Metareview - Silent Hill (the movie)

I don't know why everyone is like 'OH so disapointed!'. Why did you think this would be good? Nothing other than a pretty trailers suggested it would be any different than the last 15 horror films.

A zero outa 100? How is that even possible... Whatever... I still think it was a freakin' amazing movie.

Actually I thought it was one of the best video game movies... no saying much, but still. Ignoring the wooden acting and the really unconvincing "cult ritual" backstory, the visuals and sound were pretty damn good. True, those things alone do no a movie make, but with video game movies they can make them worth the ticket price. =)

Yeah the movie was great fun, what are people smoking when watching this that makes it so awful? If this is a 0/100, what does some tripe like Scary Movie 4 get?

I dont know, i thought it was pretty good movie.

San Francisco Chronicle isnt really well known for movie reviews. They pretty much only specialize with "Indie" crap and spend several articles on talking about restaurant reviews..

yeah the movie was not bad and as far as horror movies are concerned I put it up there with the best horror movies of the last 5 years. Right next to Saw. This just proves you should never listen to critics.

I find it interesting that these reviews are in stark contrast to those from fans of the series. How many of these film critics have actually played Silent Hill...or any video game for that matter? I'm not saying I disagree with them, mind you, just pointing out that your stance on the source material is likely to affect your appreciation of the film. It's the same with comic book adaptations - if you're a fan of the source, you may react completely differently (extremely positively or negatively) compared to a newcomer.

The reason we've all loathed past video game films is because they've never stuck close to the source material whatsoever. Now, a lot of critics complain Silent Hill remains TOO faithful to the game. You can't win.

I haven't played any of the Silent Hill games but I loved this movie.

I don't know why people have too much expectations about the movies that are made from video games. Sometimes a movie is good sometimes a movie is bad. The same goals for movies that are made on video games.

Roger Ebert is an idiot!

I think as far as capturing the atmosphere and feel of the Silent Hill series it hits it right on the mark. The look alone merrits at least a 30 - 40 out of 100. The whole movie looks stunning. The main reason that the critics don't like it is that they have never played the game. If you never played the game then it is just a mediocre horrer movie that looks great. The closest thing I can liken it to is something that happened to me the other day. I tried to explain to my mother what an Emo was. She kind of gets its but will never truly get the whole picture of it.

OH NOESS! I HAEV TO USE MAH BRIAN TO GET TEH ENDING!!!11! WTF!!11


Seriously, a lot of people didnt like it because you have to THINK. As a semi-fan of SH (ive never played the games myself, but watched my friends play thorough them) this was the best videogame to movie adaptation. It fit perfectly with the games (even the bad dialouge). It was tense at parts and had even a few HOLY **** moments. Its a shame many people are taking the stance of the critics on this and will never truly enjoy the movie.

How can anyone say Hostel is a good movie and this is bad? People are clearly film-handicapped in some way.

I thought it was a fanstic movie. Music right out of the games, they captured the look and feel of silent hill so well. What's that? those weren't CG monsters? people in latex suits that looked much better? Take that special effects!

I learned to never trust the critics a long time ago and I still don't. I thought it was a fantastic movie along side the silent hill games, and even as something seperate. Granted, those going to the movie without having some knowledge of the games will be left behind, or won't get as many homages, such as pyramid head.

Even still, the movie was good, lots of frightening scenes in it. It blows scary movies of this era right out of the water. I'd like to see more.

I think as gamers we always want to see our cherished hobbies turned into something beautiful on the screen but that is just a hard task, because there is so much about a game that they usually can't pack into 2 hours. We will always be hopeful but will rarely be pleased.

That's the problem with any adaptation. You either make it too accessible and lose the people who love the source material, or, you make it complete fan service and lose the everyday people who know nothing of the source material.

I enjoyed the movie, and am admittedly a fan of the series. I thought the ending was too gory though.

One thing that is probably hard for most people to take is that you're not supposed to know what's going on. It's supposed to be vague. That doesn't work too well for movies---unless it's a French movie. I don't expect people to like Silent Hill too much. It was a movie made by a fan for fans. I'd say Christophe Gans is better at that than Uwe Boll if nothing else.

I'm not saying it's a great film, but it was surpisingly faithful and translated pretty well.

Read my review if you want my full perspective:

http://www.8bitninja.com/2006/04/24/review-silent-hill/

I found Ebert's review to be a fair description of the movie.

He gives props where props are due (set design, art direction) and properly rags on the rest (writing, acting). It was a pretty bad movie wrapped in absolutely gorgeous clothing.

0/100... that's a bit harsh. It's probably designed more to sway the meta-reviews than to actually inform on the quality.

I watched BloodRayne. While I hated Alone in The Dark, BloodRayne at least felt like a movie. It was a bit long though, and that's what I read about Silent Hill too. I'd give BR 2 stars. Silent Hill is probably as good as that. Could be even worse!

I've never played the games, either. And I enjoyed the movie, despite what I expected.
What it did well it did well enough to make up for what it did poorly.

It had good atmosphere, a decent amount of gore, and tried to do new things.
This puts it light years ahead of most recent horror movies, with Wolf Creek being the end of the spectrum that did nothing well.

A great movie? No. But a mostly solid horror movie. Nothing memorable, nothing legendary, but entertaining enough.

Although I thought the opening sequence was among the worst I've ever seen, and the first half of the movie felt entirely too much like watching someone else play a japanese survival horror game and not nearly enough like watching a movie.

Fans protect this movie by saying that the critics didn't played the game, but you must understand -- the movie counterpart should not need prior experience to 'enjoy' the film. Some interesting quirks should enhance the movie with inside jokes and familiar locations but the movie shouldn't rely on prior gameplay. They are rating a movie after all.

Would you feel satisfied paying $10 (yes, movies are expensive in NYC), being stuck in a theatre for 120+ minutes watching a movie that required prior knowledge to enjoy the movie to the fullest?

It's like that crazy Bjork movie playing right now, Drawing Restraint 9. I'm sure I'd love it if I liked Bjork, but until I do (if I ever), I will not like the movie as much as I'd like.

Final Fantasy: Advent Children, I'm sure, would have gotten rotten reviews from the critics as well, but hey, the fans love it!

Peter Hartlaub needs to be slapped. And not just regular slap, one of those bring it from behind your back full body motioned slaps. Who honestly as a credible reviewer give anything a 0 out of 100. Even as a joke that's just tacky.

Someone read this guys review... then fire this man.

So let me get this straight Mr/Mrs. Joystiq-ers, if you're not getting your hopes up about any game to movie adaption "EVER" does that mean you won't ooze anticipation for the Halo movie? If this is so then I don't think you rightly deserve to be in the possition that you are in.

Who cares what the review says? If you saw it and liked it, what else matters?

I enjoyed the movie, as did my girlfriend. I'm not really sure what to make of these dichotomous reviews - people are amazingly divided. The level of vitriol exhibited towards the film is pretty shocking, especially with the number of crappy horror films that have come out recently.

I think the problem is that the movie is something different -- and, a lot of people don't know how to deal with that. As far as Ebert goes, how could he not understand the film? He obviously could, but chose to use this particular forum to advocate his dislike of video games as a storytelling medium. His last paragraph has NOTHING to do with movies and everything to with how he feels games are brainless.

Did anyone else love how they opened the movie like a theater play? While the Sony Pictures or Tri-Star is still up on the screen you hear Rose yelling, "Sharon...SHARON!" Then it's as if she comes onto the stage and her voice is louder and you see her running down the hill.

I just thought that part was awesome.

18. Fans protect this movie by saying that the critics didn't played the game, but you must understand -- the movie counterpart should not need prior experience to 'enjoy' the film.

Sorry for the double post, but my girlfriend has never played any of the games -- and, she didn't have any problems understanding it. I think you get a deeper level of understanding if you had played the games ... but, that's the same with Lord of the Rings movies/books.

But then, you need to consider who the movie is made for. Ganse has said repeatedly that all he wanted to do was please the fans. I understand that a movie should be able to stand on its own legs. However, I don't think it would be fair to judge a sequel in the same manner either. With a sequel, you'd have to take into account the rest of the franchise's universe. I think the same holds true for spin-offs and book adaptations. The best way to review this sort of thing in my mind would be to have two reviewers--a fan and a newcomer. You'll be given a clearer picture then, depending on which umbrella you fall under.

I'd say Ebert got it just right. With a rating like that, I'm suprised he didn't slam the whole thing...but he didn't. He gave credit were credit was due.

It is clear as day--If you never played the games, you will NOT like this movie. Props for the director for staying true to the game series, unfortunatly in doing so he sacrificed any success they would have had in the film industry.

Has anyone reviewed Final Fantasy: Advent Children? I get the feeling critics will slam it the same way. Like Silent Hill, I can't figure out a single reason why you'd want to see AC unless you really got into the game...or if you get off on CG. I loved FF7, I will snatch it up tomorrow, and I will love it like an idiot because I loved the game.

Heres a simple formula we should all understand:
Great game + movie = bad joojoo

I have never played the games before and I didn't really know anything about it until I went there and I was in the same boat with these movie critics by the end of the movie. I had no idea what was going on, and barely had a base to give any thought to what had happened in the movie as it was largely action with what felt like annotated information at the end. The blatant info dump should have definitely been spread out and close to the beginning.

However, after all of those qualms about the movie and its story telling I still wanted to understand what was going on. I went online and read up on these games and their plot lines etc.. and now I actually understand what is going on. It is nowhere near as bad as the reviews claim it is. If you can understand it you will enjoy it, but the onus should not be entirely on the moviegoer, particularly if they have to do some homework to go out to the movies.

[Some spoilers ahead]

I think the supporters of this movie are being far too lenient, especially if they are fans of the series. Sure, I was happy to see Pyramid Head and Lisa, and I was glad they played "Tears of..." during the credits. These nods to the fans, however, don't excuse what I see as the unwarranted dumbing-down of a brilliant series. Besides the rubbish dialogue, the worst part about the movie was how everything was given too much exposition. First, we didn't need Chris Bean at all. His inclusion was a completely useless addition made only to appease studio execs. Secondly, and this ticked me off the most, they showed the transformation of the "normal" Silent Hill to the Otherside Silent Hill. Thirdly, they added the whole evil Christian cult nonsense. All of these errors break the core atmosphere of the first and second games(I have not played the third nor fourth).

The great appeal of Silent Hill for me was a feeling of complete immersion in a horrific alternative reality that made me, as a player, question what the hell was going on. In the games, we never, or at least rarely, see the transformation from light to dark versions of Silent Hill. Instead, the change suddenly occurs after entering a new room, or the character passes out and wakes up in a light or dark side. This is crucial to the play experience. Any reference to external reality or any knowledge of what is going on ruins the sense of immersion. There's a reason why the plots of these games are somewhat ambiguous and not entirely revealed until the end. Besides the dramatic tension, it makes the player question why reality itself, to question their own perception. To focus on events external to Silent Hill or to vividly show the darkness decaying the town in real time is to shatter the possibility that you, the player, might in fact be crazy. THe characters in the movie only have stuff happen to them, it's never assumed that they might be only hallucinating. In the first and second Silent Hill games, this is key to establishing deep emotional connections to the game.

Everything is questioned in the games, but in the movie things are simply attacked. Unfortunately, I can understand why they would change things for the movie. They wanted a horror hit, and so they had certain genre conventions to follow (scantilty clad female lead, ultimate evil antagonist(the cult), plenty of pointless shocks(pyramid head)) The problems posed to the player in the games might not translate well to the screen anyway, but I think it could with enough work.

I thought that the movie was really well done. In my opinion, it was one of the best video game adaptations to a movie that has ever been done.

It was fantastic. People complain that they actually have to think about a movie in order to "get" it, which is really a statement on how the movie-going public want everything spoon-fed to them.

What a bad film.

Ok, ok, ok. Let me get this straight. This movie makes you THINK? Really. Hmm, I suppose that's why there is a ten minute exposition sequence that explains the whole movie. Right. Face it, this was a bad movie and it may have looked great, but it was not well directed. Gans should have cut at least 35 minutes from it, it is WAY too long and boring. I love Silent Hill, but I also know film and this was not a good film. Is it a 0 out of 100, no.

It's hard to trust people who are paid to be negative. I think critics tend to be too harsh on movies, as they are looking for something ground breaking, when the public is just looking for a good story.

As it were, Silent Hill was #1 over the weekend. That does not mean it has greatness, but it completely derails the 0/100 rating posted above.

Critics cannot be trusted. They may have some valid points, but often they are so far removed from John Q. Public that they miss the mark for good entertainment. And that is what the average movie-goer looks for, regardless if it true story or a spoof.

The movie was already cut down from 3 hours. I am guessing that is where the real exposition in the movie went, being replaced with that cheap, un-fulfilling and inadequate info dump. Perhaps the extended DVD version will be a homerun

Just because Silent Hill was number one this weekend, does NOT mean it "derails the 0/100 rating." It just means that alot of people went to see it, and seeing how there were no reviews of it out until friday afternoon, I can see why.

Furthermore, saying that movie critics are paid to be negative is a baseless accusation. I, myself, am a movie critic at my college and while I can make a funnier review out of a bad movie, I cannot stand seeing bad movies, so when I see a good one I am not going to review it negatively just for the hell of it.

If the "public is just looking for a good story" then the movie has to be good as well. Are critics more discerning than the average movie-goer, sure, but a good critic should take that in to consideration.

Saying that the bad scores are the critics fault is just sour grapes.

To 32: I wouldn't ever confuse with popular appeal with cultural sophistication.

I had high hopes for this movie. I've never played the video game, but I thought the trailers were interesting. It's too bad this movie is no good. I was looking for a summer horror film and I guess I'll have to wait for whatever disappointing crap M. Night Shylaman comes out with.

Here is what I thought of it.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f216/macuseros9/silenthillposter.jpg

Every site or post that i have read on reviews on silent hill have made me wonder what isit really that people or true fans that didnt like the movie want to really see.im a fan and played the games 1-4 and i wasnt dissapointed about the film. ive read where people have quoted on the jeep which leaves me in ????,or have said that a certain character did not belong on the first part.(triangle head) which in my guess he was a cammeo in this if they make a part two he will have a bigger role.the dir on this film was the same who dir brotherhood of the wolf. for who has not seen this film rented or buy its a must see if not thats ok evryone has there opinion,im not saying you have to like it but im just wondering what isit that you want in a game made to movie. mortal kombat,resident evil,and every other game made to movie was ok or bomb really bad and some things were true and rest was put there because it was to fan base.i long ago when mortal kombat was in production and almost done it was rated r it had blood,gore everything mortal kombat should've been put the producers (sorry if any wrong spelling) thought that kids were going to see it and certain people they thought it was to gorer and went back to reshot the film for the parts and so it was rated pg-13.im just saying i like it because its the only movie to game that came almost 100 persent to the game.

by Hex

"Thirdly, they added the whole evil Christian cult nonsense. All of these errors break the core atmosphere of the first and second games(I have not played the third nor fourth)."
The "cult nonsense" comes directly from the third game. (well, not directly-directly, but the cult still plays a huge part in SH3's story).

To CoffeeJedi:

I knew there was a cult involved in Silent Hill, since that is elaborated upon in the first movie. But is the cult in the third game anything like the cult in the movie? Again, I haven't played the third game, so I don't know about it. In the first game, the cult was evil and trying to raise up their god Samael. That's nothing like the cult in the movie.

I rather enjoyed the movie, I never played the games and at the end I was wondering why Rose was still trapped in the other reality. After a little bit of searching and explaining I relized what had happened and it makes sence.

The way they made it transform the town was awesome my girlfriend hates it when it is dark and I make that siren sound it frecks her out. The Acting was poor at some parts, namly when Sharon freaks out looking at her pictures of the "Bad Drawings" that and the way her husband acted about his wife missing with their daughter.

The end as I said was the only part that had me confused and wanting to know more and what had happened.

Overall I give it a 75/100 just because I felt I was entertained and didn't waste my money.

I'm hoping for a part 2.

Wow. Mega-harsh.

Just me, but I sincerely doubt a movie critic would have to have played the game to appreciate it. If they had to, then IMHO someone screwed up with the movie.

And once again this thread vaguely makes me question the judgement of Joystiqers (no offense).

The way I see it is this - as a huge fan of the series, I loved the movie. If people who weren't fans of the series didn't like it, screw 'em.

I'd rather the fans be happy with it and others not, than the other way around.

I don't understand why all the critics disliked this movie. I've never played the series, but I know what the series are about and what the feel like (I've seen screenshots, movies, and a friend of mine playing it once). I thought the movie was excellent, I haven't been this intertained in the movie theater for quite some time now. The setting, the characters and even the camera angles had the feel of the series. The parts that they say "dragged on" were the story parts that I though were required for this type of a movie. Cant wait till the uncut edition comes out.

I really do not understand the unfair cyclical thrashing of this film that is going on. I think the reviewers are mostly just pissed that there were no special screenings for them. Anyway, Silent Hill was definately flawed but it wasn't that bad. I gave it a B in my review.

http://cinematiccynic.blogspot.com/

0/100? WTF? They rated Uwe Bolls movies higher than that, and there is no way in hell that Silent Hill was worse than Bloodrayne. I loved the movie, and during the tense parts everyone else in the theater was glued to the screen also. I hope all these bad reviews dont ruin the chances for a second one because im impressed.

superbagman:

So what was your review of the movie?

And how often do you give a 0/100 rating for a movie that tops the box office over the weekend? 'The Sentinal' and 'American Dreamz' got better reviews from the critics and they are trailing Silent Hill at the box office for an opening weekend despite their star casts. Clearly those should foot the bill of "the movie has to be good as well". I think there is a disparity with critics and John Q. Public. I agree that a good critic should recognize it, but until then, my trust of critic reviews is slim to none.

No doubt some movies deserve the negativity, but with the above example of 0/100, it isn't hard for me to prove my point that critics are too harsh on films, especially when Silent Hill is not a really bad film, just a mediocre one. Getting a 0/100 is yet another good reason why critics will not get the pre-screening privileges like before, as a Director would prefer people to come to their own conclusions, rather than an elitist movie critic who over-indulges in rating a mediocre movie.

Ok i will probably get blazed by SH fans but I was very dissapointed in the movie.
I like the Silent Hill games and I was really looking forward to this one but it was so SLOW moving it made me wish I could forward through the movie to get to the good parts!
It wasnt all bad, the sets were awesome and the monsters were weird and creepy just how they should be. Pyramid head rocked and should have had a much bigger role in the movie. He should have relentlessly chased them all over the place! That would have made for some really good suspenseful scenes instead of all the slow boring backstory.
Overall it was a movie worth seeing if your a fan of the game. A slow paced movie with wooden acting but with good photography,creatures,sets and some really cool scenes.
When it comes on dvd I will rent it and edit it down to about 45 minutes for future viewings!!

I find that the "last time we'll ever get our hopes up comment" by the article writer is quite pointless. As long as we somehow knew something of the game, we sure as hell all know that this is the best damn adaptation ever made. For more accurate reviews, which is from the viewers themselves, you should rely on IMDB, not rottentomatoes or meta review view by the critics. As well, the reviews chosen were quite dramatic. 0/100? Whoever wrote such a review is completely unprofessional and full of crap, because such a score is impossible in the world of movie reviews, deeming that the movie is worth no merit in any way. Its scored a 7.0 out of 100 with close to 6,000 reviews and 600 written reviews by users on IMDB. Those are the real people you should be listening to and writing about.