Max Payne Movie Thread Part 2

[Wamplet]

I just saw the movie and you just can't honestly expect a verbatim game to movie script.

I thought it was pretty decent.

My only complaint was Bravura... They had the real one on his desk.

[Ras]

Originally Posted by Laokin

(see Spider-man vs ULTIMATE Spiderman, one makes web's naturally -- one uses cartridges.

They both use cartridges. Regular Spidey gained organic webbing for a while, but it's gone after he made his little deal with the devil.

[Ajaxx]

I will say this much though:

Whoever was in charge of promoting the movie (creating the trailers, teasers, movie posters and other materials) did a spec-TAC-ular job. Absolutely phenominal. I'm not being sarcastic here. They've taken turd polishing to a Rembrandt level of art form.

Seriously. Kudos.

[Syph]

This was awful... I went in with low expectations and was astonishingly over-estimating it... What a terrible terrible waste of my money that was. I had to play some of the game to take the nasty taste out of my mouth

[Dr. Kill]

Originally Posted by Joe Siegler

Nothing. He was fine. I think people were having problems with him based on his uh "career" outside of the movie. That's an unfair assumption. It's like me and Beau Bridges thinking.. "Look - it's Earl Hickey's dad!" That's not a valid point, IMO. Take things on what they are in the movie, not what an actor might have done elsewhere - or your own pre-conceived notions about what you think it should be like.

I don't really care about his career, and no, I'm not a racist (some of my favorite actors are black), but my gripe is he looks NOTHING like Bravura. Regardless, I think he did a good job, it just took a bit getting used to.

Saw it today, and I gotta say it's honestly the best game based movie I've ever seen. It actually tried to be somewhat accurate for once. My only real gripe was not enough gunfights, and not enough bullet time.

I honestly thought it was gonna be total crap, but I think it did a good job of translating the game to film. I just wish it could've been more of a direct translation, like Sin City was.

[Orochi Avlis]

The re-working of the story was alright. Although the pacing and alot of the dialogue was bad.
Oh, the tattoo artist was a little too excited and eager to explain what Valkyries were.

[Fragmeister]

I went to the cinema yesterday.
And well and i thought it was disappointing oke u cant expect to adept the whole video game script as it is to complicated for a 100 minute film and i think they did a reasonable job on the reworking of it.

But cant help the feeling that left so much good stuff out of it i mean why didn't the leave the bank robbery and the trio in there it would give us so many hot gunfights and humor. "Sorry Jim me and the boys have been talking we are all real sorry and never do it again" i am sure that would make the whole cinema laugh"
Besides that there were way to less gunfights and where is the blood also the scenes were they talk i don't know it just didn't get me i mean the streets look awesome with snow and it looks like the video game but the atmosphere its just not there just it feel so empty.

I would rate this film a 6.5 out of 10.

[Sharpie]

I went to the Cinema earlier tonight and i must admit i loved it. I know some of you complain that the movie wasn't faithful in alot of aspects to the game but if you watch the movie on its own merits (no relation to the games) i think you will get much more enjoyment out of it.

I honestly thought that the movie matched the tone, atmosphere and feel of the games. I came in with low hopes especially after reading some reviews but i was pleasantly surprised. I was dissapointed that the movie ended as i wanted to see more. But thats just my opinion

[Morry]

Originally Posted by Laokin

Spoiler:

show spoiler

During the scene of Michelle Payne's murder, there were 3 attackers, just like MP1
Alex stumbled upon a big case clue, and was murdered before he could tell max, just like MP1
Mona's sister is murdered, just like MP1
BB is a bad guy, just like MP1
Jim Bravura is chasing max because max is suspected of murdering Alex, just like MP1
The army was funding Aesir connected to V, just like MP1
Max's fight scene at RAGNAROK which results in the death of Jack Lupino, just like MP1
The first real part of max's quest starts in Roscoe Street Station, just like MP1
The druggies are exactly like MP1, mumbling things that seem to sound crazy, but are completely related to their hallucinations caused by V, Just like Max Payne 1
The Movie ends with the cops showing up to the Aesir building with max on the roof, Just like MP1
Max gets wounded and limps, just like Max from 1&2
Max gets visually beat up along his adventure just like mp1&2
Max consumes V and has hallucinations of his wife.... like MP1
The movie pays homage to max payne 1, by using the Valkyrie and Norse mytholgy ala the book you read at Ragnarok, explaining how Jack Lupino is in love with evil......
Nicole Horne is the prime suspect, just like MP1 (also must note, she still is the prime suspect, as she isn't dead thus Max Payne 1 being split into 2 movies, and I'm certain in the second movie we will see Vlad play a major role in the story... still can't believe nobody saw him in the movie. Also for the record, Woden will probably be in the second movie aswell, you just can't justify another 2 hour movie to kill one older lady with no weapon skills.)
The list goes on and on and on......

Isn't that the gist of the Max Payne story?
Max's Wife stumbles upon a conspiracy, being carried out by high government officials, is murdered -- follows max's spiral down hill as he runs into the ring of the criminal underworld looking for answers that result in him loosing a lot of close people to him, not knowing who to trust and ultimately bringing the Aesir corporation to it's knees? Because in that case, this is the plot summary of the movie too. You all must of failed to see that.

The difficulty is that you are making a broad comparison between the two, neglecting the fact that most of the differences have some severe impacts on the film like character development and making the audience "feel" for the characters. You can only do this by setting the right scenes and in the correct contexts. There were a lot of key scenes and explanations left out of the film that would confuse the average movie-goer.
One reviewer explained that he had no idea who Mona was and what role she played. When she said to Max "You know what I do", you could only guess she was an assassin because she was actually carrying a gun at the time!

In terms of key story elements and characters, I see far too many differences, rather than similarities.

Spoiler:

show spoiler

- 3 attackers? So what!? They are supposed to be junkies sent by Horne. Max's ultimate revenge at the end of the game is complete because of this.
- In the game, it is in fact BB who sends Alex and Max to meet a Roscoe. There is no reference to Alex knowing something before BB shoots him.
- Sure, Mona's sister is murdered, but the context is completely different. Punchinello beats Lisa to death, rather than Lupino going crazy on her.
- BB is a bad guy, but he doesn't work at Aesir, he's a corrupt cop in the DEA.
- The army was NOT funding Aesir. Aesir is a corporate success because they traffic Valkyr as a hidden revenue stream. Sure, Valkyr is the result of a cancelled government project, but Horne kills everyone associated with that project to cover her tracks. That's why Michelle was murdered.
- Max's quest starts when an anonymous tipster informs them that the Punchinello family is connected with Valkyr distribution.
- Max never willingly consumes Valkyr on purpose, it is injected against his will
- The movie pays too much homage to the Norse mythology. The game never makes it too explicit, only showing the obvious connection between Valhalla and Valkyr. Lupino isn't in to Norse:

"The room was stacked with light reading such as
"Necronomicon", "Witchcraft", and "Paradise Lost". Old
exotic titles like "Malleus Maleficarum" and "Deumbrarum
Regninoyem Portis"... Books with pentagrams on their
covers. All dealing with the Occult and the infernal
lying between stacks of horror videos and a couple of
Ouija boards. The only thing I could take seriously was
the thought of Jack Lupino taking it seriously. He had
been spending a lot of time getting intimate with the
guy downstairs. "

- Max's wife doesn't stumble on to the conspiracy, Woden anonymously sends her the file.

Sorry to be so adamant about the differences, but I feel strongly that most of the themes and characters were simply incorrect in the movie.

Also, where was Vlad and how do you know it was him?
The IMDB listing shows no character by that name (and the cast listing is fairly detailed).

[Damien_Azreal]

Well, Bon and I saw this last night with a few friends. And honestly, I liked it. I really enjoyed it.

Minus a few little parts I though could've been better, some casting that should've been better (Mila Kunis... ugh, even Ludacris did a better job than her) and the fact that a few parts were obviously edited down to get the PG-13 rating... it was good. Very enjoyable.

I loved seeing familiar locations and references. It's true the story left out a few key characters, but hell... to include every character from the game the movie would've been damn near four to five hours long.
They did what they had to make it work.

As for the complaints about the slow opening, I didn't mind that either. It worked for me. Gave you a chance to feel some sympathy for Max.Plus, it made the ending sequence much better.
Bullet time... I liked how they did it. And I liked that they only used it a few times, had they used it constantly it would've felt even more gimmicky. By only using it a few times it made it seem more intense.

[Laokin]

Originally Posted by Morry

The difficulty is that you are making a broad comparison between the two, neglecting the fact that most of the differences have some severe impacts on the film like character development and making the audience "feel" for the characters. You can only do this by setting the right scenes and in the correct contexts. There were a lot of key scenes and explanations left out of the film that would confuse the average movie-goer.
One reviewer explained that he had no idea who Mona was and what role she played. When she said to Max "You know what I do", you could only guess she was an assassin because she was actually carrying a gun at the time!

In terms of key story elements and characters, I see far too many differences, rather than similarities.

Spoiler:

show spoiler

- 3 attackers? So what!? They are supposed to be junkies sent by Horne. Max's ultimate revenge at the end of the game is complete because of this.
- In the game, it is in fact BB who sends Alex and Max to meet a Roscoe. There is no reference to Alex knowing something before BB shoots him.
- Sure, Mona's sister is murdered, but the context is completely different. Punchinello beats Lisa to death, rather than Lupino going crazy on her.
- BB is a bad guy, but he doesn't work at Aesir, he's a corrupt cop in the DEA.
- The army was NOT funding Aesir. Aesir is a corporate success because they traffic Valkyr as a hidden revenue stream. Sure, Valkyr is the result of a cancelled government project, but Horne kills everyone associated with that project to cover her tracks. That's why Michelle was murdered.
- Max's quest starts when an anonymous tipster informs them that the Punchinello family is connected with Valkyr distribution.
- Max never willingly consumes Valkyr on purpose, it is injected against his will
- The movie pays too much homage to the Norse mythology. The game never makes it too explicit, only showing the obvious connection between Valhalla and Valkyr. Lupino isn't in to Norse:

"The room was stacked with light reading such as
"Necronomicon", "Witchcraft", and "Paradise Lost". Old
exotic titles like "Malleus Maleficarum" and "Deumbrarum
Regninoyem Portis"... Books with pentagrams on their
covers. All dealing with the Occult and the infernal
lying between stacks of horror videos and a couple of
Ouija boards. The only thing I could take seriously was
the thought of Jack Lupino taking it seriously. He had
been spending a lot of time getting intimate with the
guy downstairs. "

- Max's wife doesn't stumble on to the conspiracy, Woden anonymously sends her the file.

Sorry to be so adamant about the differences, but I feel strongly that most of the themes and characters were simply incorrect in the movie.

Also, where was Vlad and how do you know it was him?
The IMDB listing shows no character by that name (and the cast listing is fairly detailed).

You sir missed a book in Ragnarok, the one about the Norse legends. In the game, Max simply states that Alex called him and wanted him to meet him at roscoe, right before he died he was about to tell max something.... so your wrong there too. 2 of the guys out of the 3 were junkies, they added a more sinister plot,Spoiler:

show spoiler

by making bb the 3rd guy.

BB doesn't work for Aesir in the movie lol He's a retired DEA agent, thats why he has pull. "Three years later, he is an undercover operative investigating the Punchinello Mafia family, who is responsible for the trafficking of Valkyr. B.B. Hensley, a colleague in the DEA" The quote is from the game, so I don't know how you missed that one. The Army DOES fund Aesir -- by allowing them to traffic V, JUST LIKE THE MOVIE... there was no difference there. It's the U.S. Army, if they know about it... and allow it, and thats the source of Aesir's revenue.... that's funding.

Spoiler:

show spoiler

"Max never willingly consumes Valkyr on purpose, it is injected against his will"

Oooooh lol... so the method he takes it is different... the context is the same -- except now it actually justifies why he can take a beating. Plus that still doesn't undermind the fact that the hallucination he had about his wife is executed very well. Better then running trough a ridiculous house with red floating lines to walk on lmao. Also it's important to note, that if Max didn't drink the viles of valkyre, he would have died of hypothermia. So did they change it that much, Max drank because he had NO choice... in the game he had NO choice, the only difference is who administered the drug. Not a huge change in my opinion. Nor is anything except taking out the mob, although in total scope, they played a small part in the story. All they did was supply the drug, it's kind of the back burner, they didn't really go into who was supplying V in the first movie.... wait till the second, there is a good chance that we will see Mona's ex boss, aka a mafia of sorts also distributing V. These things don't change the story... as the story is still the same, you people just wanted a 1:1 6 hour long movie and in actuality we are getting a fairly close 4 hour version split into 2 installments.

Now for the quote about the book you apparently missed in Ragnarok. I'll post the graphic novel screen shot if you ask me to.
Spoiler:

show spoiler

"Givin' the setting I was surprised to find that some one has been passing time reading. The paperback was entitled 'The Age of Murder and Storm'. The blurb on the back mentioned Norse Mythos and Ragnarok, the end of the Viking world with a terrible winter that covered the Earth in ice, when vile crimes are rampant and all humanity lost. I can see how somebody impressionable can get it in their head that we were at the end of time. I was also beginning to see what the night club and owner were all about."

Lupino owned Ragnarok, named it Ragnarok because of the book. Lupino was totally into Norse Mythology.... so your just plain wrong. Also listen to the junkies they are definitely referring to a monster coming to get them. They say "It's coming, it's coming to get me, to take my flesh" Ect. ect. ect. So really all they did in the movie was give you the perspective of the V Junkie... something the game never thought to explore.... and I thought it was executed nicely one you saw that Max and Mona couldn't see them. Starts off a little like a horror movie though, but since it's explained rather nicely.... it's quite all right.

I also must add... The max payne sequel movie... does not pick up at the beginning of Max Payne 2.... but rather is a conclusion to Max Payne 1. So all the things you think they left out, are probably going to return -- with the exception of the Punchinello family. If they omit the punchinello's how can Lisa/Natasha be beaten by Punchinello? Nor do they ever say she was beaten... they imply she was cut up in the graphic novel. Max makes a quote about how violent it was, and doesn't imply it was done by fists.

Play Max Payne again.... understand the story of the game... before you go saying the movie strayed too much.

Also, where was Vlad and how do you know it was him?
The IMDB listing shows no character by that name (and the cast listing is fairly detailed).

I already in detail explained where and why I know it was vlad.... he was the only Russian in the damned movie.... and yes, he's uncredited -- which further proves my point that it's Vlad. Even the extra's were credited, but no mention of the russian in the read leather/alligator jacket with the 2 henchmen and the black Mercedes. It is a blink and you'll miss it scene, but it's definitely Vladimir Lem, which implies he will be in the second one. Some one needs to pay a little more attention to what he's playing/watching, because you sir... have no concept of the game or movie. In the game, max first see's Vlad driving in a black Mercedes with one of his henchmen driving.

P.S.
If you were confused about Mona, you missed the scene where max first meets Natasha. It's quite evident Mona is connected to some Crime Family, or crime circle rather. She's definitely a henchmen -- and she knew her sister was a **** up... just like in the game. They just didn't introduce the family/boss of the crime ring. More for the second movie. Wake up and pay more attention, that movie was very well explained.

The reviews I see all over the internet say, it had a COHERENT plot. That means completely understandable. They discreditted it because they felt it was cliche, and drawn out/ not enough action/too slow... both for the movie, and the slow mo scenes... yes they picked it apart because the slow mo scenes get SLOWER AND SLOWER. Nobody ever said it was confusing or anything.

Also, important to note, They never explain where Michelle found those files.... infact Max didn't even know she had them.... let alone where she got them from. Also, Woden isn't a real major player till the very end, sure he calls you on a payphone and lets you know the cops are onto you, but you don't fully find out his purpose till the end, so it's very conceivable that his wife did infact get the information from Woden, and that Woden will play a big part in the second movie. You guys need to realize that the whole story of Max Payne 1 was NOT told in the movie, and yes they messed with the chronological order a little bit, so they could have an action packed ending. How many people watched the scene after the credit roll and saw how they are still after Nicole Horne???

[Laokin]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Well, Bon and I saw this last night with a few friends. And honestly, I liked it. I really enjoyed it.

Minus a few little parts I though could've been better, some casting that should've been better (Mila Kunis... ugh, even Ludacris did a better job than her) and the fact that a few parts were obviously edited down to get the PG-13 rating... it was good. Very enjoyable.

I loved seeing familiar locations and references. It's true the story left out a few key characters, but hell... to include every character from the game the movie would've been damn near four to five hours long.
They did what they had to make it work.

As for the complaints about the slow opening, I didn't mind that either. It worked for me. Gave you a chance to feel some sympathy for Max.Plus, it made the ending sequence much better.
Bullet time... I liked how they did it. And I liked that they only used it a few times, had they used it constantly it would've felt even more gimmicky. By only using it a few times it made it seem more intense.

I have been arguing this exact point since the minute I saw the movie.... and whole heartedly agree with you. The way they did the bullet time added more style to the movie, had they gone all out with it -- people would have been saying it's a matrix knock off, this that and the other. Plus Spoiler:

show spoiler

that shotgun bullet dodge scene was off the chain, I loved how when the bullets finally hit him it snapped back to real time and you saw the body fly. Kinda like a mix between the shotgun/sniper rifle in the game, sniper rifle was slow till the bullet hits then snaps right back to real time, and the shotty always sent dudes flying through the air. Well executed IMO.

I really thought the movie was excellent for what it was. Mila didn't do the worst, she didn't have many lines... it's not really that she can't act, as much as it is hard to get passed that real young not mature look she has. Although they fattened her up a little bit, her face was a little more round then normal... so they put in a pretty good effort. She was definitely better than Olyphant from that terrible movie that shouldn't be entitled "Hitman".

As for the slow opening, it really wasn't slow... unless you went in expecting it to be an action movie. The video game was all about the story, the game play could use some extreme tweaks. I wouldn't mind a close combat/disarm move in the game, it rather works for that cinematic effect. I always hated how you couldn't really sneak up on anybody, and I really only use bullet time when it's needed, dodges will get you killed in the hands of an inexperienced player... it's really all about that roll Max gets, ya know the one that lets you dance through a hallway of ingram fire without getting hit once. I feel like that should be taken out, and that a cover system would benefit the game, if and only if they don't go around placing objects that give you tactical advantage. There are plenty of times you could lean against a door, but with the ai being so stupid and the doors working like a bottle neck, it's just to easy.

P.S.
Wait for the Rated-R DVD/Blue Ray release.... this will make the movie better IMO. I'm pretty sure they will put the blood back in, and that scene with Natasha covered up by the sheet.... I'm banking on that sheet not being there.... Oh yeaaaaah. Maybe even we'll have a narative option. Ya know how they have the commentary versions, maybe the special edition with have a Narrative version. Maybe they chose to cut it out of the theater release for fear it might feel too "campy" if you get my drift.

P.S.S.
Vlad was in the movie!

[Damien_Azreal]

Max Payne lead the box office this weekend.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/2...444580000.html

Not a huge gross, but still... at least Max came out first.

[razgriz]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

This is just like the BFG in Doom. There is no logical reason, and no rational explination to change something that was perfectly fine and dandy as GREEN to BLUE.

Guess what? Many of us didnt want to go to the theatre and see an alternate universe. Some of wanted something very simple - Max Payne.

Not an altered Hollywoodised film. Seriously. Doom and Mario had the excuse of the games having very little story. There was no excuse for this to turn out the way it did.

But of course. I'm just a "hater."

I agree with you on all of that.

Shame on you Fox.

They "sugar-coated" the Max Payne storyline in my opinion.

Nice to see Mila Kunis though.

[Che Guevara]

I just saw the film.

I can't say I was disappointed because disappointment implies I had high expectations, which I did not.

I just don't understand why Hollywood finds it SO hard to stay true to the source material when it comes to movies based on games. When Hollywood makes a movie based on a book they stay true to the source material MOST OF TIME. But with game films it just doesn't happen. Is it a legal issue? I just don't understand.

The only game movies I've ever seen that even come close to staying true to the source material are Hitman and Silent Hill. And even then, they only come close. There were still plenty of inconsistencies in both Hitman and Silent Hill.

I would say Max Payne is worth seeing. Just lower your expectations.

[Damien_Azreal]

Originally Posted by Che Guevara

I just don't understand why Hollywood finds it SO hard to stay true to the source material when it comes to movies based on games. When Hollywood makes a movie based on a book they stay true to the source material MOST OF TIME. But with game films it just doesn't happen. Is it a legal issue? I just don't understand.

Because 90% of a game like Max Payne (or Doom) and many other games... is shooting, fighting... straight violence. Which works for a game, because your in control... and it makes you feel involved.

But for a movie, you need a deeper sense of character development, a stronger emotional attachment... so the plot has to be fleshed out more. Which means less gunplay and fighting.

[Che Guevara]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Because 90% of a game like Max Payne (or Doom) and many other games... is shooting, fighting... straight violence. Which works for a game, because your in control... and it makes you feel involved.

But for a movie, you need a deeper sense of character development, a stronger emotional attachment... so the plot has to be fleshed out more. Which means less gunplay and fighting.

I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Max Payne (video game) has more than enough insight into Max Payne's character and amazingly deep dialogue IN ADDITION to plentiful shootouts.

I sincerely believe that if they had taken the script from the game and copied it WORD-FOR-WORD, it would have been an amazing film.

I don't care how much anyone wants justify the changes made in the film. The fact is the movie didn't do the game justice and it encourages Hollywood to keep making video game movies that aren't accurate to the source material in order to cash in on fans going to see the movie with high expectations. You want proof of my claim? Max Payne is # 1 at the box office, which clearly shows that people wanted to see it, and I'm willing to bet that most people who saw it were fans of Max Payne.

[Ajaxx]

Damien, I agree with what you say.......I just don't accept it as a viable reason for why a more faithful adaptation can't be made.

It is true that those action, shooting sequences are essentially "the game", or rather the interactive portions that the player gets to take part in. As such, they need to encompass a large percent of the gaming experience for the game to be enjoyable.

But modern games, espescially ones like Max Payne are also heavily driven by narrative, character and story context.....much like a movie. You're not just dropped in a room full of bad guys to blow away for several minutes without reason. There's a premise behind it. There's a reason for it. There's context. There's story. They're the driving force behind everything you do in the game and are essential parts of a linear story like what you'd see in a movie.

Condense or trim down many of the over-inflated confrontations in a video game, accurately preserve the sequence of events and the context and story behind them and you'll likely end up with a more than acceptable adpatation of the source material to the film medium.

What happens more often than not, though, is that the person(s) behind the adaptation loses sight of what matters most to the fans. It's not just "preserving the look and the feel" as I hear these hacks crow on and on about in their interview commentaries.
"Look and feel" don't amount to a bloody hill of beans when you turn around and make arbitrary changes to essential pieces of the core source material you're supposed to be adapting.
You're just making your own movie done in the style of the one you say you're making. Only, guess what's written on the damned ticket?

Having said all this.....my problem with the Max Payne movie isn't so much that they didn't adapt the source material 100%. It's that the movie they chose to make instead sucked balls all on its own. And I probably would have saved my money and avoided seeing it if they didn't go and put "Max Payne" on the title.

[Ajaxx]

Looks like Che said a lot of what was on my mind before I finshed posting.

[Syph]

Seems like there's a lot of varying opinions on this movie. All the gripes I had with it's inconsistency aside though, I really found the movie to be awful on it's own as a piece of entertainment. And if they really wanted to make a watered down popcorn action flick, why so little action? The story in the game was much better. Why make it worse and then present it in a medium where story is the biggest factor?

[Destructor]

Originally Posted by Ajaxx

What happens more often than not, though, is that the person(s) behind the adaptation loses sight of what matters most to the fans.

Well, Max Payne wasn't made for the fans of the video games. It's more for a general audience of people who probably haven't even heard of the games before.

[Damien_Azreal]

Originally Posted by Che Guevara

I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Max Payne (video game) has more than enough insight into Max Payne's character and amazingly deep dialogue IN ADDITION to plentiful shootouts.

Yes, the game has plenty of story... but all the gameplay is gunplay. And, in a Max movie I don't see constant gunplay and action managing a good film. I've never seen Max as an "action" film.
Max is just as much drama and suspense as it is action.

[Laokin]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Yes, the game has plenty of story... but all the gameplay is gunplay. And, in a Max movie I don't see constant gunplay and action managing a good film. I've never seen Max as an "action" film.
Max is just as much drama and suspense as it is action.

Yeah, I pretty much agree as I have said before -- Max Payne isn't an action movie. Also, nobody has refuted the proof that the story is pretty much completely intact.

*****Update*****

I seem to have been mistaken about the black car when you see Vlad, but I also missed an importance. You see Vlad at 34.28 seconds into the film. Max finishes his conversation with B.B. and starts walking to an alley and he peers over and sees three guys. One guy in the lead, one guy right next to some one who looks very important. These would be the two henchmen -- the guy in the middle would be Vlad. May not be a red jacket, hard to tell my g/f said it might be black. He has his jacket open the other two have them closed, they all looked leather and very well dressed. The man in the middle is bald... like Vlad without his beanie. They weren't just extra's walking down the street as they showed the man in the middle (Vlad) take a quick glance at max, while the front body guard completely grilled him. Then they showed Max's face, which appeared to be staring back at them. They then switched back to the 3 men again, with emphasis, and watched them walk down the street. They spent approximately 15 seconds with the camera focused clearly on these three men that are never seen again in the film. They were walking with body language of power.... like a don't mess with me kind of swagger -- like gangsters. That is all, sorry about the car..... my memory must have filled that in -- I just watched the movie again, just to get a better glimpse at Vlad. I took my cell phone with a stop watch and saved the time.

P.S.
No mention on IMDB about 3 gangsters or mysterious bald man or anything under the credits list. Somebody intentionally left this out, almost like an Easter egg.

[d3ad connection]

Am I weird? I've always expected it to be dramatic, and not full of action.

I'm still going to see it. I tend to like a lot of "crappy" media.

[Unbeholder]

Originally Posted by d3ad connection

Am I weird? I've always expected it to be dramatic, and not full of action.

I'm still going to see it. I tend to like a lot of "crappy" media.

I've always thought of max payne to be have lots of max talking to himself in metaphors, atmospheric visuals and deep dialogue, story line about revenge, and a few key shoot outs, that's my interpretation of Max payne in real life, if that's how the movie is then I'm going to be fine with it.

Just reading from what people have been saying that max does not talk to himself, which I'm a bit puzzled about. How can we hear his metaphors and so on without him talking to himself. I'm intrigued as to how this was handled and if we see that aspect of max in the film.

Anyways those people who say the film is to slow and not enough action is weird. Most people who judge films like these say the exact opposite, to much action. The max payne video game has so much gun fights that it borders on the side of ridiculous, how max can fight through all of that and kill so many, at the same time surviving multiple gun shots and popping a couple pain killers to shake them off.

From what I've heard about the story line the movie is shaping up to be better then I thought, if there are only a few gun fights then that makes me even happier. the movie seems to be more realistic and less of a video game, which is a good thing. I like films with more attention to character development, psychological elements and brains rather then brawn.

PS. I'm a bit sad to hear the film doesn't have any music, but again a good movie that doesn't have to rely on music is better then a good movie that relies on music, so I will keep my judgment on hold until I see the film on DVD

[MegaMustaine]

Originally Posted by Syph

Seems like there's a lot of varying opinions on this movie. All the gripes I had with it's inconsistency aside though, I really found the movie to be awful on it's own as a piece of entertainment. And if they really wanted to make a watered down popcorn action flick, why so little action? The story in the game was much better. Why make it worse and then present it in a medium where story is the biggest factor?

Because unfortunately the director\writer wants the movie to be seen as their work instead of being part of the IP that spawned it. When you think of Max Payne the director\writer want you to think of the movie rather than the source material that spawned the IP, and the best way they can see to do this is to totally differentiate themselves from the source material rather than making a quality film. The movie was piss poor whether you were familiar with the source material or not and the reviews from the media certainly are not refuting this.

Laokin, as far as anyone having to refute whatever the hell you are talking about, I don't think I or anyone else has too. The plot to the movie is much different from the game. It is hard to argue otherwise when you look at how much material was cut, and how much new BS was added. It wasn't like what was cut out was insignificant to the story either. I would rank this up there with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin as far as butchering the source material and adding new BS for no reason at all.

[Unbeholder]

Originally Posted by MegaMustaine

First thing I would like to point out is there really can be only one BOTTOM LINE, and the second is that you should have used there instead of their.


To answer your point about Dexter, common dude!

and third of all Its "come on" not common.

[Ajaxx]

Originally Posted by Destructor

Well, Max Payne wasn't made for the fans of the video games. It's more for a general audience of people who probably haven't even heard of the games before.

There seriously needs to be a moratorium on this kind of short-sighted thinking when it comes to movie making.

I really don't see how taking some select elements from an existing intellectual property with an established fan base and then clumsily juxtaposing them together into an inferior product can possibly be justified as being meant to appeal to a "general audience".

Really, if it's not for the fans, then why even call it "Max Payne"?
Make your own movie, if that's what you really want to do, and call it "John Butthurt"or something. You'll still get your "general audience" that way, I'm sure.

[Morry]

Originally Posted by Laokin

You sir missed a book in Ragnarok, the one about the Norse legends.

My point was that Norse mythos is only one aspect of Lupino's character. His madness caused by excess Valkyr consumption is the issue and wasn't represented in the movie at all. His movie character could have been any mob psycho on the street and not have to have Valkyr associated with him.

In the game, Max simply states that Alex called him and wanted him to meet him at roscoe, right before he died he was about to tell max something.... so your wrong there too.

Game script:

Start of Roscoe Street Station

B.B.: B.B. here... Something urgent has come up with Jack Lupino. You
need to meet with Alex, immediately... at the Roscoe Street
Station.

BB doesn't work for Aesir in the movie lol

What is he doing with an office in the Aesir buildling?

Better then running trough a ridiculous house with red floating lines to walk on lmao.

One of the excellent portrayals of what the effects of Valkyr should have been in the movie. The reason all the junkies in the game are incoherent is because they are likely having similar trips.
That is what the game should have shown, rather than confusing the average cinema-goer in to thinking the movie was turning in to Constantine.

Drinking two vials of Valkyr in one go, especially for someone trying it for the first time would probably result in Max's overdose from the game:
"Slowly, the green nightmare faded, leaving dark stains on my soul that would never come off. I felt like flatlining. I was all shook up. I woke up in a cold sweat, sick and tired to the bone, lying in a puddle of my own puke."

P.S.
If you were confused about Mona, you missed the scene where max first meets Natasha. It's quite evident Mona is connected to some Crime Family, or crime circle rather.

It's evident that they made her speak with a Russian accent, possibly as a ploy to replace Vlad's character. Game Mona is an assassin for hire, used by both Horne and Woden throughout the two games.

Also, important to note, They never explain where Michelle found those files.... infact Max didn't even know she had them.... let alone where she got them from.

Max's overdose reveals an important flashback:
"Michelle: Max, something happened at the office today... A strange memo, something about Vikings..."

Blink and you'll miss it

PS.
Yes, I do recall the three mobsters walking down the street, though weren't they the guys that came in with Mona to the club at the start of the movie?
It works as a bit of foreshadowing, for the keen viewer would know Mona wouldn't be too far away.

[Unbeholder]

Originally Posted by Ajaxx

There seriously needs to be a moratorium on this kind of short-sighted thinking when it comes to movie making.

I really don't see how taking some select elements from an existing intellectual property with an established fan base and then clumsily juxtaposing them together into an inferior product can possibly be justified as being meant to appeal to a "general audience".

That's what everyone said about Hitman, when I saw the film I thought it wasn't bad. When ever you hear a movie to game adaption you know that the words that come up on screen are "based on" its not a 100% perfect translation its "based on" those are the key words right there.

So I guess you really can't blame a game to movie adaption for not being accurate to its source material. As that's not really a factor that determines the overall enjoyment of the film, you got to treat it as a separate entity, standing on its own two feet. If you haven't played the game then obviously that won't be a factor, those who have however will have to adopt a sort of mind set... don't have high expectations, and if there is anything that reminds you of the game, nostalgia will be a added bonus. So you basically will end up enjoying the film more then everyone else because you played the game.

Originally Posted by Ajaxx

Really, if it's not for the fans, then why even call it "Max Payne"?
Make your own movie, if that's what you really want to do, and call it "John Butthurt"or something. You'll still get your "general audience" that way, I'm sure.

Because they have to make money off the Max Payne franchise, its business baby. hollywoods is about making money, from what planet are you from?

Originally Posted by Ajaxx

"John Butthurt"

[Joe Siegler]

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117...goryid=31&cs=1

There's something rare. A "professional" movie reviewer who liked it.

Seems like only gamers are liking it - the pro movie reviewers are toasting it.

[avatar_58]

I don't know what to think. Seems the majority hate it, while a few guys here and there say it's 'okay'. Sounds like something I'll rent once it comes out I guess. I was hoping against all hope this would be the movie to break the whole "video game movies suck" stereotype.

[Damien_Azreal]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

I don't know what to think. Seems the majority hate it, while a few guys here and there say it's 'okay'. Sounds like something I'll rent once it comes out I guess. I was hoping against all hope this would be the movie to break the whole "video game movies suck" stereotype.

I feel it was a rather good film. But, what the hell... I'm just one guy. Most other people seem determined that is sucked.

But, I honestly believe... with some people, the movie would've sucked no matter what. Some people are so defensive about video game IPs they believe there is no way a decent film would ever be made from it.

[Destructor]

Originally Posted by Ajaxx

Really, if it's not for the fans, then why even call it "Max Payne"?
Make your own movie, if that's what you really want to do, and call it "John Butthurt"or something. You'll still get your "general audience" that way, I'm sure.

Well, Max Payne has a good story which is suitable for turning into a film, so that's why they did it. A lot of the stuff from Hollywood isn't original IPs you know, most of the movies are based on books.

[Klaus Kinski]

This sums up some criticism from Scott Miller about the movie.

[ixfd64]

I haven't seen this movie yet, but it seems to be pretty good from what I hear. True, it has received its share of criticism, but that doesn't mean it was bad. After all, it did reach #1 on the box office for a reason!

[Unbeholder]

Originally Posted by Klaus Kinski

This sums up some criticism from Scott Miller about the movie.

em.. Joe Siegler, can you explain this, you said it was a good film. Why is Scott Miller bewildered?

and how do the story changes impact the film? I just want to know if its anything serous.

[WoodenSword]

IMO the movie sucked for many reasons that i have already said....

I was just thinking that even simple things could have improved the movie, such as making Mark look more likely to Max Payne, e.g by wearing the same clothes (look Payne and redemption trailer for example)

[Morry]

Originally Posted by Klaus Kinski

This sums up some criticism from Scott Miller about the movie.

I was under the impression that Scott was fairly involved with production of the movie...?
I appreciate he dislikes the movie's portrayal as much as I do.

[Klaus Kinski]

Originally Posted by Unbeholder

em.. Joe Siegler, can you explain this, you said it was a good film. Why is Scott Miller bewildered?

I'm certainly not a mindreader or Joe himself but the possibility that both men have different tastes and expectations come to mind. No everyone here hates the movie here as well, some think it rocks. I'm sure the same applies for the individual people at 3DR.