3 out of 5

Director: Uwe Boll

Part of the benefit to watching tons of movies is that you get to evaluate them on their own terms instead of first impressions. The latter is, I suppose, more important, so first impressions of Far Cry will be primarily ambivalent for many, assuming you already arent negative on Uwe Boll, which most reviewers are. But then thats not a first impression either, is it? Far Cry is a movie made from a video game, but its tougher to spot than most – though theres a sci-fi plot concerning a doctor conducting medical experiments to create super soldiers, the presentation and story is a lot less ostentatious than most v.g. movies. However, it retains a unique flavor of the same – that there are no real subplots, and that every line of the movie is very utilitarian in that its only character flavoring or relating directly to the storyline. So, first-time movie watcher: you shrug. The action here is well shot and fun but nothing insanely awesome, and the same goes for the characters and stories. But is it HORRIBLE? No, not at all. Uwe wouldve passed under the radar had his films not had theatrical releases. These are better made and better balanced (between cheese and action and silliness) than most DTV films, with excellent commodity of budget (Uwe knows how to spend his film money practically, it seems to get some nice wide shots of good locations and focus on good sests). The acting is bad, but as Uwe continues, I wonder if the acting is bad because hes directing his second language… the emotions are intact, but the worded pacing isnt. Even the Americans sound like theyre reading a foreign script. But again, my appreciation of this is in evaluating Uwes films against themselves. Far Cry is leaps and bounds beyond House of the Dead. As a movie? Its okay.