| Tim Regan discusses a new horror sub-genre based on video games
It does not take a film fanatic to know that the critics rarely appreciate seeing a video game on the silver screen. Unsurprisingly, it is equally rare to find a film critic who appreciates a good video game at all! In an article addressing this issue, Guardian critic Mark Kermode blames the failure to make this transition on the lack of interactivity in a movie, as 'without the luxury of a joystick in our hands, the viewer has no chance to make the incoherent on-screen antics any better.' He goes on to suggest that this "joystick", more commonly a joypad these days, places the gamer in control of the narrative, essentially allowing them to rewrite the story. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that video games are not "Choose your own Adventure" books, the joypad only giving the gamer the choice to do his own stunts, rather than the ability to affect the storyline. Nonetheless, support from fans means that the industry is continuing to push into the cinema, and in the last five years it brought with it two brand new interpretations of the classic horror film.
When the Sony Playstation was first released, two titles set nervous hearts racing. With at least four games each, Resident Evil and Silent Hill are renowned as the most savage of the survival horror genre. However, they each offer a completely different take on fear.
Silent Hill is often quoted as the more terrifying of the two. As you explore the gothic environments, piecing together fragments of the highly complex plot, the senses are tantalised while your nerves are tested through a variety of visual and audio techniques. There is a reliance on torchlight, for instance, creating a sense of intense vulnerability whilst a hollow soundtrack of rhythmic industrial scrapes and clangs shake your spine. It does not mimic the high level of monster-slashing action and shock horror techniques used to build fear in the less sophisticated Resident Evil. Now that both have had a movie debut, it is interesting to investigate which has been more successful in order to give an indication of what today's audiences lust for when watching a scary movie.
In March 2002, Paul W. S. Anderson's interpretation of Resident Evil was released in the US, followed four years later by Christophe Gans' Silent Hill. Fortunately, both directors were huge fans of their series, thereby allowing the films to remain largely true to the games, each using the same nightmarish creatures to haunt familiar locations. Both directors even recreated some of the most iconic scenes; such as a train carriage showdown in Resident Evil reminiscent of the second game's finale, and the protagonist's car crash in Silent Hill taken directly from the opening of the first game. This loyalty means that the films also reflect their respective game’s portrayal of fear.
Whereas Gans’ continued the subtle and artistic approach, even supporting his work with the same eerie soundtrack from the games, Anderson seriously pumped up the high-action approach of Resident Evil. When the audience is not jumping, his choice to make the protagonist an expert of genetically modified martial arts leads to a couple of hard-hitting, and perhaps excessive, sequences, such as delivering a dropkick to a deadly Doberman! With such striking differences one can draw an interesting comparison between how the films were received, and whether an action-packed horror like Resident Evil is likely to be more successful than a clever and elaborate thriller such as Silent Hill.
Unsurprisingly, the critics in both the US and the UK were mostly negative in their reviews. Gans was commended by www.variety.com critic Dennis Harvey for creating a game-to-film transition that generates 'above-average interest' due to its "elaborate visual package"’ However, its complex plot appears to try the patience of many, leading to such comments as 'boring horror-thriller at such testicle-shrinking length' from The Guardian writer Peter Bradshaw. On the other hand, the only saving grace of Resident Evil seemed to be its action sequences, with Derek Malcolm for the same publication highlighting the canine dropkick as one of the films more 'memorable moments'. Nonetheless, both films were a hit with the fans, although when reviewing the profit margins it appears that the action-orientated Resident Evil was more successful overall.
In the UK, Silent Hill was a greater success, grossing £3,547,755 - almost £1,000,000 more than Resident Evil. However, in the US, although Silent Hill made $7,000,000 more, a budget of $18,000,000 less meant that Resident Evil actually earned a greater profit. Its overall success is also reflected by worldwide statistics where Resident Evil topped Silent Hill by over $4,000,000. In general, this suggests that audiences are more likely to choose a high-action horror, a result that was confirmed when the first sequel was released.
In 2004, Resident Evil: Apocalypse hit the screens. Although written by Anderson, a new director at the helm led Apocalypse a little more astray from the game series. There are some similarities, such as a familiar cast of characters and a couple of moments copied scene for scene from the games (for example, the stunt of dropping a handgun in surrender, only to fall, catch and fire is a tribute to the opening of Resident Evil: Code Veronica). However, the invented hand-to-hand action from the first film is seriously overblown the second time around.
In an interview with IGN Filmforce, director Alexander Witt admitted that he had not had great experience with the games, failing to ever complete one. This could explain why the protagonist seems to find herself sheltering from endless explosions, running down the side of a building, and often spin-kicking her way through numerous fast-paced fight sequences that you would normally expect in The Matrix. However, it was this creative license that seems to have made Apocalypse the greatest of the three films.
Once again, the action sequences won the only praise from critics. Dave Kehr for the New York Times wrote that Witt's influence made the film 'fast, funny, smart and highly satisfying.' Likewise, after admitting that the film was 'as magnificently stupid' as expected, Nicholas Barber for The Independent wrote that 'it's far better than the first Resident Evil, and it's more fun than Tomb Raider movies, if only because you get not one but two semi-clothed, back-flipping beauties.' It was this appeal to the more primitive senses that made the film into a blockbuster, but only in America.
The extra stunt sequences were unappreciated by UK fans, where the film grossed even less than the prequel. However, in the US the movie was a scorching success, surpassing both the first film and Silent Hill. And with a worldwide gross of $129,394,835 it made the greatest overall profit of the three films. From these figures, we can draw some interesting conclusions about these two styles of horror.
The soul-shredding suspense and elaborate artistry of Silent Hill made it the most successful of the three in the UK, but led to the least profit overall. On the other hand, it seems a horror film consisting of a few scary surprises and exploding with action sequences gains much more appreciation from other audiences around the world, especially those across the Atlantic.
|
