As many of you will already know, 20th Century Fox are due to release a film based on the popular Hitman series of computer games at the end of November. I have been aware of this film for some time, and I am also pretty familiar the computer game series itself. Therefore, like a lot of computer game users, I know what appeals about a particular concept or franchise. But what disturbs me is reading reports that Fox have sent the final cut of Hitman back for editing. Rumour has it that director Xavier Gens's submitted cut would have garnered a harsh R-rating, whereas Fox wanted the film to be assigned the far less restrictive PG-13 rating. This is of course just a rumour, in fact, the MPAA have not rated Hitman yet. But it leans on an issue I have been pondering for some time, mainly whether film adaptations of computer games are almost destined to be bad.

Of course, even by doing something as simple as looking at the evidence, my case doesn't get off to the best of starts. For example, the diabolical 1994 version of Street Fighter (starring noted thespians Jean-Claude Van Damme and Kylie Minogue), seems to exist solely to undermine the argument that films based on computer games can ever be any good. Just last year we saw DOA: Dead or Alive, which was little more than bad computer graphics and suggestive nudity. 1995 saw Mortal Kombat come to the cinema with some impressive fight choreography, but with a bargain basement cast and mediocre production values as well. Its 1997 sequel, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, is perhaps the worst game to film rendering ever to exist.

But there is something very similar about all of these films that needs to be taken into consideration. All of them are based on games that are little more than punch-em-ups. How can you expect to make a film work when the characters within it are defined by three lines of biography in an instruction manual? Similarly, all these games offer near identical plots; a fighting championship is happening somewhere in the world, and various fighters go to participate in it. That's pretty much all they have. The difficulty for film-makers is that if they insert too much extraneous background or information then the end product will bear almost no resemblance to the original game. So what they tend to come up with is minimal, insufficient, and generally pretty bad too.

Of course some games do have a degree of plot. While the Tomb Raider films weren't very good (though I never thought the first was as bad as everyone said it was), the film-makers had a decent character and some interesting storylines to play with. They just didn't do it properly. Even the Resident Evil games had enough plot to make a film work, but in its case the execution was just poor. And I happen to think that Hitman has the potential to be a decent bit of entertainment, providing what makes the game work is transcribed into the film.

The Hitman games have a solid enough plot, and the character of Agent 47 is relatively interesting. Over course of the game series the story has been added to bit by bit, and I really think there is enough there for a film to feed off. But what worries me is whether or not the film can successfully adapt the strengths of the game series onto the silver screen, and this ties in with my concern about the rumoured editing. The Hitman games are violent, and they should be. Assassination is an inherently violent and brutal act, and as I gaze over to the Hitman: Blood Money box on the shelf behind me, I rightly see an 18 certificate on the box.

However, if Fox want to take the violence away then there is little point in making the film at all. When you play a game like Hitman, your reward for being good at it is that you get to kill the target of the mission. If you censor this process in any way, the game would be hugely infuriating. Imagine playing a level for two hours, skilfully avoiding detection, and then getting a cutscene focusing on an apple on a table instead of being able to kill the guy you've been after. Games like Hitman rely on the thrill of the hunt, the satisfaction that comes with ending it properly, and the always present danger the main character is in. Of course these sensations aren't for everyone, but the fact is that if you remove the tension, the style and the violence from a Hitman film, all you're left with is a moody bald guy and some badly edited shots of him firing a gun. I also think it's rather questionable to try to sell a film about a contract killer to a younger audience. The games might be violent, but that in turn stops very young people from buying them. The violence justifies the high certificates, but the high certificates justify the violence in turn. The subject matter of the games makes them suitable for older people, so the content of the games reflects that.

There are many, many games that should never be turned into a film. A few months ago I read about a possible film version of The Sims, and for the life of me I cannot contemplate how that could actually work at all. But there is also a degree of snobbery regarding computer games; one that automatically assumes that they won't translate well to film, and that they shouldn't be considered art in their own right. Take, for example, the Elder Scrolls series of games. When combined, these games quite possibly have more internal lore than the Lord of the Rings books/films. They exist within their own intricately constructed world, and have more plot and background than most fantasy films could ever hope for. I wouldn't put Hitman into this category of storyline complexity, but I think providing the film makes use of what the games had to offer there is no reason why it shouldn't be more than acceptable.

© David Mercier
Discuss films and features on the FilmJudge Blog