But what else would you expect from a video horror game.
Visuals were great. Creepy. Started out top notch. Divulged into a ghost town story that's not really a ghost town at all. Since people live there. Or is it supposed to be hell? Why are the mother and daughter in hell exactly?
Just silly junk about religion and witches and silly nonsense.
But at least it looked cool.
3 out of 10. Dumb.
It sounds like you didn't understand much of the plot. Try reading the board's FAQ thread and see if that helps you any. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384537/board/thread/244156535
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
It sounds like you didn't understand much of the plot. Try reading the board's FAQ thread and see if that helps you any. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384537/board/thread/244156535
Divulged into a ghost town story that's not really a ghost town at all. Since people live there. Or is it supposed to be hell? Why are the mother and daughter in hell exactly?
Just silly junk about religion and witches and silly nonsense.
i bet you yourself a religious garbage and this movie hurt your worthless crappy feelings.
i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification
I would consider your reply if you spoke actual english and I had a clue what dumb point it was you were trying to make.
shareIt works well if you watch it as a comedy film though.
share[deleted]
Yeah it sucked.
They focused waaaaay too much on the cult.
Yes, there is a cult in the first game but really the source of the nightmare is the little girl. The cult was the catalyst but it wasn't the main focus of the game. The movie didn't understand that.
This is why the third game is weaker. It focused too much on the stupid cult.
The Otherworld is caused by Alessa in the movie, too.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
I actually thought the entire plot meant to establish that the religious cult is what summoned the freaky shít, I'm shocked to read that it wasn't the whole point in the game. But in all honesty, I would have wished there was no explanation at all as to what is going on, it removes A LOT of the suspense of the story. Having the origins of "the otherworld" explained just renders the creepiness blunt, like teeth taht have been filed down.
---
Ja mecka en, ja mecka två, ja mecka tre,
Ja mecka en braja, I light it with fayah
You mean no flashback scene?
shareI saw the movie when it came out so it was 10 frikkin years ago, I don't remember a flashback scene. But if the flashback scene is what provided the xplanations then yes, it should be omitted 😀
---
Ja mecka en, ja mecka två, ja mecka tre,
Ja mecka en braja, I light it with fayah
Shucks it is old now.
The flashback is where Samara narrates the tale of her burning. She really doesn't explain that much. But the out of universe comments by Gans imposed a rather detailed explanation on her narration.
didn't like it either, the atmosphere was good i thought but nothing else worked
4/10
so many movies, so little time
If you didnt play the games you won't understand the movie, so shut up lol amazing movie :)
shareI've been a huge fan of the games since 1999. I agree, the movie sucked. Extremely boring and changing the gender roles was inexcusable.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
Sooooo. You're not a silent hill fan? Lol
shareI just said I've been a fan of the games since the 90's. How does that not constitute me as a fan? I thought the movie was terrible in relation to the games or just general scariness. And getting rid of Harry *beep*ing Mason automatically disqualifies such cinematic merit.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
This movie is nowhere near perfect, but I'm sorry you can't deny that certain aspects of it were fantastic. The monsters looked amazing (I love that they used actual dancers so they could get the movements just right), the music they used was perfect and the atmosphere was spot on.
Now the acting and storyline could have been better... but overall this was a decent movie. (And I'm a huge fan of the SH games)
Too much exposition mainly ruined the movie. The game wasn't always about the cult. WTF? The cult was just the catalyst to the conflict. the meat and potatoes was the internal demons like all Silent Hills. Mediocre acting, swapping gender roles was completely unnecessary, oh and did I mention too much exposition?
The transitions between Sean Bean in the real world and Silent Hill was also dumb as hell. It ruins the ominousness of the town's setting. Stop jumping between the real world and the 'Hill. It should be JUST the Hill.
And where the hell are all these people coming from in the town? What made Silent Hill so haunting was it was selective in its sense of mysticism. It didn't have a bunch of people in the town, it was just you, and a few other people of symbolic significance. Totally ruins this essence of individualism or symbolic personification.
Movie is a 4/5 at most out of 10. You must have low standards. I just found the movie completely boring. The production design was excellent as you've pointed out with the enemies. But that's just the superficiality. I didn't find it scary due to bad directing.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
Yeah, liking a fictional movie that you don't like doesn't mean someone has "low standards". It means they don't agree with your personal opinions.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
Yeah, liking a fictional movie that you don't like doesn't mean someone has "low standards". It means they don't agree with your personal opinions.
No, it is neithrr objectively bad nor good. Art is ALWAYS subjective. Lots of people like this movie. Dont degrade the personal opinions of those you disagree with by trying to force your own opinions as fact.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
I'm fairly sure I can analyse this movie top to bottom and find flaws and inconsistencies in its structure and authenticity to the game series. I agree that art is built in to subjectivity; but that artistic cop-out should not inhibit criticism.
Not surprised most of the critics didn't like it. And ironically most of them probably aren't fans of the games.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
The thing is: you feel it's a bad film. Some people agree with you, and some don't. Whether the film was a good adaptation or a good movie in general is highly subjective, up to each individual. You can't declare that your personal opinion is correct and everyone else's is wrong.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
I never said my opinion was correct. Correct / Wrong implies a static dichotomy of absolutism. I said you can baseline objectivity of quality via analysis and critiquing / criticism. That's what snob film critics are for to a more formalized extent. hehe! Which can either amplify or negate X or Y opinion. Of course I feel it's a bad film; because I have logical reasons for determining it such.
There are a handful of films that are objectively bad or generic that I enjoy. But I distinguish their cinematic rating with their entertainment rating. And there are objectively good films that I personally don't like.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
But when you say something is objectively bad, you are demeaning the opinions of those who disagree with you. Critics really don't mean anything, especially for a film in a genre that is historically *beep* on by reviewers. In the end, critics are just people who are paid to voice their own personal opinions (a practice I find to be quite ridiculous). So again, it circles around to personal taste. You didn't like it, some other people didn't like it, I liked it, some other people liked it. Pretty typical for any work of art.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
So those who thought Silent Hill was superior to Silent Hill Revelations were just expressing an opinion? And demeaning the poor souls who thought the other way around?
shareBut when you say something is objectively bad, you are demeaning the opinions of those who disagree with you.
Critics really don't mean anything, especially for a film in a genre that is historically *beep* on by reviewers. In the end, critics are just people who are paid to voice their own personal opinions (a practice I find to be quite ridiculous). So again, it circles around to personal taste. You didn't like it, some other people didn't like it, I liked it, some other people liked it. Pretty typical for any work of art.
Oh they can disagree that they didn't share the same subjective experience. That I agree with. But what they can't disagree is the validity of my logical deduction I can make against the movie via its criticism.
Most of the critics didn't like it. I didn't like it. All of my SH friends didn't like it. Clearly, something is iffy going on.
Being totally presumptuous, but you seem like a chick who was only a fan of the game after seeing the movie. Not vice-versa
Any reason you have at all for liking or disliking a movie is valid, because it's your personal taste. That doesn't make your opinion objective.
I liked it. My friends liked it. My boyfriend liked it. Many, many members of the SH community liked it. Clearly, something was done right. (See how two people can use personal opinions to try to "prove" themselves right?)
Do you see the problem, here?
All I see is someone doing anything they can to force their personal opinions onto others.
Your analysis and criticisms are only objective to you. I don't see the movie the same way you do. Your thoughts on the film are valid, as are mine. My point is that you're coming off very much as though you're saying anyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong, which is simply not true. My thoughts on the film are just as valid as yours.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
Your analysis and criticisms are only objective to you.
They're not as good to me. But I won't insult or look down on someone who says they like Uwe Boll more. I don't get to decide if something is objectively good or bad. No one does.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
Translation: I don't bother analyzing and critiquing a movie with much thought and contemplation for the excuse of a nihilistic cop-out of artistic subjectivity. Because it's easier to just make that argument than argue the mechanics behind the movie itself.
It's about as intellectually stimulating as a philosopher trying to discuss ethics and morality while the other person simply says it doesn't matter because it's "all subjective".
All it does is disregard analytical discussion for the sake of subjectivity's merit. Which is obviously fallacious.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
I have discussed with you your reasons for disliking the film, and explained at length why I feel differently. My issue is not that you want to talk about why you don't like it - but that you insist on trying to force your perspective as 'right' and everyone who disagrees with you as 'wrong'. My initial reaction was to a post where you told someone who liked the movie that they must have "low standards". As someone who is a big fan of the SH movie, I find that personally insulting, and it's certainly untrue. Like I've said over and over, I'm not arguing that you can't dislike something, or that your reasons for liking/disliking any work of art aren't valid - it's more your attitude that your opinion is better than everyone else's that I take issue with.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
[deleted]
We'll agree to disagree, then.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
Too much exposition? This first movie barely had any. Most of the back story was filled in the believable way, characters making allusions while they talk about something else.
shareToo much exposition? This first movie barely had any. Most of the back story was filled in the believable way, characters making allusions while they talk about something else.
Clearly you've never played the original for the PS1. There were no flashbacks detailing Samara's burning. (yes, obviously she isn't in the game)
Have... have you played the games? Or watched the movie? Samara comes from The Ring. And I assume you're talking about Alessa, who is definitely in the game. They also did do a flashback of sorts, taking place in Nowhere, which depicted Dahlia's moment of realization that she could use her daughter for the birthing ritual.
Also, what is your weird obsession with the gender swap? I mean, disliking it is cool and all, but you mention it in every. single. post. Even when no one is talking about it.
Harry was in Nowhere when he saw a flash into Alessa's past showing her begging Dahlia to love her. I believe there's another flashback that occurs in Nowhere when Dahlia and other cultists are seen standing around Alessa and talking about part of her soul being missing.
I'm not bothered by the gender swap. It actually made the movie's already strong matriarchal themes and symbolism even more powerful. What's most important to me is that Harry's motive and personality remained intact.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
Harry was in Nowhere when he saw a flash into Alessa's past showing her begging Dahlia to love her. I believe there's another flashback that occurs in Nowhere when Dahlia and other cultists are seen standing around Alessa and talking about part of her soul being missing.
I'm not bothered by the gender swap. It actually made the movie's already strong matriarchal themes and symbolism even more powerful. What's most important to me is that Harry's motive and personality remained intact.
They were Alessa's memories manifesting themselves, thus they were flashbacks. You can argue how it was presented, but it was still a glimpse of Alessa's life replaying itself to help clarify the story for the audience.
You're welcome to your opinion about the gender swap - I simply disagree. I appreciated the theme weaving itself through every aspect of the film, and I wish the studio hadn't forced a male story arc that clearly did not add to the film's underlying meaning. The movie was never meant to be a 100% copy of the game, Gans himself has said this. I thoroughly enjoy the stories of both the games and the film, and respect their differences. In my opinion, each played to the medium they were presented in and their audience very, very well.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
They were Alessa's memories manifesting themselves, thus they were flashbacks. You can argue how it was presented, but it was still a glimpse of Alessa's life replaying itself to help clarify the story for the audience.
You're welcome to your opinion about the gender swap - I simply disagree. I appreciated the theme weaving itself through every aspect of the film, and I wish the studio hadn't forced a male story arc that clearly did not add to the film's underlying meaning. The movie was never meant to be a 100% copy of the game, Gans himself has said this. I thoroughly enjoy the stories of both the games and the film, and respect their differences. In my opinion, each played to the medium they were presented in and their audience very, very well.
The male story arc was forced. Literally. The studio made Gans add it, even though it had nothing to do with the core of the film. I assume you're talking about the games again. I know there was a general theme of parenthood in the game, not specific to motherhood. Everyone who has ever played the game knows that. In the movie, yes, the overriding theme was intentionally made to be solely about mothers and daughters (hence why every single female character either literally or symbolically fulfills a mother or daughter role). I don't think feminism had anything to do with this theme being in the movie, and I'm curious as to how you would even reach such a conclusion. Gans felt that the game world had hints of matriarchy to it, and since he never intended to directly copy the game to screen, he expanded on it. I don't fault him for that. For a story like Alessa's, I felt it worked beautifully. Had this been a totally different story, it might not have worked so well.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
I never said feminism had any internal necessity of the literary elements, rather the move made by the screenwriters / execs was outside of the film. the move itself was very feminist and wrong, not pertaining to the story itself.
The game world had hints of matriarchy in it? So what? How does that justify altering the gender neutral parenthood theme of a Father and his daughter? You can still have Harry while retaining the matriarchal themes and keeping the nature / nurture dichotomy between man and creation.
The real reason was the execs just didn't think having a grown Male adult screaming and going through a whirlwind of emotions while being the 'surrogate mother' of the movie would work well for the audiences. It has nothing to do with idiosyncrasies in the literary themes. That's a total copout that I don't buy for a nickel.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
I wouldn't call having a film with multiple types of female characters either "feminist" or "wrong". There are lots of movies out there full of men and masculine themes - this just happens to be the opposite. I don't think having a male lead would have worked nearly as well for a movie based almost entirely in maternity and matriarchy. The point was to display the different types of women/girls, all of whom were either mothers or daughters in different ways. Adding a male lead would have put an entirely different element that changed the theme. Obviously, Gans wanted the theme to be complete. He changed the character for two reasons: both because of the reason you're stating, but also because he wanted the lead to fit into the matriarchal elements he was weaving throughout the film. One idea simply strengthened the other, in his mind. Like I said, I don't have an issue with it, because I don't believe that Harry's gender was ever important in the game at all. You do. Personal opinions.
It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.
[deleted]
I think keeping Harry would've worked just fine with the themes. We'll have to agree to disagree, then.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
So we have one poster complaining about feminism in Silent Hill. The other grumbles that the male subplot was forced on the film. I propose a series of three debates culminating in a Silent Hill Municipal Election.
share