waste stealth attacks, and fight a fire resistant flying wyvern with fire based weapons. Brilliant! Two hunters are set ablaze and instead of rolling through the pools of water on the ground like a seasoned-hunter or player in the game would, they practically drop dead on the spot. Not so much as a kitty cart to whisk them away to safety.
Artemis and the Rathalos fall through the Sky Tower portal, landing in the exact spot on earth where a military convoy just so happens to be. Action ensues - explosions, battles with tanks, planes, yadda yadda. There are no Rathalos tail sweeps, poisoning, pinning, etc. You know... things from the games. The chaos finally comes to an end when Artemis chucks a flare into the Rathalos' mouth, causing it to explode in a fiery burst. She then stands triumphantly over its charred remains. Roll credits.
Oh Rathalos... they done you dirty. He is far from my favorite monster, but he is the face of the Monster Hunter franchise, having appeared in every game. It's sad to see the king of the skies done in by a flare.
The fire resistant armor crafted from Black Diablos parts would have been useful against a fire breathing dragon.
That Gore Magala in the credits is such a tease.
Final Thoughts
There is a joviality and thrill for the hunt present in the games that keeps the mood from getting bleak amidst all the killing. Something the movie ignored entirely in favor of an overly dark, overly serious atmosphere. It painted the world as a desolate place where humanity is at the mercy of these creatures instead of thriving because of them; just compare the game trailer to the film trailer to see what I mean. The film further mashed together an incoherent of mixture of elements from the video games: the gritty tone of MH1, structures from non-cannon titles in the franchise, characters and designs borrowed from World. Then they bafflingly added the real world into the mix, alongside magical teleportation portals in a fantasy world that isn't suppose to have magic. Even ignoring the Monster Hunter branding, the film can't stand on its own merits. It has a threadbare plotline and no character development or motivation beyond "get back home". There is enough hellfire and kaiju action (at least near the start and end) to maybe hold the casual viewer's attention, but there are far better monster flicks out there to spend your time on, and I just can't help but wonder if the people behind this adaptation had ever played a Monster Hunter video game before, or if perhaps they just didn't understand the source material. With better writers and an actual plot this film could've worked.
These videos explain the New World and its themes better than I can:
• World & Iceborne's Story Themes
• Monster Hunter, A Culture Of Danger
• World & Iceborne's Story Themes
• Monster Hunter, A Culture Of Danger
Have you seen Monster Hunter (2020)? What were your thoughts on the movie? If you haven't seen it, do you plan to?
A fan animated version of the movie. Shorter and frankly better than the real thing:
First posted to videogamegeek.com
Related Reviews:
- Legends of the Guild: Something For The Fans
- MH Stories Ride On - Season 1, Part 1: Village Life
- MH Stories Ride On - Season 1, Part 2: Turning to the Dark Side
- MH Stories Ride On - Season 1, Part 3: Search and Rescue
- MH Stories Ride On - Season 1, Part 4: Black and White
No comments:
Post a Comment