Next-Gen.biz runs this “Defense” of the “Silent Hill” movie making the rounds at theaters all over the United States of America. Apparently critics are slamming it as “another sucky videogame movie adaptation,” and this is both true and not true, because it seems the movie is actually quite competently made, and all of its awkwardnesses are on purpose. This raises wonderful questions about how (and why) we should judge the quality of a thing if it’s being bad on purpose.
From the article:
Silent Hill’s real strength comes with how it wears its videogame roots on its sleeve. The first hour and a half or so of the movie almost perfectly nails the atmosphere, pacing, and structure of the first game in the series. Watching that portion of the movie is as close as one can get to playing the games without actually playing them. That this is achieved within the constraints of Hollywood movie-making is remarkable; the problem is that while the film succeeds as an adaptation, it fails as cinema.
I think that says it all right there. The article goes on to talk about how being a “minor mainstream success” might be in the best interests of people wanting a “validation,” in cinema, of videogames’ value as media. Maybe so. Personally, though, if you ask me, videogames are videogames, and movies are movies. A good videogame, then, is a good videogame, and a good movie is a good movie. I’ll end this with a
PROTIP: TO MAKE GOOD MOVIE ON VIDEOGAMES, DON’T