Movie adaptations are hardly new; derived from books, plays, comic books, and even board games, they have long been part of cinematic history.

But when it comes to adapting video games for the big screen, Hollywood seems to have a problem. While a select few have been well-received by critics and audiences, the overwhelming majority disappear from cinemas without a trace.

Then there’s the odd game-themed film that is so insulting to the senses, it becomes an infamous legend in its own right (see: “Super Mario Bros”, 1993).

Now audiences can be treated to the Tom Holland starrer “Uncharted”, based on the Sony video game series of the same name, which follows the adventures of swashbuckling treasure hunter Nathan Drake.

Apparently, plans for a big-screen adaptation were set in motion back in 2008, but the project all but disappeared into production hell, languishing in Sony’s basement for years.

Really, for it to have even seen the light of day and not be terrible is, in and of itself, an achievement.

Drake is played by none other than Holland, who was last seen swinging through the streets of New York in “Spider-Man: No Way Home” (still dominating the US box office even as “Uncharted” debuted at No. 1).

A bartender and part-time pickpocket, he catches the eye of a treasure hunter named Victor “Sully” Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg), who recruits him for an expedition.

Sully further lures Nathan with information about the young Drake’s long-lost older brother Sam, whom Sully claims to have worked with before.

Eager to know more – and to earn a fortune – Drake agrees, and is promptly pulled into a dangerous game where no one can be trusted and everyone is in it for themselves.

At the end of the day, “Uncharted” largely depends on Holland’s likeability and charisma. The story being so generic, one has to credit the 25-year-old for giving his best to a film that really does not deserve his calibre.

Pacing-wise, the events that unfold might be a little rushed for some. Not enough time is given for character development, resulting in protagonists and antagonists who come across as shallow.

Indeed, the movie would have benefited from more interactions between Drake and Sullivan, as most of their shared screen time is spent bickering over trust issues.

And speaking of Sully, Wahlberg could have spent more time emoting, instead of looking perpetually annoyed throughout the film.

Meanwhile, it wouldn’t be much of a video-game film if there weren’t any high-speed action sequences. While the use of greenscreen is excessive, it’s probably forgivable in the age of Covid-19.

“Uncharted” does begin on an exciting note, with Drake hanging on for dear life as he is dragged from cargo crates dangling from an airborne plane. But events come to a screeching halt as he explains how he ended up in that precarious situation.

Exposition is probably the film’s greatest flaw, as it goes on and on explaining unseen events that could easily have been integrated into the story. Show, don’t tell, dang it!

So, is “Uncharted” worth your while? It depends. If you liked the silly but fun “National Treasure” (2004), you will probably find this to be up your alley, even without Nicolas Cage’s lunacy.

In truth, “Uncharted” isn’t a masterpiece, but it isn’t offensive, either. Most importantly, it doesn’t stray away from the spirit of adventure inherent in the source material, which makes it worthy enough for viewers who wish to spend a mindlessly entertaining couple of hours at the cinema.

‘Uncharted’ is currently playing in theatres nationwide.