Jepsen on 23/4/2006 at 03:03
[SPOILER]and more barb-wire tentacle action...er, what?[/SPOILER]
(I don't know how to make not unnecessarily long spoiler bar thing.)
Briareos H on 23/4/2006 at 03:11
like this ? Use SPOIL tags instead of SPOILER :D
Also : fucking headache. I'm such an attention whore
Lhet on 23/4/2006 at 03:35
I'm a super silent hill fan, I liked it, but there were some things that I didn't like. [SPOILER]The sirens were on the church, a few of the songs seemed too short, each of the monsters basically got one scene except for PH and the cockroaches, the "you came this far, here's the truth", the whole coming up from the ground and killing everybody just because that's the norm. I think if there was a director's cut it might be better.[/SPOILER]
wickedlnl on 23/4/2006 at 06:42
Ok can some1 explain the deal with the lead female character. In SH1 it was aguy that crashed and lost his daughter so I couldnt see why they changed unless they put 2 games in one or something.
killed on 23/4/2006 at 16:34
Ok, so some key explinations for people who didn't like it/didn't get it.
So, as Thief13x said, he's never played the game. Automatically, that makes it not worth your while. The movie is a giant piece of fan art. That's it. Basically it's Gans jerking off the Silent Hill team. Which didn't bother me at all since I'm such a huge fan of the games.
Also, standing alone as a movie, it was mediocre. I would give it like a 6 or 7 out of 10. But, as an adaptation of the video games I would give it like a 9.
Critics are going to hate it. But any review that starts "Well, I'm not a fan of the games, but..." is not worth reading. I wouldn't sit for two hours watching Pokemon fan art, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't want to give it a good review.
Yes, it's extremely cheesey. It's supposed to be. It's supposed to be melo dramatic. Why is this acceptable in game form but not in a movie? They had dialogue very close to the game. It was the truest film adaptation of a video game to date. And really, is the first good one. You have to go into the theatre knowing what your getting or you're going to be disappointed.
Still, even as much of a fanboy as I am, there were some changes they made that bother me, but I can understand them. The movie is much more in your face than the games. The games work on a much more subtle level. So the excessive gore was a big turn off for me, but then again, the storyline called for it. So on the fence on that one.
But, I don't really mind people regaurding this as another horrible video game movie. It was a film specifically for the fans and that was the price they're going to have to pay.
Uncia on 23/4/2006 at 16:55
What about the fans of the series that thought it was crappy?
HipBreaker on 23/4/2006 at 21:49
Quote Posted by wickedlnl
Ok can some1 explain the deal with the lead female character. In SH1 it was aguy that crashed and lost his daughter so I couldnt see why they changed unless they put 2 games in one or something.
The director felt that the lead in Silent Hill 1 showed a very 'motherly' love towards his child, which is fine for a game but weird for a film. So he switched it to a female. Something like that:cool:
Wyclef on 23/4/2006 at 23:26
Quote Posted by wickedlnl
Ok can some1 explain the deal with the lead female character. In SH1 it was aguy that crashed and lost his daughter so I couldnt see why they changed unless they put 2 games in one or something.
I'm not sure aguy would make the most sympathetic movie protagonist
daniel on 24/4/2006 at 20:42
actually, titties sell better than sausage, thats why a woman is the lead
D'Juhn Keep on 1/5/2006 at 12:55
Chiming in to say what a horrible film this was. There no plot or motive, just a handful of scenes that are connected by the woman walking/running/driving somewhere. Her actions frequently made no sense - pulling away from the cop, having a lighter but not smoking, going there in the first damn place. I suppose that was my main complaint about it, I thought it looked good. Dialogue was pants, acting dragged down by it.
