Game*Spark Review: “Street Fighter: The Movie”—Why Live-Action “Street Fighter” Fails; Game-Like Look, Weak Script Make a Flop!!

The “Street Fighter” series enjoys worldwide popularity as a landmark in the fighting game genre. However, it’s fair to say that its live-action film adaptations to date have not exactly been successful.

Both the 1994 film *Street Fighter*, starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, and the 2009 film *Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li* received harsh criticism from fans of the original games.That said, the 1994 version achieved a certain degree of box-office success and is still beloved as a cult classic today, so it cannot simply be dismissed as a failure. Even so, it is rarely cited as a successful example of a video game live-action adaptation.

To begin with, there are surprisingly few live-action adaptations of fighting games. “Tekken” was adapted into a live-action film in 2010, and in 2014, its prequel, “Tekken: Kazuya’s Revenge,” starring Kane Kosugi, was also produced.There are others, such as *Dead or Alive* (2006) and the quietly released *The King of Fighters* (2010), but it’s hard to say any of them were major successes; they all inevitably give off the vibe of B-grade, underground action movies.

Meanwhile, there have also been past proposals for a live-action film adaptation of *Virtua Fighter*. Given the recent attention on the partnership between Netflix and Sega, it’s possible such a project could materialize in the future, but as of now, no concrete plans for a film adaptation have been finalized.

Looking back, the only relatively successful live-action adaptations of fighting games that come to mind are the 1995 and 2021 versions of *Mortal Kombat*. That said, neither film received exceptionally high critical acclaim, so it’s important to distinguish between commercial success and artistic merit.

So, why do fighting games seem to be a poor fit for live-action adaptations?

One reason is that the appeal of fighting games does not necessarily lie in the story itself. Distinctive characters, special moves, the strategic back-and-forth during battles, and the thrill players experience when controlling the characters themselves—these are elements that work precisely because they’re part of a video game, and the moment they’re adapted into a movie, it can become difficult to fully recreate that appeal.

Furthermore, attempting to feature as many popular characters as possible requires creating a spotlight moment for each one, which can easily lead to a disjointed narrative. This latest “Street Fighter” film was precisely a work plagued by such issues.

In this article, based on a preview screening of the dubbed version, we present Game*Spark’s review of “Street Fighter: The Movie.” We were invited by Towa Pictures to attend the screening.

More than 30 years since the 1994 version—what has changed in live-action adaptations?

When discussing this film, it’s important to first look back at how past live-action adaptations have approached the original game.

The 1994 version was reimagined as an action movie centered on Guile—played by Van Damme—and his battle against a military organization led by Vega. Although Ryu and Ken also appeared, they were merely part of an ensemble cast and were treated differently from their central roles in the game.

Additionally, the animated series *Street Fighter USA*, produced based on the same film’s setting, depicted the exploits of a hero team centered on Guile, with characters like Ryu and Ken also given their own distinct roles.

This anime is an interesting work in that it inherited the worldview of the live-action film while actively incorporating the outlandish settings and characters unique to the video game. Special moves and superhuman action sequences—which are difficult to portray in live-action—were likely made possible through the medium of animation.

Later, in the 2009 film *Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li*, the focus shifted to Chun-Li as the protagonist, marking a shift toward a relatively realistic crime action film.

In other words, previous Hollywood live-action films did not simply adapt the game’s outlandish worldview as-is; instead, they significantly altered the setting and character designs to make them work as films. In their pursuit of realism, there was a tendency to avoid the eccentric designs unique to the games.

However, that approach is about to undergo a major shift.

We’ve come full circle and returned to the game’s design

The most distinctive feature of this live-action adaptation is that the characters’ visuals are more faithful to the video game versions than ever before.

From Guile’s spiky hair to the rest of the cast, the characters’ appearances look as if they’ve been transported directly from the game into the real world. The individual cast choices are also incredibly compelling; so much effort went into the casting that it’s hard to imagine anyone more suited for these roles. For fans of the original, there’s a certain “set-up-and-payoff” humor—the kind that makes you smile the moment a character appears.

However, despite the excellent casting, the film ultimately ends up being little more than a showcase of the characters’ physical likenesses. Because the film tries to give every character—even those who don’t seem strictly necessary to the story—their own moment to shine, the whole thing ends up feeling unnecessarily cluttered.

While some plot developments make sense if you have some familiarity with the original characters, for viewers with absolutely no prior knowledge, there are quite a few characters whose motivations remain a mystery.

Moreover, just because the appearance is faithful doesn’t mean the character’s inner world or backstory is as well.

Take, for example, Blanka, played by Jason Momoa. In the 1994 version, he appeared as Charlie—that is, Nash from the Japanese version of the game—who had been genetically modified through human experimentation. This time, the story adopts the premise that he was captured by Shadaloo and is being used as a test subject, but in either case, it does not directly replicate the game’s original backstory.

The same goes for Guile. While his appearance is straight out of the game, his speech and behavior have been given quite a unique twist.

For example, he overreacts when he sees Balrog, calling him a “sexy guy,” and in a scene where he yells at Dan, he gets his face so close that it looks like he might kiss him. Dan himself seems taken aback by this, and it appears as though Guile’s character has been given a somewhat queer nuance (though this might be an original element of the dubbed version).

Of course, we can’t definitively determine his sexual orientation based on this alone, but it’s certainly true that he’s portrayed as a humorous character—one who differs from the traditional image of Guile.

As for Vega, he’s no longer portrayed as a dignified leader of the forces of evil; rather than focusing on his Psycho Power, the film emphasizes his exaggerated expressions—such as rolling his eyes at every little thing—and behavior that borders on the perverse. While the 1994 version also had its goofy moments, they weren’t portrayed as over-the-top as they are in this film.

Looking at these character changes, it begins to seem as though this movie isn’t aiming to faithfully recreate the original’s worldview, but rather to serve as a kind of comedy sketch featuring the game’s characters.

However, the question that arises here is whether simply staying true to the game’s visual appearance is enough to count as a faithful recreation of the original work.

In the live-action film, they prioritized realism and changed the designs of the main characters themselves. In contrast, this time, instead of faithfully recreating the game’s visuals, they’ve boldly altered the characters’ personalities and backstories.

In other words, while the two approaches appear to be polar opposites, the fact remains that both significantly alter the source material.

That said, not everything is a failure. In particular, Dan’s performance—which exceeded expectations—was one of the few positive aspects of this film.

This is the first Hollywood live-action theatrical film to center on Ryu and Ken

What sets this film apart from past live-action adaptations is that it places Ryu and Ken at the center of the story. Until now, there had never been an opportunity to fully explore the relationship between Ryu and Ken—who are essentially the faces of the game—in a full-scale Hollywood theatrical film.

That said, there is “Street Fighter: Assassination Fist,” a web series produced in 2014, an edited version of which received a limited release in some countries. That series delved into Ryu and Ken’s training days and their relationship with their master, and it garnered some acclaim as a live-action work that respected the game’s lore.

In this new film, in addition to the relationship between Ryu and Ken, the “Hado of Murderous Intent” is incorporated as a key element of the story.

The “Kill Intent” is not merely a special move or a superhuman ability; it is a crucial element tied to Ryu’s own spirituality and the dangers inherent in the pursuit of strength. Centering the story around this concept is an interesting attempt in the context of live-action adaptations of fighting games, particularly in terms of depicting the characters’ inner conflicts.

Furthermore, the plot development in which Ken plays a major role in the battle against Gouki felt somewhat reminiscent of “Street Fighter USA.”

Of course, it’s not clear whether this is a direct homage. However, for audiences familiar with the 1994 live-action film and its spin-off anime series, there are scenes where they can spot similarities between the two, and it was evident throughout the film that the 1994 version was very much on the filmmakers’ minds.

The screenplay has its flaws. This isn’t *Bayside Shakedown*, after all.

The biggest problem with this film lies not so much in the changes to the character designs as in the screenplay itself.

Although Ryu and Ken are at the center of the story, episodes involving Chun-Li, Guile, and characters associated with Shadaloo are inserted one after another, causing the narrative to lack a clear focus.

As for Chun-Li, the film follows the familiar series setup: her father was killed by Vega, and she works as an Interpol agent driven by a desire for revenge. However, the way this is handled is quite sloppy.

Despite having a clear motive—revenge—her actions are riddled with inconsistencies; it even seems as though she’s deliberately taking roundabout actions not so much to advance the plot as to pad out the film’s runtime.

The same goes for the other characters; even though each of them is supposed to be acting with some kind of purpose, the actual story just doesn’t seem to move forward.

Each individual scene does have its own entertaining moments. There are plenty of witty exchanges between characters and inside jokes that only fans of the game will appreciate, including a completely baffling scene where Ryu makes ramen using pigeon broth.

Taken on their own, these scenes aren’t without their charm as lighthearted shenanigans. However, it’s highly questionable whether they’re organically connected as part of a single film.

I apologize for using this as an example, but it feels like a brute-force effort—a haphazard collection of episodes the filmmakers simply wanted to include, forced together without much thought—that reminds me of the currently in-theaters *Bayside Shakedown N.E.W.: Run Through Metropolis!*.It wouldn’t surprise me if Katsuyuki Motohiro had directed this—the entertainment value of individual scenes takes precedence, sacrificing the film’s overall rhythm.

Moreover, despite packing in so many episodes, the story makes surprisingly little progress. Just when you think the real action is finally about to begin, the film unexpectedly comes to an end.

This feeling is reminiscent of the 2009 film “DRAGONBALL EVOLUTION.” While it features famous characters and settings from the original work, it fails to make full use of them, ending before the story ever really gets going.

It may be structured with a sequel in mind, but when viewed as a standalone film, it leaves the viewer feeling thoroughly unsatisfied.

Do the animated flashback scenes highlight the limitations of live-action adaptations?

In this film, some of the flashback scenes are rendered in animation. Although this creative choice had been revealed in advance, upon actually watching the film, I was surprised by just how many animated sequences there were—far more than I had anticipated.

Incorporating animation into a live-action film is by no means an uncommon technique. It can be an effective directorial choice for expanding the range of expression or visualizing events that are difficult to depict with live action.

However, the animation in this film gives the strong impression that we’re being shown bonus footage from a video game or supplementary cutscenes from a story mode, rather than something crafted to achieve visual perfection as a theatrical feature film.

Of course, it’s possible that game-like elements were intentionally incorporated, but it’s questionable whether they harmonize sufficiently with the film’s overall direction.

What particularly stood out to me was the fact that characters like Sagat and Gouken were rendered using animation.

This makes one suspect that animation was used to avoid the production burdens—such as casting, special makeup, and CGI—involved in bringing these characters to life in live-action.

Of course, the actual production intent is unknown, and we cannot definitively conclude that it was simply a budget issue. However, precisely because this film touts the recreation of the game’s world in live-action as a major selling point, there’s a certain contradiction in entrusting key settings and characters to animation.

As a result, there are moments when it becomes unclear whether you’re watching a live-action movie or playing through a game’s story mode.

Seriously… are they even going to make a sequel?

Ultimately, while this “Street Fighter” movie may be a dud as a film, it’s still reasonably entertaining if you watch it as a silly, lighthearted comedy. You might find it more understandable once you realize it was directed by the guy behind “The Bad Trip.”

That said, there’s a certain charm simply in seeing the game’s characters appear in the live-action world exactly as they are, and for audiences familiar with the source material, there are plenty of moments where the subtle references and interactions between characters will have you laughing.

However, that doesn’t necessarily mean the film is entertaining as a movie in its own right.

In this film, simply bringing the characters to life becomes the goal in itself, and the story—what the film actually aims to convey through those characters—is remarkably weak.

The 1994 version strayed significantly from the original game in its eagerness to adapt it into a film. This new film, on the other hand, is so fixated on faithfully recreating the game’s visual style that the film’s overall quality as a cinematic work has been neglected.

In that sense, while the two films are contrasting, they could be said to share the same problem.

Furthermore, since this film ends just as the story is really getting started, unless a sequel is produced, it will leave only the impression of being an incomplete work on its own. A sequel might resolve this issue, but unless production moves at a rapid pace, it won’t be able to fully make up for it.

Of course, for fans of the original series, there’s the excitement of seeing how characters who haven’t appeared yet will be brought to life in live-action. However, if that’s all there is to it, the movie ultimately becomes nothing more than a series of one-off gags featuring characters who appear one after another.

While the film touts its fidelity to the game, the character designs have been drastically altered, and the story lacks cohesion. This very imbalance may be the defining characteristic of this “Street Fighter” movie.

History has proven that live-action adaptations of fighting games are difficult. However, to overcome this challenge, what’s needed isn’t how faithfully the game’s characters are recreated, but rather a more fundamental question: what story will the film tell using these characters?

In terms of recreating the game’s visuals, this film might be considered a milestone. However, as a movie, it feels as though we’ve gone back to square one. We’ve come full circle and returned to the game, but as a film—the very thing that matters most—we haven’t made any progress at all.

Incidentally, this review is based on the dubbed version; however, as with *Beast Wars: Transformers*, there’s a possibility that the dubbed version features a more lighthearted, playful take, so the subtitled version might leave a different impression. With that in mind, I plan to give it another try after it’s released.