Do you remember when Hollywood was obsessed with reimaging fairy tales? If you managed to blot out those dark years, you probably will not remember such classics like “Red Riding Hood,” “Beastly,” or “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.” To be fair, not every film that emerged from that era was horrible—admit it, “Snow White and the Huntsman” wasn’t that bad—but Alice Waddington’s debut feature “Paradise Hills” could count itself among the lesser entries spawned from that trend.
After refusing to marry a sociopathic businessman, Uma (Emma Roberts) awakes in a wellness center located on the island of Paradise, an institute controlled by The Duchess (Milla Jovovich). During her stay, Uma meets Chloe (Danielle Macdonald), the charming southern belle, Yu (Awkwafina), the socially anxious rebel, and Amarna (Eiza González), a troubled musician. However, the women soon discover that the rehab center is not the serene haven that it seems to be.
Despite fully immersing the audience in its beautifully crafted, otherworldly environments, “Paradise Hills” runs face-first into storytelling issues within the opening act. By incorporating the age-old flashback trope, the film informs viewers that Uma not only makes it off the island but is now a brainwashed shell of her former self. As such, since all narrative tension is now deflated, “Paradise Hills” must rely exclusively on the intricacies of its plot to propel the story, a tactic that fails to bloom considering that all the twists are predictably derivative.
Even so, to give credit where it’s due, “Paradise Hills” is undeniably stunning on a visual level. Both the set and costume design are nothing short of praiseworthy, and the film succeeds in immersing you in an idyllic dollhouse atmosphere. Similarly, the cast is equally charming. Jovovich shines with a passive-aggressive splendor and Awkwafina delivers a dialed-back performance that proves she is far from a one-note actor. Relatedly, Macdonald is always a pleasure to watch, and the interaction between Roberts and González fires off a few sparks as well.
Regrettably, apart from the abovementioned compliments, “Paradise Hills” is a drastic miscalculation. Its tone never decides on a route to take, which results in a mismatched puddle of half-cooked concepts. Waddington’s debut prides itself on its empowering messages, but its Disney–Channel-esque approach to thoughtful topics is jarringly confused. With regard to its subject matter, “Paradise Hills” strives to invalidate the notion that women should live up to the expectations of anyone but themselves. Correspondingly, classism, the relevance of monogamy, and sexual identity all exist within the film’s thematic lexicon, but “Paradise Hills” never discusses these topics with any grace, wit, or creativity.
On the other hand, this accessibility does align itself with Waddington’s creative intentions—the director stated that she intends for the “commercial film” to be enjoyed rather than lecture audiences on its themes—and when one considers that the film might be directed more to teenagers than adults, “Paradise Hills” admirably sheds some of its setbacks. Additionally, the director’s efforts and imagination showcase the potential to craft a masterpiece in the future.
Due to the approachability of its social consciousness and overall lack of inappropriate content, the movie fits perfectly into a cinephile starter pack for young women; the previous comparisons to a Disney Channel film were not entirely critical, and “Paradise Hills” could easily be employed as a conversation starter between a parent and child for certain households.
Nevertheless, for an adult audience, “Paradise Hills” fails to offer any worthwhile advancements in its truisms. The sci-fi-fantasy-thriller might be inoffensive, but that element only solidifies the inadequacy of its manifesto; it unsarcastically compounds so many stereotypes and clichés that anyone who respects originality should not warrant the film with a recommendation. If Waddington’s fairy tale harbored any substance to counterbalance its external beauty, it might have established itself as a pleasingly subversive piece of pop art. Yet, despite its commendable goals, “Paradise Hills” will likely be lost to time. [C-]
