Why Are There No Good Horror Movies Based on Video Games?

Today, the latest cinematic adaptation of a horror video game is released in theaters, Silent Hill: Revelation.  It's been six years since the original opened and eventually earned just under $49 million toward its $50 million estimated budget.  So its timing and purpose is questionable.  I'd like to think there is a compelling reason for it being made, but the track record for movies based on video games indicates otherwise.

Consider these facts about nine movies that have been released in the last ten years:

·        Their average percentage on Rotten Tomatoes is 18.67%.

·        Their average rating on IMDb is 4.91 out of 10.

·        I've seen only eight of them, but my average rating is 5.25 out of 10.

·        The best-received movie has been the first one, Resident Evil (2002) with 34% on RT and 6.6/10 on IMDb (I rated it a 7/10).

·        The worst-received movie has been Alone in the Dark (2005) with 1% on RT and 2.3/10 on IMDb (I rated it a 1/10).

Forget ratings, though.  These must have been money-makers, right?  Well…

·        Their average estimated budgets were $350.0 million against box office grosses of $309.7 million, making an overall loss of -$40.3 million.

·        Only four out of ten have made a profit (one broke even).

·        The most profitable has been Resident Evil, with a whopping $7 million.

·        The least profitable has been the newest one, Resident Evil: Retribution (2012) with a loss of $23 million.

Historically, horror movies based on video games have not been received well critically or financially.  You could safely say there has not been a good one made.  I don't remember most of the ones I've seen; frankly, I don't want to remember House of the Dead (2003) or Alone in the Dark.  But I did recently re-watch the original Silent Hill (2006) to prepare for reviewing the sequel for Downright Creepy.  The reasons it doesn't work might be used to explain why horror movies based on video games in general don't work.

 

Disclaimer:  As I've written before, I do not play video games.  Therefore, any discussion is based solely on the merits of the movies themselves rather than a comparison of them to the source material.  I will likely make assumptions about video games that are incorrect.

Let's start with story.  Do video games really have stories?  I hear they do, but surely they are only loose frameworks for the action taking place inside them.  I'd be more inclined to believe that video game "stories" are instead "concepts" that set-up their players to shoot at armies of zombies, aliens and monsters.  Granted, some of the concepts are good: government experiments gone wrong, secret societies ridding the world of vampires, etc.  But do they really drive the outcome of the games?  Aren't they ultimately about how many "things" you can kill?

The problem with adapting a movie from a video game is that you have to offer more than just the concept.  A movie is not interactive; the consequences are scripted and not based on any action the audience takes.  So it must go above and beyond the set-up.  There must be creative screenwriters to turn the concept of a game into the fully-realized story of a movie.  That may be a risky proposal, because doing so could potentially make the movie too different from the game.

Now let's talk about the visuals.  If the story of a movie based on a video game is allowed to stray, the visuals cannot.  Since I've claimed that games have no stories, it stands to reason that what you see in a game is what you want to see in a movie; otherwise, it's not the same.  In general, filmmakers have done a good job with style in these movies.  It often matches the dark, creepy feel of the games.

It's these two elements combined that have failed in previous adaptations of video games.  We've seen more style than substance, which isn't enough to sustain a full-length movie.  No one has figured out how to be faithful to a game while going beyond it to make a compelling movie.

Speaking of compelling, that's what the characters ought to be.  It's problematic, though, because video games have very one-dimensional characters who don't develop over the course of their games.  In a movie, they must have other dimensions and they must change from beginning to end.  It also helps if they're believable and relatable.  This is an obstacle that many movies face, regardless of their genre.  It's seems difficult for any movie to provide fully-developed characters for whom we care.

 

The "story" of Silent Hill (the movie) takes place in what is literally a ghost town.  Hidden beneath what the world sees in the sunshine is a town obscured by smoke from coal fires burning beneath it.  Ash falls like lovely winter snow.  At night, sirens blare, warning the townsfolk about the creatures that will rise.  A mother desperately searches for her missing daughter in the "alternate universe" version of Silent Hill.

It's a great set-up, one that I assume comes directly from the game.  And screenwriter Roger Avery (The Rules of Attraction) adds some substance to it in the second half.  I just don't like what he's added.  It's simultaneously too little and too much, somehow both action-packed and anti-climactic.

The visuals in Silent Hill are amazing.  In fact, based on what I just wrote about the story, it's all about style for me.  Director Christophe Gans (Brotherhood of the Wolf) and his crew paint a terrifying picture with all kinds of creepy creatures.  But not only does the story suffer, the characters do, as well.  They are entirely one-dimensional, as if lifted directly from the game.

Despite what anyone thinks of Silent Hill, it's commonly believed to be too darned long.  I agree.  At 125 minutes, at least 25 could have been trimmed.  But I disagree with most people about what's good and bad about this length.  Most think the first half, all visual, is slow and boring and that it only picks up in the second half when the story kicks in.  I actually prefer the first half and the atmosphere it creates.  The second half story and characters don't work for me, and that's the impression with which I'm left.

 

 

 

As a final thought about why horror movies based on video games don't work, I wonder if there are really two different audiences for movies versus games, even though they share the same subject matter.  Movie audiences are passive; they're required to do nothing but sit still and be quiet.  But game players are active; they're required to think fast and physically push buttons.  To have a successful adaptation of a video game, you must crossover and offer something for both audiences.  Failing that, it might be a lost cause to win over game players.  Therefore, why not focus simply on making a good movie?  That might just result in approval from an audience as well as profits for the studio.