Grain entrapment is a dire, deadly, urgent emergency, as illustrated in various films over the years but most of all documented in real life cases. To build a film based simply on that scenario is a curious notion, but the inherent drama is ripe for storytelling possibilities. 'Silo,' such as it is, is a mixed bag.
In the depiction of the entrapment, and the rescue process, the movie feels in large part like a simple dramatization. We see steps undertaken to save the trapped boy, and the way it all becomes a community effort. Disagreements in how best to go about the procedure reflect a disparity of specific knowledge and lack of communication, elements which are undoubtedly real enough. The central narrative thrust is the strength of 'Silo,' and the movie would have greatly benefited from focusing purely on this aspect.
Unfortunately, that's not what we get. A straightforward, plainspoken story of disaster and rescue would have been compelling, without any need for embellishment. Instead we're also presented with glimpses at the lives of all the characters, back story, and the low-down on their various interpersonal histories and conflicts. 'Silo' could have been a low-key, forthright, human interest thriller, but every bit of extra flair, intended to add greater sense of drama, only waters down what the film could have been. That goes for the score, dialogue, superfluous character writing - almost everything beyond the crucial core.
There's really just not much more to say. I didn't have any particular expectations before watching, yet I find myself somewhat flummoxed. I understand the compulsion, the trend of dressing up a story with the idea of making it ever more dramatic and impactful for audiences. But balance is required, and too many features tip the scale to become overwrought. This is one of them. A far less refined cut of no more than half the final runtime would actually have been twice as absorbing. Sometimes less is more.
'Silo' isn't altogether bad, and I do hope other viewers get more out of it than I did. I just wish film-makers would take time to step back and consider what is truly most essential to the tale they want to tell.
In the depiction of the entrapment, and the rescue process, the movie feels in large part like a simple dramatization. We see steps undertaken to save the trapped boy, and the way it all becomes a community effort. Disagreements in how best to go about the procedure reflect a disparity of specific knowledge and lack of communication, elements which are undoubtedly real enough. The central narrative thrust is the strength of 'Silo,' and the movie would have greatly benefited from focusing purely on this aspect.
Unfortunately, that's not what we get. A straightforward, plainspoken story of disaster and rescue would have been compelling, without any need for embellishment. Instead we're also presented with glimpses at the lives of all the characters, back story, and the low-down on their various interpersonal histories and conflicts. 'Silo' could have been a low-key, forthright, human interest thriller, but every bit of extra flair, intended to add greater sense of drama, only waters down what the film could have been. That goes for the score, dialogue, superfluous character writing - almost everything beyond the crucial core.
There's really just not much more to say. I didn't have any particular expectations before watching, yet I find myself somewhat flummoxed. I understand the compulsion, the trend of dressing up a story with the idea of making it ever more dramatic and impactful for audiences. But balance is required, and too many features tip the scale to become overwrought. This is one of them. A far less refined cut of no more than half the final runtime would actually have been twice as absorbing. Sometimes less is more.
'Silo' isn't altogether bad, and I do hope other viewers get more out of it than I did. I just wish film-makers would take time to step back and consider what is truly most essential to the tale they want to tell.
