Brandon Levene

In honor of the 25th anniversary of arguably the best game in the franchise, I decided to watch "Return to Silent Hill," a movie that is supposedly an adaptation of Silent Hill 2. I've heard some awful things about this movie, but I decided I can't talk shit until I've seen it. And holy moly, I have a lot to say about this 😭 The good: Environmental and creature designs are good. It really captures the persistent rot that was present in the game. The movie gives us a brand-new creature. It takes the form of a mannequin stretched into the shape of a spider. The design is excellent, and the chase scene involving it is pretty tense. And that's honestly it. The bad (this is a long one): There's not really any kind of structure to this; my issues with plot and design are wedged into the character breakdowns. Eddie looks more like some homeless slob than the self-pitying man-child he's characterized as in the OG game, and he only shows up in one scene at the beginning of the movie 😭 I don't really have much to say about him due to that fact. That whole character was really kind of a nothing burger when it came to actually doing anything with him other than tossing him in like, "HEY, EDDIE IS HERE, LOOK, IT'S SILENT HILL 2." Laura being able to see and experience all the things James is seeing conflicts further with the themes of the original game. Silent Hill is supposed to be your own personal hell that preys on your deepest regrets, desires, and trauma. So Laura experiencing the exact same things as James kills the juxtaposition the original had with this little girl wandering around the town seemingly without a care in the world, while James is stuck in perpetual suffering. Not to mention, she's also a figment of James' psyche, a hostile one at that. That's kind of a hotly debated topic in the community as to how much, or if anything regarding Laura is real, but I feel outright showing it harms the movie's plot. James' outfit looks stupid, enough said about that. Other than the questionable wardrobe choices, what is there to really say about James? Sure, James was kind of a blank-slate character from the get-go. The one time the scriptwriters should've taken some liberties and actually done something different with a character, they didn't take it on the one character they should've done it with. There's nothing different about him other than the fact that he's a painter now. The movie also tries to demonize him for the fact he left Mary once he found out about her involvement with the cult. Clearly, she didn't want help leaving, so why stay? Angela knows far too much and gives too much. In the game, you could tell that she knew more than what she lets on, but you really have no way of knowing that. About halfway through the movie, Angela pretty much reveals that she knows exactly who Mary is and what happened to her + character design looks poor. Plus, revealing that she isn't real feels like a huge slap in the face to her character, and what she went through to earn herself a spot in Silent Hill. Along with that, her saying "no one will ever touch me again" doesn't even make sense. In the original, the demons she was fighting were that she is a victim of sexual abuse by her father and older brother, but here, she has no reason to have a line like that other than to get some nostalgia pity points from a handful of fans. The lack of respect for Angela's character and backstory is sickening. The actress for Maria has a weird way of speaking, and not in the intentional uncanny way either. Her hair is also so clearly a wig that it hurts my eyes a bit 😭 Other than that, I think she's fine. She does what she needs to do for the story. The way James uses psychic powers to kill her was a goofy-ass scene, though. I really don't like the inclusion of the "Mary is actually a cultist" plot. The OG worked so well to me because it shows anybody has the capacity to be affected by the town. The reveal of Mary being dead being in an "all in the head" scene is absolutely stupid. It completely removes the shock and horror of the reveal. As well as the whole sequence itself being a huge cop-out. In the game, the reveal that James murdered her is done so wonderfully that it had me shook to my core all the way to the ending. The actual scene of James killing Mary is done in a way that completely removes the moral ambiguity of the situation. It cans the abuse that Mary subjected James to in her suffering, as well as it being left unclear in the game whether or not Mary wanted James to put her out of her misery. The movie just straight-up shows you that that is the case, no bullshit or mixed messaging, and this is a tiny nitpick, but James smothered her with a pillow, not a wet towel. Another minor thing to add is Mary looking like Vecna from Stranger Things made me giggle a little bit. Looks stupid. Overall, this movie is what Silent Hill 2 would look like at a passing glance to an outside observer. The way the characters and plot are handled is an insult to the source material. It lacks any of the layered and indirect storytelling that made Silent Hill 2 the cult classic it's known as today. It leaves no room for the mystery and the theorizing that goes on even to this day, 25 years after the game was released. I don't know why, or how they keep giving Christophe Gans the rights and funds to keep making these slop movies that do nothing but insult not only the fans, but the game series we love. As far as I'm concerned, 3 strikes and you're out. I don't know how the hell you got a 4th.

The only only movie to make me more uncomfortable while watching was Mad God. I also made the mistake of watching with my girlfriend too 😭

Well... that was a very uncomfortable watch. Just about everything you see in this film is some form of mechanical monstrosity, violence, mutilation and torture. I feel like it has something important to say, but I cant for the life of me say what that is. Im rating it this high simply because its one of the most technically impressive movies I've watched. I felt nothing but pure disgust throughout the entire thing 👍

Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1979 Stalker is a haunting, slow-burning meditation that lingers long after the credits. Its influence is obvious. you can trace echoes of Metro 2033 and the STALKER game series (that in and of itself would give it a good rating for me) back to this film’s vision of a mysterious, reality-bending Zone. Tarkovsky’s choice to render the pre-Zone world in drab, almost monochrome tones, then let color flood in once the characters cross the threshold, is brilliant: it makes the Zone feel exotic and alive, and suggests the Stalker’s own boredom with ordinary life. The movie’s age works to its advantage, giving an uncanny, timeless atmosphere that feels both distant and intimate. Tarkovsky strips the characters of conventional identity. they’re credited as the Stalker, the Writer, and the Professor. which reinforces the idea that individual egos are insignificant next to the Zone’s moral and metaphysical weight. Long, distanced camera setups emphasize that smallness visually. The film’s philosophical core — explorations of loss, greed, faith, and the nature of humanity — is measured and unsettling, rewarding patience and reflection. Although I enjoyed the film, I do have some gripes: At times it’s hard to tell who’s speaking, and the dialogue can be pretty obtuse. Those who are accustomed to clearer exposition may find themselves frustrated. All-in-all, Stalker is a movie that demands your attention. The themes at play here are not to be taken lightly, or give little thought. The story isn't so much about the characters, or even the Zone itself. Its about pursuing what you want or need the most, and if that thing that drives you is really what you desire