Roger Ebert's SILENT HILL Review...- Page 2

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:40pm

What one did you play? I've only played Silent Hill 3 and still recognized most of it (and all the songs with voices are from Silent Hill 3).

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 3:19pm

I found a video of some lady complaining about the Silent Hill ad, and then after her rant proceeds to talk about how she has to go to the bathroom and is gonna use the outhouse near by (which I thought was really random).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idr0HreUlWM&search=Silent%20Hill

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 3:21pm

I believe it was 1 or 2 - although I don't recall. At the time, wasn't very into it - I just played it because I was bored.

But, I must say (although it has been said before), that you should have to be familiar with source material to understand or even enjoy an adaptation. Millions of people had never read the graphic novels of SIN CITY or V FOR VENDETTA, yet they were hugely embraced by the public. Even something like CHICAGO. I would venture to say that almost all of the general movie-going public had never seen CHICAGO on stage, or heard any of the music, yet look at it's overwhelming success. THE COLOR PURPLE (just the first example that popped into my head, but there are thousands) was an adaptation from a novel. Your exposure to the novel had no bearing on one's enjoyment and understanding of the film.

Whether I had played SILENT HILL or not, it should still stand on it's own. And it doesn't. From someone that DID play the game, the story line is too far fetched, too muddled, and just so poorly executed that all we're left with is a giant mess.

You thought the acting was great? It is laughable! Radha Mitchell is okay in the beginning, *SPOILERS* but in the end, when she walks into the church and sees her daughter about to be burned, and she just says "It's okay honey. Everything's going to be okay," it is the finest example of horrible acting, direction, and writing. There were several dozen moments in the movie when the entire audience erupted with laughter. I was one of them.

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 3:32pm

Besides the fact that you made a few spelling errors in your post (which almost completley changed your opinion because of it) I found the story to be nothing like Silent Hill 3 and I understood it fine. I don't get what's so confusing, I saw it with my Cousin and Uncle and they understood it too. If anyone really has any questions they can PM me. The only confusing part is the ending, which was pretty much left up to the viewers to decide what happened.

And yes I did think the acting was great, even if there were a few laughable lines (which I don't think detracted from the film at all).

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 4:00pm

The woman who played the cop is one of the worst performances I've ever seen on film.

Sorry about the spelling mistakes, I type very fast.

It's not that the film is hard to follow, really - I should have been clearer - it's just that the concept, the story, and everything about the plot just does not make one bit of sense.

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 4:08pm

The whole point of Silent Hill is you're not supposed to know what's going on, that's what makes it so scary. I agree that some of the plot didn't make too much since (even though I knew what was happening), but if they plan to make a trilogy out of this (which Gans supposedly does) they can't explain everything in the first entry...

But I think that most of the plot was explained and made sense, also remember it is a super natural movie and is not supposed to make sense if we apply it to the world we live in.


Updated On: 4/22/06 at 04:08 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 5:09pm

Touching on an earlier comment in the thread... while Ebert is obviously extremely versed in the world of cinematics and movie making, I often find myself disagreeing with him. So, just because he's an expert doesn't make his opinion official. Nor does being an expert on a movie necessarily qualify him as being an expert on what the movie's about, so sometimes I really do think he just doesn't get the movie, which is valid. I see movies I don't "get" all the time. O'course I'm not paid to write reviews on them so I usually just change the channel.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 8:30pm

I rarely agree with Ebert's reviews - they are mostly pretentions and it's as if he thinks his review is the end-all be-all on the film.

Just look at his CRASH obsession.

Wait.

SILENT HILL was scary?

I thought it was a comedy.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 8:41pm

He's pretty much spot on about a lot of older movies, but when it comes to newer movies I often disagree with him. Usually it's about things he hated and I liked.

I do like his Miyazaki enthusiasm though, which is probably the best thing to happen for Miyazaki in this country besides being distributed by Disney.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/23/06 at 4:37pm

Bumping this for Broadway86's review.

Posted: 4/24/06 at 12:34pm

Saw it Sunday. I wasn't really that scared. Sometimes I laughed. I thought the introduction was way too long. In the game, it starts with this guy driving and then he crashes.

I do wish it was more like the game, where the puzzles are concerned. And Rose having to fight and do this, and do that.. It might've been a better action movie than a "horror".

With that said, I think it's brilliant how all the religion makes this movie. Whether you belive it or not, Rose of Sharon, the Trinity, and Beautiful Christ (in the form of a woman) all appear in this movie.

And from waht I've read, the only special effects are the fog. The monsters are real people. I don't care either way though.

[broadway86]

Posted: 4/24/06 at 2:09pm

Bumping this for Broadway86's review.

Was that really necessary?

Anyways, saw it two nights ago, and... still haven't figured out what I thought. I'm not sure exactly what most people didn't understand about the plot. It was about a young witch who was wronged by the comminuty and ended up shrouding the town in enternal darkness. Makes sense to me. I also don't consider the film to be horror. I looked at it as a dark, twisted fantasy.

While some of the acting and dialogue was clunky, there were parts of the film that really freaked me out (i.e. the demon babies, Pyramid Head, the faceless nurses, etc.). Radha Mitchell, Laurie Holden, and Alice Krige were the only decent actors in the film. While Jodelle Ferland was good as Alessa, she was awful as Sharon.

I thought the film was, if nothing else, an artistic achievement. The art direction, score, and sound design were just as impressive than recent Oscar winners.

I'd give it **1/2 out of ****. Hopefully, some of the film's problems can be worked out in an Unrated DVD (like The Ring 2). Updated On: 4/25/06 at 02:09 PM

Posted: 4/24/06 at 2:13pm

The score is taken from the game... I can remember many nights when I played the game on mute cause it just made everything more scary.

broadway, what do you think happens to Rose and Sharon at the end?

[broadway86]

Posted: 4/24/06 at 2:18pm

I sent it to you.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/25/06 at 4:43pm

It's not confusing, the plot is just dumb.

And did you really say that the score, art direction, and sound were better than some oscar winners?

I'll give you the sound part - the sound was FINE, but art direction? Come on, now...

[broadway86]

Posted: 4/25/06 at 5:00pm

It's not confusing, the plot is just dumb.

That's one way of looking at it.

And did you really say that the score, art direction, and sound were better than some oscar winners?

Not exactly, I said it was just as impressive as recent Oscar winners. Why, is there a problem?

the sound was FINE, but art direction?

What was wrong with the art direction? The town looked phenomenal. I forgot to mention the makeup effects.

Come on, now...

No. Updated On: 4/25/06 at 05:00 PM