Here is what happens in the reviewing section: we have two factions (no pun intended with the Horde and the Alliance, but why not) of opinionated viewers, die-hard fans who have played WarCraft, and unrelated audience who were drawn because of the heavy advertising.
I belong to the first faction, yet I will try to be as objective as possible. Before my review, I want to mention that the argument of "You have not played the game, thus you are not entitled to an opinion" is terse at best. Blizzard, as we all know, is a video gaming company and they have spread their wings to film-making as well; why not, given that the cinematic trailers of their games are AAA quality. Although I feel compelled to actually use the previous argument against someone saying "it was a very mediocre movie", I am at the same time overwhelmed with rationality: Why do you have to be familiar with the game, in order to appreciate this movie?
Blizzard's responsibility, after having decided to take a stout venture in producing an actual film adaptation, was to immerse viewers in a world they have so elegantly and meticulously created. As with other movies, we do not need background story to acquaint ourselves with the movie's plot. That said, they should have found ways, given the abundance in narrative techniques, to bring naive viewers to a similar level of cognizance. Failure to do so implies that the narrative was mismanaged. I concede, the written story was far more inspiring than its audiovisual counterpart.
One of the first things you witness as a player in WarCraft is the insatiable loathing of humans against the orcs and vice versa. This part felt extremely rushed and undefined in the movie. The pace was so prematurely overtaken by the wicked and demigod Gul'dan, that before you know that humans are natural enemies of the orcs, you get to see them forming an alliance. This movie was destined to be an introduction to this universe - and it should intrinsically entail demonstration of races occupying the world, their relationship and some cultural idiosyncrasies. The narration could have been embellished with a voice actor (the actual game has many good ones to date), while a crow was navigating through the settlements, which would foreshadow the appearance of Medivh (something that we, as fans, would originally spot).
It was pretty clear that humans thought of orcs being beastly, but we got to see a very emotional Durotan which inadvertently coalesced into a humane version of an orc - yet he was still mistreated by the humans with reluctance. I might suggest that the conspicuous humanity is linked to the World of Warcraft game (my arguments concomitantly enter this realm), where players can also create orcs and thus identify with them. However, I am not sure if they should assemble human-like traits; if the director and/or writer wanted to instill empathy to the viewer, they could have achieved it by giving focus on the iniquitousness of the imminent events, not by turning naturally brutal warriors into weaklings. It is not explained why orcs, who grow in a society of the same standards, and are bound to obey their authoritative commanders like sheep, have such a deviating behavior. Thus, the fight taking place in the end, between Durotan and Gul'dan, was admittedly belated, for a sadistic and forcible ruler like Gul'dan.
Additionally, the voice overs were a huge disappointment. The voices of the orcs were very distorted and by no means reflecting the typical voices in the game. The game voices were much easier to understand and they did not sound like their pitch was exaggeratedly decreased by 20dB. They had a natural husky and roaring tone.
As for the acting, I did find it to be weak. It was Hollywood acting (and yes, this is derogatory): exaggerated facial expressions, overly dramatic tone with slow head motion, know-it-all attitude and shocking bravery (because let us recycle the stereotype that men are fearless). The actor who played Medivh felt completely out of place. His body- type would fit a barbarian or a warrior more than a wizard (we all know how wizards appear skinny or under-built in video games). Plus, I dare wonder, why did they choose a blond actor? I have not seen any depiction of the character with blond hair. Finally, Medivh looked more oblivious in the movie than a mysterious wizard (something that was easily pulled off by Dumbledore in Harry Potter, for example). It partially makes sense, as he was corrupted from within but the viewer was let known at a later stage, as a plot twist. It does not, however, give justice to the incarnation of the character on the big screen.
I will cast aside the fact that I have played the game. As a movie, it was entertaining, but it was not what I had envisioned. The only commendable part for me, the potential source of its entertaining value, was the CGI. I could never get enough of the spell-casting. Gul'dan was perfectly portrayed, very intimidating and demonic. I am also glad that certain "eggs" lied there for the fans: e.g. a Murloc standing in the middle of the river or Draenei used as prisoners. However, this is the problem; someone who is not familiar with the game will not discern and decipher these details. These exact details are what constitute this universe and make it so unique. Draenei, Elves, Dwarves and other races made appearance, so that the viewer takes a glimpse of the forthcoming story in the sequel, but they are all redundant when they are not given enough focus. Plus, the assemblage of different races to make decisions on their role in the war, did ring a huge Lord of the Rings bell. However, Lord of the Rings achieved a better reconstruction, because racial conflicts were uncovered throughout. Warcraft's assemblage, on the other hand, was very generic, purposeless, and lasted what, one minute?
I am not sure how naive viewers are expected to keep up and appreciate the glory, imagery and richness of this world, when they are bombarded with visual stimuli of little importance. Indeed, many critics have -provocatively to the fans, but not necessarily wrongfully- mentioned that all the backstory appears to be too generic; one has actually proposed a renaming of Azeroth to "Generia". My heart crumbled in view of this statement and in realization of its validity.
In my opinion, the movie did not feel like the game. I have seen others stating that they had tears in their eyes because of the consistent resemblance to the game. Unfortunately, I did not have this feeling with respect to the nostalgia - it did not even manage to echo the magnificence of the game's cinematic trailers or even the in-game cut-scenes. Taking an example from WarCraft III (should still be representative of its predecessors), you would hear Maiev say "There's no telling what Gul'dan and his lackeys awoke in this foul place. We must be cautious." or Drak'Thul "Nearly twenty years ago, the great warlock Gul'dan raised these islands from the deeps. He sought to unearth an ancient vault that held the remains of the Dark Titan." and these simple sentences are powerful enough to make you succumb into unsolicited visual imagery. You want to know more about what they are saying, what they know and what they imply - they are enigmatic. The lines of the movie were vague and generic. There was no mystery, just some very powerful wizard, who is able to invoke walls of lightning for a surprisingly and unprecedentedly long time, yet he was unable to resist the Fel.
We also see Anduin Lothar ride a gryphon. Why was this creature objectified like a generic rideable animal - it makes little sense to see plentiful content without an explanation, as many critics pointed out. One of them stated that it felt like certain scenes were cut or never shot. Indeed, the transition between the scenes was so abrupt, that I had a second-hand embarrassment on behalf of the production team. Non-fans can surely understand that fantasy encompasses cliche creature design, inevitably recycled across fictional worlds. My point is, they lack character - everything in WarCraft has been given a meaning, yet the film only dismantled their visual depiction and not their importance of a role in this universe. What is going to happen when dragons are introduced? Naive viewers will automatically compare them to the most memorable, in recent memory, equivalents: dragons from Game of Thrones. Will WarCraft dragons stand a chance against the belittling of such a comparison?
My review is negative - I get it. This, however does not come from ostensible spite or ostentatious, self-proclaimed experience in criticizing films. It comes from a fan who expected more from a perpetually perfectionist Blizzard.
