Just got back. I have to say I really didn’t like it. Just about everything was laid on too thick. The game was kinda subtle in an in-your-face kind of way. I mean, crazy stuff happened, but they knew how to restrain it so that it wasn’t too much. The movie didn’t.
Opinions seem to be all around the board on this one. If you were planning to see it, give it a shot, you might like it.
Think I’ll just play the game again and get the good ending for a change.
I don’t recall her being in the final scene at all; I think she’s just in the scene with the mutated hospital bed. She’s normal in a flashback scene, and then all creepified with no eyes in the present.
I’m a big fan of horror movies and I really liked this one.
One thing that I feel needs to be stressed is that Silent Hill is not a drama; those who consider good character development and/or plot to be necessary for a film to be well-done are not going to enjoy this, or indeed, a great many other horror films (aside from horror/dramas à la The Others, Sixth Sense, Jacob’s Ladder etc.)
Like many horror movies, Silent Hill is almost entirely about the visuals. And even the negative reviews admit that this film has some amazing imagery. The problem is, rather than seeing the visuals (and the atmosphere they create) as the main course, the reviewers are inclined to toss them aside as a superficial garnish. This sets them up to dislike the film and it is perhaps largely responsible not only for the bad reviews that this movie in particular is receiving, but for the poor reception of most non-drama horror in general (for instance, Wolf Creek, High Tension, The Hills Have Eyes and Saw I/II: all recent horror films that are generally highly regarded among genre fans but rate in the 30%-50% range on rottentomatoes).
Think of the 70’s Argento film, Suspiria–a major horror release and something of a minor classic even outside the genre. But why is it well-liked? Surely not for the poorly dubbed dialogue, the paper-thin characters or the thoroughly uninteresting plot. No, it’s a classic because of its imagery; its imagery is the whole point. It’s not that it’s style over substance, but rather, the style is the substance. Horror films derive more from paintings than from books; they are not trying to tell a disturbing story so much as trying to show one. As a philosophy, they take the moniker of “moving picture” quite literally.
*Silent Hill *is simply following in the tradition of visually-oriented horror films. And appreciated in this light, it is a marvelous work.
I agree wholeheartedly. At least, for the first hour or so of the movie. Then they kind of abandon the visuals and general creepiness, and beat us over the head with exposition until about the end of the movie. Even the final scene didn’t have the creepiness of the previous ones, since you knew the characters you cared about were going to be left alone. I’ll be adding this to my list of “Decent/good movies with crappy endings,” right next to A.I.
I saw it a few hours ago. Wow was that a lot more gory than I expected, but it didn’t go over my threshold. It’s definitely one of the scariest movies I’ve seen in a while, too, which makes it an 8/10 for me. Jodelle Ferland was an excelent creepy little kid like I expected, and I was happy to see Laurie Holden in something new too.
I think we ought to start a new thread to discuss the movie now that some of us have seen it - talk about the ending, and so on. Anyone game?
I’m in, but I won’t start a thread 'cause mine almost always sink to the bottom. In the meantime, however, I’ll share my thoughts on the movie.
I think it suffered from Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Syndrome. It stayed true to the spirit of the games, but there were a lot of changes that were a bit jarring. For example, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around
The town “cult” being against Alessa, Samael et al. They were portrayed in the movie more like Puritans than the demon/goddess/whatever-worhipping Order they are in the games. In the game series, they helped create Alessa to bring about a “new paradise” and were a force to be reckoned with. In the movie, however, they were just scared scavengers. That just seemed wrong.
That being said, the visuals in this movie were frickin’ amazing. The child demons looked just how I imagined (had to thanks to primitive PS1 graphics) and I was pleased to see the patient demons make a cameo appearance. The overall look was spot-on to the games, and that is no small accomplishment. It also had that feel of trapped hopelessness that is central to the series.
However, I have some questions.
WTF was Sean Bean doing in this movie? I really like him as an actor and was disappointed to see he had so little to do in the story. Most of the exposition he provided could have been done by others. So what was the point? And why have Rose and Sharon in a different dimension/plane/sphere/whatever than Chris in the end? What did that accomplish? Also, why keep Cybil alive after her beatdown just to burn her later?
So all in all, a mixed review. The visuals were great, the feel of the game was there, but there were some jarring changes and plot elements that didn’t make sense, even in the SH world.
I just got back a little while ago, and I liked it. Israfel’s analysis sums it up pretty well, although I think the acting and dialogue weren’t nearly as bad as I’d heard. Not great, but decent. The movie is pretty gory, especially at the end, but it didn’t seem completely gratuitious like some other recent horror movies. The effect was less of, “Random carnage! Wheeee!” and more of, “What the fuck is going on around here!?”
My thoughts on the ending:
I’m guessing that Rose, Sharon, and Cybil all died when they crashed at the Silent Hill entrance, and their spirits were bound to the Hell version of the town. They didn’t realize they were dead, and when Rose and Sharon left at the end they were spirits.
My thoughts on the ending:
I’m guessing that Rose, Sharon, and Cybil all died when they crashed at the Silent Hill entrance, and their spirits were bound to the Hell version of the town. They didn’t realize they were dead, and when Rose and Sharon left at the end they were spirits.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I thought too, but my friend wondered:
Rose and Cybil were clearly hurt when they crashed, but Sharon wasn’t. Her theory is that Sharon didn’t die until the very end when the child-demon crawled up and looked at her. I’m not sure why she came to that conclusion, but I guess it’s as plausable as my supposition that she wandered off after the crash and fell off a cliff this time since Rose wasn’t alive to stop her.
PH looks incredible!! I might not be able to sleep after watching this…but it will be worth every friggin second.
I’m sorry to see PH got so few appearances, though. Apparently SH is doing well at the box office, so if there’s a sequel, maybe they’ll feature him more. And the sequel had better feature James.
I’m just curious about one thing - are Laurie Holden and Lauren Holly the same person? I thought it was Lauren Holly when I first saw the female cop. A google image search shows them both with Jim Carrey. Their facial features are very similar.
(yes, I realize that Laurie was in a movie with Jim, and they are not twins…) 
Laurie Holden was on The X-Files as Marita, Lauren Holly was on Picket Fences as Max. I don’t think they look much alike, especially since I’ve only seen Lauren play a blonde once, but they’ve both played cops
I absolutely loved it and don’t think they could have done a better job.
If they would have stuck closer to the source material, only SH fans would appreciate it, and everybody else would be left with a big WTF?
I thought of a completely different explanation.
I think because Rose made a pact with the demon and was partly responsible for the carnage, she also gets to live in her own private hell.
