Some news was announced recently that 2006's video game adapation and horror film "Silent Hill" is getting a sequel. This news, coupled with the chilly reception that Zack Snyder received for "Sucker Punch" got me thinking about how a product gets judged, particularly between the general public and fans of original source material if it does exist. The short answer is there is no dichotomy--some are just louder than others. The longer answer needs some background.
"Silent Hill" adapts the first video game in the series pretty much carte blanche. The protagonist's gender is changed (you are a dad in the game) and the nature of the cult controling the town is also changed, and in my experience, makes a little bit more sense than the video game version. (This might be a product of the way the first game was designed--you can play through the entire game and depending on the amount of exploration done you can miss an entire sub plot that helps with what's ultimately going on). Elements of the second game in the series are echoed in the movie in the husband searching for his lost wife. (And if I'd been a successful screenwriter in LA at the time I would have told my agent that I could pitch Silent Hill 2 right now!) The third game in the series will be the basis for the upcoming sequel. (A teenage girl discovering who she really is when she goes to Silent Hill).
For the film, however, Director Christophe Gans succeeded in conveying all the atmosphere and terror of the original game and in my mind, gave us not only a great horror film but probably the best adaptation of a video game yet made. It does this by giving us a complete story within the movie that requires no knowledge of the game. If you do have knowledge of the game I think you'll admire just how close Gans got to putting you inside your own head when you were playing the game. It also replicates the experience of the game through it's atmosphere and pyrotechnics. There are images and sequences in this game that will stick with you for a while. What made the game work was a never ending sense of "I don't know exactly what I'm looking at here but it's freaking me out" and the film does a good job suggesting this too.
I recall two major complaints that video game fans and the general public seem to agree on with this movie and I'll address them without spoiling it. I also have to do this because this film is open to interpretation but no so much that it's inexplicable. The first complaint had to do with character actions as Rose is exploring the town. She encounters things like a trussed up dead body and retrieves part of a key without knowing really why. She explains this--she's being led--it's in the dialogue. The second has to do with how it ends. This won't spoil it. THEY DON'T GET OUT. I'll leave you to interpret why.
"Sucker Punch" is another film with an interesting reaction from gamers and general audience. Both seem to hate it equally for various reasons. Sucker Punch has video game roots in that it's structured like an adventure game. Some games are obstacle courses--find a key to unlock a door or a sledgehammer to create an opening in the wall. (The "Silent Hill" series is all about keys and locked doors). In Sucker Punch our protagonists must find five things that will help them escape and the fantastic sequences with dragons and zombiefied soldiers play out in the mind while the girls acquire the items. I thought it worked and I thought it worked beautifully. There was also a bit of an unnerving subtext in this movie. It's never explicitly stated but what exactly is happening to these girls during these fantasy sequences. Because the director doesn't answer that (and he shouldn't have) we're left to imagine it--and it's not pretty.
It's occurred to me that a lot of my favorite films (like the two above) often get massacred at the critical level. Now, I can be accused of trying to justify why I like something and my friends no I've done this before. I've also been proven wrong enough that I've changed my mind. And I never want to use box office tally as a measure of a film's success. Silent Hill did better than Sucker Punch probably will in the end. But I think both are worth a second look and will stand out over time.
By the way, it's a different writer/director team for the Silent Hill sequel and the cast is returning from the first film. I'm quite curious to see how this all works out sometime next year.
To close this out: Here's a review of someone who understood what Sucker Punch was trying to do.
Here's also a review from someone who understands Silent Hill. He brackets the spoilers away, though which is good.
