Tom Holland is Nathan Drake ... Tom Holland is Nathan Drake ... Tom Holland is Nath- ... No matter how many times I repeat it, I will never believe it. Add to that the fact that anyone who has seen the film can attest to: Tom Holland is Tom Holland.

Let's backtrack a little bit as I don't wish to bash the film over the head for its casting choices this early – let's deal with that topic a little further down – and bring the subject back around to adaptations. Video game adaptations, to be specific.

A cursed genre

From "Tomb Raider" to "Warcraft," there have been a slew of films based on video games over the last couple of decades – these are not uncharted waters – yet none have seemingly mastered the art of making that translation from the gamepad to the big screen successfully.

"Mortal Kombat" – no, the older one – was a great laugh when it tried to be grave; "Tomb Raider" – no, the older one – was silly when it tried to be serious and that was despite its ideal casting – Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft is as perfect as it gets. All the rest fell in on a spectrum between the likes of these: so bad it's comedic, or not too bad but taking itself too seriously.

Then there have been the likes of "Resident Evil" of course, but the less said about that series the better, I believe.

However, particularly in the last couple of years, video game adaptations have shown promise. The new "Tomb Raider" was not half bad. It just needed a better script. "Sonic the Hedgehog" was actually funny when it meant to be funny. "Warcraft" was honestly good I believe – at least not bad – but it just failed to grab audiences.

The funny thing is this: The relationship between video games and movies is a double-edged curse. Just as film adaptations of video games for the large part have been woeful, on the flip side of the coin, video games based on films for the most part have been awful. It seems neither side knows how to do a good job in the other one's world, yet both seem eager to continue trying.

Grab the popcorn

Now, after just a little background, where does "Uncharted" fall on the spectrum of adaptations? Depends on what you're looking for in adaptations. Let's start by looking at it solely as a film.

Based on the exclusive PlayStation video game franchise, "Uncharted" starts out following a young, relatively inexperienced Nathan Drake, bartending and pickpocketing his way through London when out comes Victor "Sully" Sullivan, who tries to recruit Drake to help him recover a 500-year-old lost fortune amassed by explorer Ferdinand Magellan in an adventurous treasure hunt.

There is some back-and-forth, first Drake rejects, then he accepts and so begins a globe-trotting, white-knuckle race to reach the prize before the ruthless Santiago Moncada can get his hands on the treasure.

At face value – when any keywords like "adaptation" are ignored – "Uncharted" stands at the upper percentiles of mediocrity. It is heavily influenced by its predecessors in the genre of treasure hunt movies. "Indiana Jones" springs to mind a few times.

More notably maybe, Nicolas Cage's enjoyable flick "National Treasure" takes the cake of "that reminds me of" moments. That is intriguing when considering that the game franchise itself was heavily influenced by "National Treasure" and the likes. So, now the film feels much further removed from the original, resembling more of an imitation of an imitation.

All of this is not to berate the film, mediocre does not necessarily mean inferior, unoriginal does not necessarily mean unenjoyable. There are plenty of films that are not worthy of high praise and awards but are pretty fun to watch nonetheless. "Uncharted" is one such film. It is one for the popcorn.

The action scenes are over-the-top – certainly "Fast and Furious"-esque at times – but are well-shot, well-choreographed and well-executed. The framing of action is crisp and clean for most of the time. The plot is not overly convoluted, and the acting is adequate. One particular scene in the air, while completely breaking the suspension of disbelief, is quite something to watch on the big screen.

Adaptation, you say?

Where things fall apart depends on what you expect to get out of the film. If you want a treasure-hunt action-adventure movie, you will certainly get one, and a relatively enjoyable one at that. However, if you are looking for an adaptation of the "Uncharted" video game franchise, this is sure to disappoint, and for me, it all comes down to casting.

Tom Holland is not Nathan Drake. Plain and simple. Mark Wahlberg is not Sully. This is not Uncharted.

Although these actors are fine it proves that no matter your level of talent, sometimes you may just not be right for the role. Holland feels like an opportunistic casting, rather than someone who was thought to be good for the role.

The studio seems to have wanted to jump on Holland's huge success and popularity with the "Spider-Man" films as the franchise's titular superhero, hoping to cash in on that. Holland's quips and jokes do not feel like Drake, they feel like Spider-Man, they feel like Holland. Don't even get me started on Wahlberg. Wahlberg plays what Wahlberg always plays. This is not Sully we're watching, but another Wahlberg character.

So, "Uncharted" comes down to this: As a movie it succeeds in mediocrity, but what good is an adaptation when you have failed at adapting your two main characters?