Silent Hill movie

Originally Posted by avanent

So... thinking is bad?

No, thinking is good. But if the movie lacks certain things needed in a successful story - like proper drama or a reasonable succession of events - all the thinking in the world won't matter.

There are exceptions to this - I've mentioned Mulhollhand Drive. There are other movies by David Lynch that are more or less successful in making successful stories by purposely lacking in narrative or cognative flow.

Originally Posted by avanent

It sounds like you gear yourself toward pop-culture, spoon fed, movies... which always leave me feeling I didn't get my money worth.

I take it you're not at all familiar with the movies I cited when I quoted Roger Ebert. Because El Topo is about as fucked up a movie as you can hope to find.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Just got back. Overall it was about what I expected. I expected it to be good, and good it was.

Some scenes were amazing, beyond what I had hoped for... other were below my expectations... so in sum, it kind of evens out to about where I expected. However, the better scenes leave me very impressed, depsite the lesser ones.

I don't see movies in theaters, I feel its a waist of money(8.50 here). I decided to support Silent Hill. When I handed them my money, I felt a bit reluctent and worried the movie wouldn't suffice... That feeling quickly disolved.

Gans did a great job. 9/10
although with some modifications, it could of easily been a 10.

my basic review... bit of spoilage, tried to keep it down though.

Spoiler:

the beginning was too rushed, some of the dialogue could of been better... some of the plot felt a little too forced... and some of the music could of matched a bit better. Overall though, it was great.

I wish they had used the siren-dimensional que once more prior to the church scene. It was beginning to have a psychological conditioning affect, I noticed... however, I don't feel it was quite complete... I think one more time prior to the church scene would have done it. I was hoping they'd have some of those dogs in the film, but I guess they didn't want people to think they were ripping off resident evil. I thought the janitor was going ot be a pansy... actually, he was pretty pimp.

This movie spoon fed the information. Ebert didn't get it, either he went in with a "stupid video-game movie" predisposition, was really messe dup for 4/20, or is an idiot. You can choose whichever you prefer.

I'm all for a sequal. I'd like to see it a bit more introverted, which would work great for James. Give PH a bit more liberty . And I want to see James beat a squirmer with a pipe. If they make a sequal, Avery and Gans better stay on the project. I don't trust anyone else on SH.

Originally Posted by LeHah

I take it you're not at all familiar with the movies I cited when I quoted Roger Ebert. Because El Topo is about as fucked up a movie as you can hope to find.

Correct, I'm not familiar with them. I was having to use other ques to indicate some sort of background info. Guess thats why it was confusing to me.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by avanent

This movie spoon fed the information. Ebert didn't get it, either he went in with a "stupid video-game movie" predisposition, was really messe dup for 4/20, or is an idiot. You can choose whichever you prefer.

Thats complete bullshit. How many people do you know who figured out Mulholland Drive? Theres 20 clues as to the plot on the inside of the DVD case - but it doesn't make it any easier.

While I disagree with Ebert's rating, I do agree that something nessessary was lacking in plot. Something like a "Why should I care?" mentality for the audience to hook on to.

I'll say more on the subject of the film tomorrow morning.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Thats complete bullshit. How many people do you know who figured out Mulholland Drive? Theres 20 clues as to the plot on the inside of the DVD case - but it doesn't make it any easier.

Um... im not talking about mulhollond drive...

When I said THIS movie.. I meant the one I had been talking about the whole time, and of which the whole thread is centered around.

I guess, perhaps, your trying to deter the factor of him being an idiot... please specify if thats the case next time.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by avanent

Um... im not talking about mulhollond drive...

So the entire function of comparison and possibly the function of analogy are lost on you?

Originally Posted by avanent

When I said THIS movie.. I meant the one I had been talking about the whole time, and of which the whole thread is centered around.

And I'm saying that there were other more convoluted storylines with just as many if not more clues to the plot than Silent Hill that Roger Ebert liked.

Your problem is that you are unable to discern the difference between your someone insulting something you like and actually having any evidence to back up your claim. You're saying this because he said something that disagrees with you - nothing more and that shit don't float.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a_gringa_flaca

That's like saying if I figured out algebra problem (a) I could figure out a similar algebra problem (b). Actually not even that, we're talking an entirely different story, plot, universe etc.

But you're saying he's an idiot - when he's appreciated far more obtuse movies than Silent Hill, rendering your opinion as false.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

You're saying this because he said something that disagrees with you - nothing more and that shit don't float.

The plot isn't even that complicated... No, What I'm saying is that the movie s-p-e-l-l-e-d out the plot, which didn't even need to be spelled out. So why did he fail to comprehend it?

My friend, who's never even touched Silent Hill understood the whole thing, without any problems. He also felt the "let me reveal the truth" was way more info than needed to fully grasp the movie. Familiarity with the series isn't required to get the movie.

If he didn't like it thats fine... but saying "I didn't understand it, therefore it sucks", especially when it was easy to grasp as well as spelled out... Is not ok. Theres something more there, theres some other reason he didn't like the movie, that hes not sharing with us; whether or not he is aware of it. Thats what I'm saying.

Honestly, I dont assume he saw the movie under influence of any substance, and doubt he's an idiot(both of which were meant in psuedo-sarcasm)... so then the question once again... why couldn't he understand a movie with minor complexity, and then spoon fed the plot to you? Personally, I believe its that he went in with preconceived notions, and thus refused to accept a game-based movie as anything more than action.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

In regards to Ebert "not getting it", I don't think he should be criticized for not being smart/open-minded enough to understand it. The plot itself isn't hard to understand. The problem was the way the directors told it, spoon-feeding you a montage of cryptic info and editing instead of slowly lining up the pieces. It's not the plot itself that was convulted, but the way the story was told.

Also, I don't see how the changes to the cult or god affect any chances of the sequel adaptions. The only one that would really be affected is SH3, but SH2 and 4 barely even reference the cult or the workings of the town.

SH2 seems to be the next logical step, especially as an excuse to toss in more Pyramid Head. The cast of characters would be far more colorful too, as they each have a disturbing story about their past. Still, I'd prefer if they jumped to The Room, as it has the same kind of characterization as SH2, but also has a unique enough premise that even casual moviegoers would be interested in seeing.

Johnny Depp channeling Oh-Dai-Su with a rugged, isolated Henry Townsend? That would be awesome.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Spoiler:

Ok, so what happens at the end. They are trapped in their version of Silent Hill, or what.

Also, why did they burn Alessa. What was her sin.

I am scurred.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Spoiler:

They were probably still trapped in the alternate reality. Or, maybe the dad is the one who's really trapped. It's just one of those things you'll never know...unless you hear the DVD commentary.

And Alessa's sin was that she was a witch. How could they tell? Who knows.

According to IGN, it's rumored that Gans' original cut of the film is 3 hours and 30 minutes. Wow. Despite what I said earlier about the movie needing a shorter runtime, I wouldn't mind seeing an extended version for DVD. If any of that extra footage shows more town locations and monsters, I say go for it. More talking? Not quite as eager.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

But Silent Hill 4 has, pretty much, the lamest protagonist ever. He wasn't even a real character. His personality is that he doesn't have one and would rather watch other people's. This never really came to mean anything for the actual plot as far as development goes. Where the main character in every other game has to face him or herself during the game - their own sins and weaknesses and fears - Henry pretty much was just a random peeping tom at the beginning and a random peeping tom who had killed monsters, seen ghosts, and watched people around him die, at the end. Dude doesn't even at any point ask himself how he got into such a bind, he kind of just goes along with having to kill monsters. Ain't no thang.

They'd have to seriously rethink him for the movie to be any good. Silent Hill 3 is fucked since supposedly the whole plot revolving around giving Birth to God never took place in this movie?

So yeah, Silent Hill 2 is pretty much the only option.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

But Silent Hill 4 has, pretty much, the lamest protagonist ever. He wasn't even a real character. His personality is that he doesn't have one and would rather watch other people's. This never really came to mean anything for the actual plot as far as development goes.

This is why you fix him up for the movie version. There's a reason I mentioned Johnny Depp, you know....

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

" It is important to consider that the horror movies should - like modern art - not have a too obvious meaning. When you watch them it is more important what you feel than what you understand."

A quote from Christophe Gans.

FELIPE NO

To be honest, this movie should have sucked, but the excellent sound mix and direction saved it. The dialogue and story editing was just horrible, which I hope will be addressed in the extended cut.

How ya doing, buddy?

So how is this movie? I really want to see it but it doesn't come out here yet (or never). So is it a mix reviews of good and bad about it?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Spoiler:

Rose and Sharon are trapped in the mist world because they went into that church and got themselves cursed. At least that's what I got out of it. Daliah told them not to follow the cult into the church, lest she be damned with the rest of them, so when she went in and Sharon was brought there, they were pretty much screwed right then.

Is there an extra little scene after the credits? We didn't sit through them.

Most amazing jew boots

Hrm, I dunno. With people talking about how gory this movie is, I don't know if I'll enjoy it. I've never been one for too much graphic gore in movies (I really don't like the "slasher" flicks of the late 70s early 80s that were just nothing but gore fests) so should I still watch this because of me being a huge fan of Silent Hill and most of it's justified? Or is the gore just there and not relevant to the movie? Sort of how like 13 Ghosts was just way too gory, when it didn't really need to be.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Only problem with silent hill 2 being the movie is that the typical movie goers (not fans) will percieve silent hill 2's story line being too Hackneyed (C'mon a majority of silent hill fans LOVE silent hill 2...heck I do too) for it has been done in a lot of movies the concept of

Spoiler:

I KILLED MY WIFE?!

type of story. I think Silent Hill ended pretty much without any room for a sequel...which is ideal for I dont think the movie really followed the first game...hence it wouldnt really correlated with the 3rd game in ANY way whatsoever. 2nd may be ideal, but they would have to make it really...really well to give it any justice. 4th may be the best option for a movie but I can EASILY see typical movie goers criticizing it to death

Spoiler:

WALTER THINKS THAT THE ROOM IS HIS MOM? WTF?!

and of course...the character of Henry could use some tuning him...I agree that he is a bit sparse.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well i've been looking at the news for this film for quite some time now, having played the first Silent Hill (for around an hour before I nearly crapped myself) when I was a kid I thought that the film should be just as scary as the game was. Now i'm not a Silent Hill expert, I have a basic outline of the games story but still even that's a bit foggy (no pun intended).

I saw the film today, i've literally just got back to jump on here and find out what the hell the ending meant. After reading a few people's replies i'm sorta getting the idea of what happened, but I guess that it really is down to personal interpretation. The film itself was ok. I'm not gonna go into an in depth review because Soldier and Amanda have both posted up excellent reviews that I agree with, but still I have to rant this out anyway so here goes.

Spoiler:

The one thing that I thought pretty much ruined the film was the cult, it was a bit too medieval for my liking. However if my understanding of this is correct, if they would've stayed with the games version of the cult worshipping darkness, I think that the film would've been a whole lot better. I thought Dahlia was meant to be the evil bitch o_O. She was just annoying being the helpless old hag.

The setting in the church towards the end where "BURN THE WITCHES" was repeating a million times was just so out of place with the film. Like Amanda said, too many people with a combined acting ability of Mariah Carey just isn't scary. The Church itself was a bit cheap, the dialogue and story line at this point was just ridiculous and it really just made me think "where are they going with this burn the witch crap?"

Also, I agree with the whole "Congratulations" speech being a little cheesy. However dialogue aside I think the technique of describing Alessa's past visually was impressive, using the old burnt film reel effect. There was something eerie about seeing a distorted image of a little girl being burnt to death, it just sent my imagination into overdrive really.

From where Rose entered silent hill to the point before they enter the hotel I thought was the strongest part of the film. The editing for when Rose was chasing Alessa was great, the sound was amazing (gotta love the sirens) and the scenes with Pyramid Head were impressive. The CGI in the film is crap I have to say, the little weird things at the beginning when Rose first enters "Dark Silent Hill" were just stupid. The only positive thing about that scene was the sound, those screams just went right through me.

I thought the film was wonderfully directed, despite there being a big problem with the dialogue and parts of the storyline. Also I can really tell where they tried to fit in a male role in the film, after having the script sent back saying "there aren't any men".

However I thought the concept of the film was strong, for the most part it felt like there was a dark background to the town itself and all the creepy crawlies. It's just a shame it all fell apart really toward the end. There wasn't really that much edge of seat moments I thought. Something that annoyed me was when Rose was supposed to be entering the church but just stood there for like 5 minutes looking at it. That was annoying, sure it's a horror film convention but I wish it was one that was thrown in the bin, it's just not effective.

The ending just confused me, I think I got the whole Alessa taking over Sharron since she opened her eyes but I still don't understand why they didn't leave the foggy "dimension" of Silent Hill and how it extended to their own home. If it is supposed to be their "heaven" then it's a little fucked up.

Overall i'd probably give the film 6 or 7 out of 10. It needed more creepier bits (and no I don't mean a shit load more gore), change the direction of the cult, better CGI and a different ending.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Eleo

But Silent Hill 4 has, pretty much, the lamest protagonist ever. He wasn't even a real character. His personality is that he doesn't have one and would rather watch other people's.

This makes it an exceptionally well-done game. The main characters are suppose to be plain, boring, nondescript people so the player can emote and interact with the game.

While Silent Hill 4 does take this a bit far, the rule stands for all games. You can't attach a gamer to a character they cannot understand.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

If this movie were a game then I guess it would be Bad Ending or Bad Ending+
I was kinda disappointed with the movie. It was creepy but I played the games and knew how the scary stuff worked so I could watch it without hiding behind my jacket or looking away. Lots of people were hiding their eyes when the screen went pitch black so that was entertaining for me. Also like everyone said, "not enough Pyramid Head" and also not enough monsters. They got the mood right but could've made it more creepier. They kinda messed things up by having lots of people in the town and the miners. If they do decide to make a sequel it should be like the games, new story with new characters.

FELIPE NO

It was also cool how they used the piano version of Promise 900 times in the movie.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

This makes it an exceptionally well-done game. The main characters are suppose to be plain, boring, nondescript people so the player can emote and interact with the game.

While Silent Hill 4 does take this a bit far, the rule stands for all games. You can't attach a gamer to a character they cannot understand.

I would not say that it is a 'rule'. I mean, okay, you prefer it to be that way, but I personally can't stand games that have bland protagonists. Almost all my favourite games have very distinct main characters with their own 'personalities', and I don't necessarily identify myself with them in any way.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Aardark

I would not say that it is a 'rule'. I mean, okay, you prefer it to be that way, but I personally can't stand games that have bland protagonists. Almost all my favourite games have very distinct main characters with their own 'personalities', and I don't necessarily identify myself with them in any way.

Well, it's cool once in a while to have a character that doesn't say or do much. You are the one in control of doing stuff and interacting verbally to the screen like in Silent Hill 4, Half-Life, Breakdown, etc.

Most amazing jew boots

It was very well done in Half-life, yes. I'm just saying that it's not a universal rule, is all.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.