Silent Hill Review/Analysis/Defense

Hey here's a neato Spring Break review that nobody will really care about. This is less of a review and more of a debate thing, as the Silent Hill movie is very, very split between people. Some people love it, others hate it and say that it's inaccurate to the games. Here will explain the plot (in chronological order, which means spoilers) and share my thoughts, but also bring up a few points that people use to bash the movie that I think don't work. And yes, I will also bring the points that do work. I'm nice like that.

Silent Hill


In the 60's or 70's, Silent Hill was a small mining town where a little girl named Alessa was frequently bullied and accused of being a witch. Her mother Dahlia tried to protect her, but the bullying would not stop. Dahlia's sister, Christabella, was the leader of a cult in the town, and said that she needed to "cleanse" Alessa. What Dahlia did not know is that the cult's way of cleansing her was to burn her alive. When she realized this, Dahlia called the police to help and in an accident, the thing Alessa was tied to broke off and knocked over the big pot of hot coals it was resting on, setting most of the town on fire. Alessa was rushed to the hospital where her rage separated itself into a darker form of herself, which eventually pulled the entire town of Silent Hill and the cult into an alternate purgatory dimension. Sort of. She then made a little girl, Sharon, out of the good left in her and continued to slowly pick off the different cult members left. Many years later, Rose, who was Sharon's mother, took Sharon to Silent Hill to try and figure out what happened, only to end up in a car crash and wake up later with Sharon missing. Most of the movie takes place in this present time, with Rose waking up in the foggy purgatory Silent Hill looking for her daughter.

I have to say, this movie looks amazing. The foggy Silent Hill looks stunning, but it's even more stunning when the world shifts and the walls melt away to show a grittier, more violent town. The fog looks awesome and the creatures are almost all practical effects enhanced with CGI, giving it a very strange and surreal look. The acting is also really good, and I love that they got Akira Yamaoka, the sound designer of the first few games to come on and make music for the film.

Now for the part where I respond to some complaints about the movie and give my two cents on it.

"Why did they change Harry Mason to a woman in the movie? Don't men care about their children too?"

Yes, it is rather questionable and I'd agree that it was sexist towards men if not for the entire subplot in the movie focused on the father trying to find his family. For a good portion of the film, Chris breaks into buildings, reads through police records, interrogates people, and constantly calls Rose all to try and find her and his daughter. The ending of the film is built around the fact that Chris will have to live knowing he'll never see his family ever again, and the depression he's going through without them. Do people just forget this part of the story? 

"Christophe Gans only made this a female-centered movie because he thinks women are sexy!"

I would believe this if not for their portrayal in the film. Rose, Cybil, Dahlia, Christabella and the others are very active in the story, they move the story along, and if you actually watch the movie, they aren't treated as eye-candy. 

"They took creatures from Silent Hill 2! Those creatures were only supposed to be in that game!"

They still have relevance and meaning in the story. GoodBadFlicks did a really good job of pointing out each creature's purpose and meaning in the film. The only big difference is that these creatures are more based around Alessa in the film rather than James Sunderland.

"If Alessa and her monsters can't access the church where the cultists live, why can't she just have it always be in nightmare time? And why does she leave food around for them to eat during the day? She wants to kill them, yes?"

The movie does not answer this, as far as I can tell.

"If Sharon is sleepwalking and having nightmares about Silent Hill, why is Rose's solution to just take her there? She says that she's taking Sharon there to remember something about Silent Hill, but Sharon's never been to Silent Hill. Explain."

This is another plot hole. In the games, Harry Mason took his daughter for vacation there. He didn't know his daughter had anything to do with Silent Hill.

"Why did Rose reach into the mouth of a dead person? That's gross!"

Why did James Sunderland reach into a toilet? That's gross!

"This movie is too graphic! The games were never like this!"

So uhhh...

...yeah, sure. Whatever. 

"This movie is nothing like the games!"

Nothing? Are you sure about that? The way the film was started in the first place was when Christophe Gans, the director, came to Konami with a 30-minute long video explaining why he loves the games so much and what he would do if given the rights to make a film. The writer, Roger Avary, also came on to work on the film because he was a huge Silent Hill fan. The film pulls elements and references from the first four games in the series. Most of the characters from the first game are in the movie and have basically the same role. 

As far as changes go, here is a quick list of adaptations you may know that made changes:

• The Hunger Games movies
• The Divergent movies
• The Harry Potter movies
• The Lord of the Rings movies
• The entire Marvel Cinematic Universe
• The X-Men movies
• The Fantastic Four movies
• All of the Batman movies (all of them)
• All of the Spiderman movies (all of them)
• The Polar Express
• How to Train Your Dragon 1 & 2
• Pretty much every Stephen King-based movie
• All of the Resident Evil movies (all of them)
• All of the Uwe Boll-made game adaptations
• Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 1 & 2
• The Jurassic Park movies
• The Thing From Another World
• Scott Pilgrim v.s The World
• Watchmen
• V for Vendetta
• Many, many more movies

The point I'm trying to make here is that no book or game can fully be adapted into a 90 minute film, it just is not possible. Books, movies, and games are three completely different mediums that function and operate very differently. Books are all text and naturally have to be descriptive, movies use sounds and images to create a visual experience that we can observe on our own, and games are interactive, using all of the previously described elements to often create a story that you, the player, can experience and perceive at your own pace. Sometimes in games, you can even control the outcome of the story, providing a very interesting relationship between the player and the game. Both Christophe Gans and Roger Avary did the best they could with what they had, and made a movie that may not have been entirely accurate, but had its heart in the right place.

But hey, we could have had an Uwe Boll Silent Hill instead, if you'd rather watch that.

"Why not just make a movie that is a part of the game's story instead of making a new story based on the game, like Resident Evil: Degeneration?"

Because if they made a film like that, it would really only be important to people who played the games and knew the story. Making an adaptation may change things, but it gets new audiences interested. Why do you think Resident Evil: Degeneration was exclusively direct-to-video?

Overall, I hope people reading this can gain something. Translating a story from one medium to another isn't easy, and changes to the story are bound to be made. Just accept it for what it is, guys.