Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:08 am
by Malcolm
I thought the previews looked rather promising; however, someone who works at a theatre that got an employee screening threw up a review on imdb.com. Early reports are of tremendous suckage. It'll be interesting to find out if I convince myself to see it this weekend or wait till the semester's out.
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:28 am
by Troy
The fact that their have been no pre-screenings, and that the movie is being released tomorrow, might be a tell tale sign that the movie is indeed a bastion of suckage.
Then again it is a game movie, and perhaps pre-screenings are just generally a no-no for such movies.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:55 am
by Selby
I was almost expecting to see Uwe Boll's name attached to it. I was quite surprised when I didn't. That doesn't mean I don't think it is going to be any good 
And no pre-screenings is almost always a universal BAD sign.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:43 am
by Malcolm
I was almost expecting to see Uwe Boll's name attached to it. I was quite surprised when I didn't. That doesn't mean I don't think it is going to be any good
And no pre-screenings is almost always a universal BAD sign.
Uwe'll've his chance to sodomize Dungeon Siege w\ the "lust" apparatus from "S7even."
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:36 pm
by Malcolm
Saw it last night. Review is below. I'll start a spoiler thread as well.
Synopsis :
Rose has an adopted daughter that sleepwalks late at night & keeps saying the name "Silent Hill." After a bit of research, Rose decides to go, sans husband, to investigate said town.
Review :
This is something of an odd film. By that I mean that it gets the difficult parts correct for the most part & it drops the ball in a number of what should've been easy parts. Details will be in the spoiler thread.
In addition, you'll notice Sean Bean's part seems entirely artificial. Well, it is. The script got returned from the studio w\ someone bitching about the fact that there weren't any significant male roles. He's only even remotely important in one scene & that's only as a foil.
The crew made the ballsy choice of playing this as a straight up horror flick. First off, there's a bit too much CG for my taste & it really kills a couple of scenes cos it just doesn't look fucking convincing. Then there's the main character, Rose, who makes hugely stupid decisions in one part & seems to've decent reasoning abilities in another. Also, she alternates between scream queen & strong female lead, depending on what best fits the scene. At times, the script seems to drag to a muddling, plodding pace during which the main characters just seem to stumble onto the proper path. Many of the supporting cast are predictably one-dimensional and seemingly too stupid to survive in the environment in which the film takes place.
All that being said, this is still a decent flick. The atmosphere, set designs, & cinematography are all kick-ass. It isn't quite on par w\ the opening of "28 Days Later," but it's fucking good. On average, we can the heroine go from scared, stupid chick to a resourceful, upright survivor. There are ample hints early on of what is to come, but it's not specifically heavy-handed; it's just enough to get your brain thinking. The critters running around generally stay in the dark, not allowing the deficiencies of the CG to jump out most of the time. If you ain't a horror flick vet, then there's probably a few moments that'll get you a-jumpin'. The numerous sorts of things running around all seem to subscribe to the school of hurky-jerky, unnatural movement that generates a feeling of generall creepiness whene'er they're on the screen.
A note though : the ending could very well piss of a lot o' folk. I sort of enjoyed it, myself. But fucking results will vary.
Verdict : 3 stars. Some minor script revisions could've added an extra half star, or if done very well, another star. This is, to date, the best flick based on a vid game to come out.
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:32 pm
by GORDON
3 out of 4?
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:37 pm
by Malcolm
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:54 pm
by GORDON
From you that's high enough praise for me to try and catch it.
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:16 pm
by Malcolm
From you that's high enough praise for me to try and catch it.
3 is generally the minimum I give for a flick I consider worth seeing. This ain't the greatest flick ever made, but it is the current king of vid games flicks, dethroning Mortal Kombat.
Keep in mind, I gave A Nightmare on Elm Street III 3 stars as well.
I'm more forgiving of these types of films as I find them more entertaining & suitable to my tastes.
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:20 pm
by Paul
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:45 pm
by TPRJones
I like his written review even better than the comic:
You might have seen people say that this was a good movie, or a faithful representation of the game, and I would urge you to disregard anything those people say in the future about movies or, indeed, any other subject.
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:08 pm
by Malcolm
Faithful recreation of the game it was not. Still beats the living fuck out of any horror flick made since the first half of "28 Days Later."
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:35 am
by GORDON
Just watched it again, this time on blu ray.
I think what I like best about this film is that it portrays one of those absolute, worst-nightmare scenarios... and by the end has you sympathetic toward the nightmare. You want to ask it, "How can I help?"
That's pretty cool.
