Reviews
Was ‘Silent Hill’ (2006) Really That Bad?
Silent Hill (2006) feels like a poster child for a classic filmic cautionary lesson-do not adapt video games into movies. Toted as a terrible adaptation for years, on countless “worst-of” lists since its release, Silent Hill has only recently been re-evaluated as a bit of a cult classic. Far from brilliant, Silent Hill is still definitely worth a re-watch. In a movie era of relentless deep focus shots, flat cinematography, and uninspired art, the film packs a visual and tonal punch that is sorely missed in today’s flat, streamer aesthetic of overly done deep focuses and bland color palettes.
So are Silent Hill’s aesthetics and vibes powerful enough to outweigh a less than perfect story, one often seen as muddled and confusing? Does it hold up well with the arguably more iconic game franchise? It’s a worthy debate, and one worth entering the farthest reaches of Silent Hill for…well, maybe not that far.
Adapting Silent Hill
Director Christophe Gans initially brainstormed the idea for the movie back when the first video game was released in 1999. Years passed, and sequels came out, with Silent Hill 2 becoming the most popular. While each game has its own story, the movie took inspiration and elements from all the games, with particular attention to the second one’s villains (that’s where we get the iconic Pyramid Head and those Nurses).
The film mainly takes its story beats from the first and third games, but its visual style, characters, and lore from the second game. The story is mostly its own thing, since the game is somewhat of an anthology series. 1 and 3 are connected, 2 and 4 have vague connections, but for the most part, each game is its own story…kind of like Goosebumps written by Kurosawa instead of R.L Stine. The movie follows the tropes and visuals fans would be familiar with, but with an original story. This is where some of the problems start.
The Story of Silent Hill
The film has a basic set-up that expands into a total mind-trip. A couple’s adopted daughter begins having nightmares of a town called Silent Hill, leading the mother to investigate the town. Finding this village abandoned since the 1970s after a fire, and shrouded in mist, she finds unspeakable supernatural creatures and horrors lurking in the dark. From there, it becomes a multi-layered mystery of supernatural horror, cults, and demons. While this sounds cool, it can be pretty confusing.
One of the biggest complaints of this movie, besides the overall aesthetic garrishness, is how muddled the plot is…something I can’t really argue against. While there is clear, dedicated passion to this Universe’s lore, it gets bogged down in an attempt to combine story threads and lore from different games. Again, some games are connected to other ones, but many are not-they all just share the concept of an ominous, fog-shrouded town that serves as a metaphor for dark secrets, guilt, trauma, and grief.
The movie should have made one of two choices here. It should have either been a direct adaptation of the original game (or one of its sequels), or it could have been a completely original story. While this is the most creative and riskiest possible take on what a game adaptation would look like, it makes sense why fans at the time might have been disappointed, and casual viewers were a little confused.
However, there is a lot of good in this movie. Before getting into the beauty of the film’s art department, its tone must be discussed. The film captures a truly dread-inducing tone that makes it a genuinely scary watch. The creatures, demons, and atmosphere create a feeling like no other.
The Look of Silent Hill
A huge thing for me in movies, and a reason 2000s horror films are so close to my heart, is their artistry when it comes to visuals. Horror films now look far too slick and bleak at the same time. In the 2000s, when horror was bleak, it showcased beautiful, dark blues and moments of color on top of grey, foggy, or dark backdrops that really popped. Possibly the biggest case for Silent Hill is in its coloring.
Horror is such a visual genre, so it is mind boggling that horror cannot look like this anymore. When films were not going for outright horror, they had such a heart-stopping, beautiful life to them. It almost humanizes the horror in a way. This genre is always scarier when there is real beauty and life threatened by darkness, and the visuals understand this. The horror looks big and dark and gothic and scary, while the scenes outside of Silent Hill are dreamlike, and comfortingly so, with warm, bright sunshine and gorgeous nature accentuated by remarkable color grading.
It makes sense that the cinematography is by the fantastic Dan Laustsen, who worked on Guillermo Del Toro’s films The Shape of Water, Nightmare Alley, and most recently, Frankenstein. Similar to Del Toro’s movies, Silent Hill implements fantastic, yet not overly garish colors alongside darker gothic aesthetics. The visuals are perfect for a film with so much bloody terror balanced with real, emotionally tangible themes of family.
Is it That Bad?
Frankly, no! Silent Hill is not as bad as people say it is. Yes, it definitely toes the line of being too fan-service-y while not being specifically faithful enough, but it has gained a bit of a cult status for a reason. It is a visual, cinematic epic that feels like a descent into Hell itself. Tonally and visually, the movie is definitely worth a rewatch, especially for anyone who might have been initially disappointed with it.
Reviews
‘Other Mommy’ Review: Jessica Chastain Can’t Save This CGI Mess
Of all the horror movies to be described as a runaway train, Rob Savage’s Other Mommy is the first in recent memory to have that quality as a negative. A more focused piece of over-the-top supernatural horror would capitalize on starting at a high speed and just gunning it. It would get increasingly faster, more horrific with its effects and reveals, more stunning and spectacle-filled. But Other Mommy never utilizes the momentum it starts with. It stays at the same steady, uncomfortable pace. And it gets old, very fast.
Other Mommy Is Missing a First Act
The movie begins in what should have been the second act; it never does stop haunting the narrative that Other Mommy feels like it’s missing 30 minutes of setup and 10 minutes of breathing room that would actually get you to care about what’s happening. Bela (Arabella Olivia Clark) is a young girl already well acquainted with a creature known as Other Mommy. A supernatural being that can change shape and size to her liking, becoming anyone she wants and then some. The entity only desires one thing: for Bela to let it into her heart and give it a new body.
Bela’s parents, Ursula (played by Jessica Chastain, in a dual role as the Other Mommy) and Russell (Jay Duplass), become aware of the space-bending creature in the film’s very first scenes. Soon, they’re on the run from the creature that’s trying to tear the already strained family apart. But the overwrought family drama of an unfaithful mother and a scatterbrained father forced to hide their struggling marriage from their kid is smothered. Much like Chastain’s performance, it’s drowned out by a barrage of aggressive and unimpressive digital effects trying to milk every single moment for a fright, desperate to keep audiences’ attention.
A Clumsy Digital Effects Showcase That Smothers the Story to Death
Other Mommy is primarily concerned with showing off its titular monster and her reality-bending powers, jumping from one “scare filled”, dreamlike sequence to the next; heavy, heavy quotes on scare filled. You become inured to every trick the film has as it shows you all the most unimaginative uses of a shapeshifting, size changing monster possible. There is no clever framing or use of shadow to obscure it, no restraint at all really. The directing is frenetic and clumsy, but it makes sure to make the monster as clear as possible. It’s all out in the open, plain to see, and bizarrely mundane for a depiction of a demonic interloper.
Every jumpscare-a-minute scene moves too fast and is too overlit to ever scare. The bright and inappropriate atmosphere fails the already rough looking digital effects. What it amounts to is a choppily edited and disjointed assortment of scenes, with weak imitations of Trevor Henderson style abominations center stage. Tall and small and melty variations of a CGI Chastain, none of them work to evoke tension or fear or any emotion other than the occasional eyebrow raise for how goofy some of them look.
There are a few moments where Chastain teases at playing the monster effectively without face and body morphing effects, sporting a genuinely disturbing countenance and creepy voice. But as soon as these fragments of interest come, they’re washed away by warping her into a lanky, slinking monster of ridiculous proportions. What we get out of the dual role is a boring creature for the feature, and a dry, one-dimensional protagonist, both squandering the phenomenal actor Chastain is.
Other Mommy is Full of Dull Performances and Squandered Potential
Duplass offers little with his supporting role, providing flat dialogue and flatter comic relief as a middling SNL sketch’s idea of a clownish father. It’s worth noting Clark actually provides the most interesting performance among the entire cast, a feat impressive from such a young child actor. But even her endearing and heart-breaking time as Bela is too little and too shadowed by the faulty composition of the film it’s trapped in.
The trailer for Other Mommy may have caught audiences off guard at the cinema in the past few months. But ultimately, that trailer showed the movie’s entire hand. Other Mommy is a pasty, crooked collage of elements from the supernatural horror movies producer James Wan made the backbone of the genre a decade ago. That doesn’t make it a throwback; just a rehash of cliches, with no structure and no sense of cohesion. It never amounts to anything more interesting than what the marketing material showed, which is a tragic end for a film, if there ever was one.
Reviews
‘Luz: The Flower of Evil’ Review: A Colorful Nightmare
Luz: The Flower of Evil is a movie simultaneously charged with and mired in ambition. It’s genuinely comical how overly ambitious of a first-time film it is for writer-director Juan Diego Escobar Alzate: a microbudget, shot on location in the mountains of Colombia, character driven psychological horror film meant to explore the very nature of good and evil while also tackling cults and misogyny.
So, it’s shocking how much of it works. Not all of it works, not at all, but it is cohesive enough to serve as a surprising experience with the colorful aesthetic it employs and incredibly dark places it goes to.
What Is Luz: Flower of Evil About?
After the death of their mother Luz, three sisters in a rural cult community find their faith waning. The three are the centerpiece of an elaborate theology crafted by their cult leader father, a man who is becoming more difficult to deal with by the day. So, when he brings a mute boy into town, chaining him up and claiming he’s the people’s messiah, an already tense situation devolves into outright madness. What ensues is the slow dissolution of the cult, and the torturous end of an already fractured family.
Let this usual synopsis section also serve as a content warning: the film does depict sexual violence very early on, about 25 minutes into the film. It’s not Irreversible levels of horrifically long, but it’s also not particularly brief and still graphic content by its nature. It can be difficult to stomach, so I’m mentioning it now for those who would rather avoid that sort of thing.
A Ponderous Arthouse Folk Horror About Good and Evil
The film has shocking moments, but it’s not very interested in shock value. This is first and foremost a slow burn, a piece of arthouse folk horror that is more about bleeding out than it is about a violent demise. The most obvious comparisons are to The VVitch and Midsommar, but even that feels like an inappropriate mix, even when it leans towards Aster’s commercial darling or Egger’s colonial nightmare.
Fundamentally, Luz is a study about people who mythologize suffering and cruelty and excuse it as being driven by outside spiritual forces rather than their own decisions. It’s about deconstructing harmful religious and cult mentalities, and it wears its philosophy on its sleeve (aggressively so). Alzate creates a visually and textually fascinating meltdown of his characters and the community they find themselves within.
I would say it’s a “descent into madness” if it didn’t feel clear that the characters were already in a tailspin right at the film’s outset. The script, especially through its second act, starts to feel repetitive and a little simplistic, with a somewhat anticlimactic ending and dialog that starts to feel less naturalistic and more tedious. But it’s an interesting dissection of a family, even if it’s rough around the edges.
Hyperreal Sense of Color, But Shaky Directing and Writing
The film’s most obvious and striking feature is its hyperrealist palette, bearing a rich Technicolor aspect that permeates throughout the entire runtime. Colorist Felipe Martinez U paints the mountainous countryside with such vibrancy, a simple but very effective contrast to the dying days of a cult the story centers on; bleak, muddy times, punctuated by vibrant nature all around. Aesthetically, it’s pretty clearly visually inspired by the early works of Pedro Almodóvar and the visual warmth of Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man.
Even the naturalistic tendencies of Terrence Malick make an appearance here, though how much of that is just in the gorgeous location scouting and how much is actually emulated by Alzate is up for debate. All around, the film lacks polish. The camerawork is amateurish in some ways, slightly cramped and occasionally uninspired in its framing. Sometimes the oversaturated look of the film can feel a little saccharine and heavy, but the pop of color here feels purposeful enough that I can forgive it as being highly stylized rather than trying to mask the weak points of a first-time director.
Is Luz: The Flower of Evil Worth the Watch?
In the search for great Latin American horror, Luz was an odd duck to stumble upon to be certain. But I’m a champion of strange birds with a lot of character, so you do the math.
Luz: The Flower of Evil is a struggle of a film, hard to watch at points despite how visually appealing it can be. It’s a brutal, bleak piece of psychological folk horror that certainly has a thin audience and will test the patience of even those the premise appeals to. But it does have as much substance as it does style, even when it treads into murky waters, and for that I think it’s worth the watch.


