Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

DOA: Dead or Alive (2006)

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) - 14/5/2012 7:25:45 AM   

Posts: 654
Joined: 3/4/2012
Yep this is a videogame adaptation alright, if its possible this is even more cheesy and ridiculous than 'Mortal Kombat' and 'Tekken' put together. Based on one of the more weaker 'beat em up's' which is famous for having very realistic boobs on the female fighters. I don't really know anymore as I've never really played this fighter, a poor man's Tekken methinks.

The plot is...well it doesn't really matter does it, like all beat em up adaptations its purely and simply about the fights whilst the plot is meaningless poo and completely incomprehensible. The same can be said for the actual videogames of course but you play them for fun whilst making a pathetic film with bottom of the barrel actors is another inexcusable matter. Anyway just to key you in the plot, surprisingly, is about a group of fighters that are all invited to fight in a tournament set up by a really obvious badguy on a remote island in the middle of an ocean. Hmmm something is a foot perhaps?

Its aimed at kids so as you can guess there is no real fighting whatsoever, its all nice and gentle with no violence or actual hitting in anyway really. I've haven't seen so much lame ass cgi and wire work for some time, couple that with hilariously bad costumes on some characters, close to the bone skimpy outfits on some female characters (that's all good), your usual exotic locations mixed with the ever popular Eastern arenas such as the bamboo forest (again) and the usual mix of cliched unoriginal fighters ('DOA' was a late entry into the beat em up world).

Its all very colourful with lots of flashing digital effects and stupid onscreen videogame type imagery just in case you forgot your watching a shitty videogame adaptation. The most unforgivable issue here though is the fact the fights are so poor and fake looking, the female cast maybe gorgeous and semi famous (Holly Valance) but they can't do the moves and they can't act like they can do the moves.

It may look pretty and shiny but this still manages to rank below most other crappy videogame films because its so dumb and vacant ('MK' and 'Tekken' had some grit at least). Had it come along earlier (like its actual videogame counterpart) then it might have fared slightly better, its still not as bad as 'Street Fighter'.

< Message edited by Phubbs -- 14/5/2012 7:30:55 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) - 14/5/2012 8:30:58 AM   
Russ Whitfield


Posts: 416
Joined: 10/4/2012
I couldn't disagree more. DOA is one of my favourite video game adaptations. It wears its heart on its sleeve, knows that its not supposed to be taking itself seriously and is all great fun. I've seen it loads of times and never tire of it.

The fight choreography isn't as bad as all that: bearing in mind the certification, it was never going to be realistic, bone crunching stuff, elbows snapped the wrong way and iron ridge hands smashing Adam's apples to sauce. I mean, in one of the Jamie Presley fights, she kicks the fella in the head and there's actually the cartoon sound of bird's tweeting to indicate that "he's stunned." Its not the stuff of gritty realism, its the stuff of silly fantasy.

Holly Vallance vs Devon Aioki in an utterly pointless game of beach volleyball? Jamie Presley in a Confederate bikini beating up Robin Shou on a boat. Natassia Malthe as a ninja assassin - with pink hair! And Eric Roberts with an evil plan to download the fighting styles of all the worlds best fighters and sell them to the highest bidder - in the form of a pair of high-tech sunglasses?

Actually, I could just have stopped at Eric Roberts there. The point is - DOA is all about good fun and not taking itself too seriously. That only makes it a bad movie if you were expecting it to be something other that what it clearly states on the tin.


(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 2
RE: DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) - 15/5/2012 4:25:00 AM   

Posts: 654
Joined: 3/4/2012
^ I fully agree with you but here's how I see it.

Yes this film does exactly what it says on the tin, its light fluffy kiddie fun as you would expect but why?

We know these films are simply churned out by Hollywood bigwigs to cash in on the franchises with no thought of quality but merely to make a fast buck whilst the franchise is hot. So yes you can throw out an adaptation of a videogame for the mass audience with low expectations but why not actually try and make something decent, something unique or with a touch of class.

Take Soul Calibur for example, there is no film for this but I'm sure there will be at some point. Now this could be a really good swords n sandals 'Conan' style fantasy, but we all know (even before it exists) that it will probably be a B-movie with trashy cgi and bottom of the barrel actors. Yes you know what to expect and yes it will do what it says on the tin but why even bother making such low grade silliness?

There are many films like this these days, too many, and there are no excuses in my opinion, either make something worth while or simply don't make it. Yes the film is what it is but that doesn't mean its passable, its still garbage, its made worse because the ideas in game are decent enough to maybe make something reasonable good.

This film suffers like 'King of the Fighters', its just a waste of time and didn't need to made at tall, its hard to even say its aimed at kids due to the skimpy females.

(in reply to Russ Whitfield)
Post #: 3
RE: DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) - 15/5/2012 9:31:45 AM   
Russ Whitfield


Posts: 416
Joined: 10/4/2012
Hey Phubbs - Even though I disagree - I agree.

The crux of it is this: "these films are simply churned out by Hollywood bigwigs to cash in on the franchises with no thought of quality but merely to make a fast buck whilst the franchise is hot."

I don't know why there are so few great video adaptations. For the record, I think that both Tomb Raider films are harshly treated, I think they're wonderful movies, full of action, fun and Angelina at the height of her smouldering prowess. I think they are ace films. But are they great adaptations - I'm not sure because I'm not a gamer - and I think there's the rub. The Resident Evil films are hated (not only because of WS) because they really don't have a lot to do with the game (at least in the first outing), but they do fine as movies. I think this new one is the fifth sequel, isn't it. Back with our business heads on, movies don't get sequels if they aren't making money and RE is a bona-fide mammoth franchise. Rambo only had three sequels, and the last of them was twenty years after the second sequel. Rocky managed six - again with a long hiatus. Terminator... the same.

Yet Resident Evil - much to many a film critic's chagrin - rolls around once every two and half-years, delivering exactly what the previous ones delivered. Milla vs Zombies, slo-mo and now, pointless 3D. I'm massive fan of these films, I genuinely rate WS Anderson as a director and story-teller (should that go in the "I'm not afraid to admit..." thread).

Really, I think that the money guys might see a dichotomy here. "Video games are, essentially, dumb. Yet they are popular dumb. We can make a movie for cheap that already has a massive fan base and convert that into cold hard cash. Everyone's a winner."

Except the fan of the game, I guess, but on the other hand, the fan of the game will always have his or her own vision of exactly what Resident Evil or Soul Calibre should be on screen. And that vision has very little chance of matching the director's vision.

But, here's a question maybe they ask themselves. "Is there any point making a (for want of a better word) artistic video game adaptation?" Or maybe a worthy one. I'm not at all a gamer, so its not a question I can answer.


(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 4
RE: DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) - 16/5/2012 4:15:56 AM   

Posts: 654
Joined: 3/4/2012
I think anything deserves to be the best it can be, if your just gonna make a half hearted attempt then why bother in the first place?

This is what I don't like about these type of films, I believe they are just fast food films with no love, its obvious they will fall into obscurity and never be seen or heard of again once released. Most hardcore fans won't enjoy and most general movie goers won't enjoy because its so poor so who is it aimed at? and why even make it unless your gonna try and do something with it?.

There's nothing wrong with this film but it could have been a short 10min internet episode or mini series of shorts at about 5min each, that would of been much more acceptable (like the recent 'Mortal Kombat' net series). The film just wasn't needed and is basically rubbish (in my opinion), thing is they kinda take it seriously also!.

(in reply to Russ Whitfield)
Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> DOA: Dead or Alive (2006) Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI