Yahoo Games "worst videogame movies" Silent Hill
Moderator: Moderators
- cascade88
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 2195
- Joined: 22 Jun 2009
- Gender: Female
- Location: Koholint island
- Contact:
What godawful dialogue?
I don't want to start a fight really though. Uhm, personally, the dialogue of SH3 was not "godawful", nor was the script for the film Silent Hill "godawful" either, so, I'm not trying to say it was. Actually, the only thing I found off was Heather's forced, momentary "heel face turn" with Claudia, when she suddenly "was Alessa" again. That could've been better. Everything else was fine though.
Now anyway, about the actual movie, I don't think it was as great as a lot of people have made it sound. In other words, I really do enjoy the movie, I have it on DVD, and I like it, and have yet to find any part of it bad enough to mock or make fun of. That said, it sounds like in this thread, it's divided between people who love, love, love the movie, and people who think it sucks ass. No middle ground?
I don't want to start a fight really though. Uhm, personally, the dialogue of SH3 was not "godawful", nor was the script for the film Silent Hill "godawful" either, so, I'm not trying to say it was. Actually, the only thing I found off was Heather's forced, momentary "heel face turn" with Claudia, when she suddenly "was Alessa" again. That could've been better. Everything else was fine though.
Now anyway, about the actual movie, I don't think it was as great as a lot of people have made it sound. In other words, I really do enjoy the movie, I have it on DVD, and I like it, and have yet to find any part of it bad enough to mock or make fun of. That said, it sounds like in this thread, it's divided between people who love, love, love the movie, and people who think it sucks ass. No middle ground?
єเภןє๔єг єภﻮєl เรt รςђгєςкlเςђ
I had a few problems with the movie but no more than I have with most horror movies... Like that one exchange "They used to say this place was haunted" - "I think they were right" makes me cringe a little, and the fact that Rose's solution to every problem seems to be to scream and point the torch at it for a while... But this is all horror movie standard stuff.
Where we're from, the birds sing a pretty song, and there's always music in the air.
Except Dahlia's hardly a strawman fundamentalist. She's nuts, a religious cultist, but at least she doesn't come off as white trash, or creepy Catholics.You could pretty much say the exact same thing about Silent Hill 1 and the horror novels it was based off of.
Where, in this thread or elsewhere? And even if it's the case, I still don't like how hamfisted it is.Yes, it is. JRamirez has already demonstrated this, so I won't waste time repeating it. She's an aspect of Alessa's psyche.
At least with Silent Hill 1 you weren't sure of what was reality and what wasn't. The movie is very obvious about how literal and divided things are outside of the foggy and dark Silent Hill, no thanks to scenes involving Sean Bean's character.Same as Silent Hill 1.
The game focused less on hurling abuse at Alessa and more on creating an atmosphere of dread and confusion, whereas the movie, beyond the opening moments in the alleyway, was poorly paced. The mystery evaporated the moment Anna showed up and brought Rose and Cybil to the church.
Dark Alessa is still hamfisted, Sharon is still hamfisted, and Alessa herself holds no weight as a dramatic element and is used simply as a justification to unleash horrific and unnecessary violence against Christabella's flock. I'll give you that Alessa and Dahlia in the original game aren't fully realized characters either, but their function of compounding the mystery of the game and keeping you off-kilter made up for it. And no, please don't bring the Book of Lost Memories over at Translated Memories into this -- a work in any medium should be judged on its own merits and should not rely entirely upon other media to convey a message. That's weak. If you can't fully understand or appreciate the story in a work without having to read a book explaining everything, then what's the point?You can totally stop with the putting words in my mouth. We're talking about the "Truth" scene, not a scene that happened over an hour previous. Furthermore, Dark Alessa playing the sympathy card doesn't mean she necessarily has "good intentions." As for why they stay in the foggy world, there can be many reasons. Perhaps Alessa, understandably, is afraid to go to the real world, or doesn't want to leave the world where she's essentially a God. It's a perfect haven to her, why should she leave it?
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
Yea, she's just a two-dimensional Random Crazy Evil Satanist Crazy Cat Lady. That's SO much better.Except Dahlia's hardly a strawman fundamentalist. She's nuts, a religious cultist, but at least she doesn't come off as white trash, or creepy Catholics.
Maybe in this thread, I don't remember. I know she's done it in assloads of threads multiple times, though.Where, in this thread or elsewhere? And even if it's the case, I still don't like how hamfisted it is.
It being hamfisted is entirely your own opinion, and I don't find it hammy at all, especially since so many people seem to have difficulty discerning her role.
Christopher's little subplot was forced into the script by executive meddling, I won't fault the creative minds of the movie for that. Take that away, and the reality of things is as murky as usual.At least with Silent Hill 1 you weren't sure of what was reality and what wasn't. The movie is very obvious about how literal and divided things are outside of the foggy and dark Silent Hill, no thanks to scenes involving Sean Bean's character.
The game may have been "creating an atmosphere of dread and confusion", but take away the mystery and look at the objective plot, and it's still just an Alessa pity party.The game focused less on hurling abuse at Alessa and more on creating an atmosphere of dread and confusion, whereas the movie, beyond the opening moments in the alleyway, was poorly paced. The mystery evaporated the moment Anna showed up and brought Rose and Cybil to the church.
The mystery evaporated in the game the moment Lisa mentioned that Alessa was in a fire.
Again, opinion (which you've still yet to base with anything, so you're kind've being a hypocrite here).Dark Alessa is still hamfisted, Sharon is still hamfisted, and Alessa herself holds no weight as a dramatic element and is used simply as a justification to unleash horrific and unnecessary violence against Christabella's flock.
1) The hell does that have to do with anything?And no, please don't bring the Book of Lost Memories over at Translated Memories into this -- a work in any medium should be judged on its own merits and should not rely entirely upon other media to convey a message. That's weak. If you can't fully understand or appreciate the story in a work without having to read a book explaining everything, then what's the point?
2) I'm sensing contradiction and double standard here. You're asking for SH1 to be held on it's own merits, but then comparing the movie to SH1 and making it to be shitty in comparison, you say SH1 was awesome for being confusing, but then bash the movie for being incoherent and not explaining things, etc.
Really, this whole thing started because you felt it necessary to attack me and my opinions. What the hell?
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
- DamienPales
- Rosewater Park Attendant
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: 25 Mar 2009
- Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
See? This is why I like to make absolute statements. That way, these dumb back-and-forths don't happen.
Also, "That's your opinion" isn't really a great counterargument. It's just a [not so] clever way of dodging the point the other side made.
Also, I asked my dad, who's a scientist, to do some tests on whether Silent Hill is a good movie or not. The results came back just now, and Silent Hill is shittier than Michael Moore's underpants. Game, set,
and match.
Also, "That's your opinion" isn't really a great counterargument. It's just a [not so] clever way of dodging the point the other side made.
Also, I asked my dad, who's a scientist, to do some tests on whether Silent Hill is a good movie or not. The results came back just now, and Silent Hill is shittier than Michael Moore's underpants. Game, set,
and match.
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
The most recent was in the SH2 to be based off SH3 thread. Both the director and actress have stated in multiple interviews that Dark Alessa is, in fact, Alessa's dark side. Dark Alessa's quote about 'I have many names' could mean a bunch of different things, and doesn't necessarily suggest she is older than Alessa.Where, in this thread or elsewhere? And even if it's the case, I still don't like how hamfisted it is.
Agreed.It being hamfisted is entirely your own opinion, and I don't find it hammy at all, especially since so many people seem to have difficulty discerning her role.
Aura wasn't insulting her by saying that. It really is just emFox's opinion, and that's her right, just as what Aura writes is his opinion. He's not telling emFox she's wrong for having a different opinion, just pointing out that emFox got angry with him for not backing up his opinions, then didn't seem to justifiably back up her own.Also, "That's your opinion" isn't really a great counterargument. It's just a [not so] clever way of dodging the point the other side made.
Wow, that's not incredibly childish, immature, and halfway to being a troll remark. Nope, not at all.
Also, I asked my dad, who's a scientist, to do some tests on whether Silent Hill is a good movie or not. The results came back just now, and Silent Hill is shittier than Michael Moore's underpants. Game, set,
and match.
- DamienPales
- Rosewater Park Attendant
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: 25 Mar 2009
- Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
Well, if someone's going to make a story like "This part of the movie sucked and was childish", I want an explanation why, not elaboration on how someone feels rather than the why. When emFox gave reasonings for some of his points, I responded appropriately. "X is bad because X was stupid" is not valid.Also, "That's your opinion" isn't really a great counterargument. It's just a [not so] clever way of dodging the point the other side made.
emFox called me an idiot with nothing worthwhile to say and told me to leave the thread. What the fuck?I don't think emFox is really all that angry. It's not like emFox is typing in all caps. He's just made the mistake of trying to engage Aura in debate, something I learned to avoid not too long ago.
Also, JKristine? WTF don't change your name like that without warning me, you bitch, you scared me. XD <3
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
I'll just post my opinion here, genuinely thinking:
We start the movie with Sharon sleepwalking and mumbling. Rose manages to tackle her before she falls off the waterfall. I remember cringing at her lines at this point, easily the least subtle way of introducing the town of Silent Hill possible. The script's take was better: an out-of-the-way town that draws in Rose and Sharon like a couple of flies into a pitcher-plant, forces reaching out and ensnaring them both.
The more we see of Sharon, the more and more I intensely dislike her. I know the point of her character -- she's the good side, she's suppose to be nice, innocent and sweet, etc. -- but it just doesn't work for me. Her voice is high-pitched, she does nothing but act like a very, very young child, even younger than seven or so, to the point where one wonders if Christophe is even going to try to tone anything down. Easily the best moment between Sharon and Rose in the beginning is when they sit under the tree, both quiet and sharing a moment together of rest. The whole acting like a kitten thing was, again, not a believable way of putting across the fact that Sharon's an innocent kid.
Jumping far ahead, we have Rose speeding away from Cybil. In the movie, you raise your hands and simply say, "What the fuck did you do that for!?" At least in the script, Sharon was days away from her own death, so it's not a stretch to assume that a mother would panic as a response to protect her terminally ill daughter.
Let's jump ahead more, to Anna. We get some terrible acting and dialogue on her behalf: she shows up simply to introduce certain plot elements, then is neatly disposed off like human fodder. The only impression we get from her is that she's backwards and very religious, and judging from how casually she's introduced and thrown aside, she could've just as easily been a stupid teenager in the "Friday the 13th" movies.
It's at this point where the mystery of the movie really begins to deteriorate: not that the talk earlier about the "abandoned coal-mining town" and Chris' needless intrusion as a tool for exposition helped. We're introduced to the scores of backwards church-goers led by Christabella, a bunch of sheeple devoid of any kind of character whatsoever. These are not interesting antagonists, and it really insults my intelligence to find that this movie is set in a fictional West Virginian coal-mining town with villains ripped out of a "Crucible" knock-off. They act as nothing more than the stereotypical murderous fanatics -- at least the game's Dahlia had delusions of grandeur and a manipulative side. Gans and Avary barely even try for the movie.
My complaints with Sharon apply equally to Dark Alessa, a character that's written just straining to be accepted as a seriously evil little girl. At this point, I don't even care if she's part of Alessa or not, she's still a blatant symbol with no mystery attached whatsoever. It was better when Rose was chasing the unburned representation of Alessa from earlier -- a girl who looked like Sharon, but wasn't because of the school uniform.
Soon, we get to the Nurses -- who are not intimidating if "Thriller" comes to mind when they start moving -- and the flashback. This still should've been used with little to no voice over -- perhaps something at the end to help segue into Alessa's sickroom, but not the voice over that pushes everything into our faces as it tries to act seriously. Following these scenes, we go back to the church, where the gore starts heaping up and blood spurts freely. This scene doesn't work to horrify, or even titillate anyone that isn't a gorehound. I just feel disgusted that this movie is even trying to make me feel anything for such bland, uninteresting and bald-faced characters and story. Rose is the only character I can ever identify with, even with some of her stupid mistakes and lines, probably because she has at least some nuance.
One can argue about how Dahlia in the original game is nothing more than a two-dimensional occultist, or that the game also simply burns the shit out of a little girl hoping to shock you. One would be right, except that the game doesn't pile all of these out onto your lap, with a look on its facing just begging you to sympathize. The game introduces one mystery on top of another, references obscure religious beliefs and occultism, suggest the possibility of hallucination or insanity. As Harry, you're confused beyond all belief as you go about solving weird puzzles and reading bizarre notes. Even when you learn about the death of Alessa, you're still wondering what Cheryl has to do with anything, or what her plans are. At the end, you're left wanting to piece all of it together, especially if you're like most players who got the Bad ending.
I won't try to speak for anyone else anymore. If Roger Ebert couldn't get it, or Mahnola Dargis or Jim Emerson or whoever else watched this movie, they didn't get it. I got it, loud and clear, and I'm shocked that such a straight-forward movie was inspired by such a mysterious, sinister game.
I'm sorry if I pissed anybody off. It just baffles me that anybody could appreciate this as being a serious movie with well-rounded characters. I tried arguing from someone else's perspective as well as my own because the thought of what Gans and Avary -- though especially Gans and the studio -- did to this movie really angers me, and nobody thinks coherently while they're angry. Which is odd, because I don't let myself get like this very often.
Now that I've managed to sort everything out and put it out there, maybe I won't look so contradictory anymore.
We start the movie with Sharon sleepwalking and mumbling. Rose manages to tackle her before she falls off the waterfall. I remember cringing at her lines at this point, easily the least subtle way of introducing the town of Silent Hill possible. The script's take was better: an out-of-the-way town that draws in Rose and Sharon like a couple of flies into a pitcher-plant, forces reaching out and ensnaring them both.
The more we see of Sharon, the more and more I intensely dislike her. I know the point of her character -- she's the good side, she's suppose to be nice, innocent and sweet, etc. -- but it just doesn't work for me. Her voice is high-pitched, she does nothing but act like a very, very young child, even younger than seven or so, to the point where one wonders if Christophe is even going to try to tone anything down. Easily the best moment between Sharon and Rose in the beginning is when they sit under the tree, both quiet and sharing a moment together of rest. The whole acting like a kitten thing was, again, not a believable way of putting across the fact that Sharon's an innocent kid.
Jumping far ahead, we have Rose speeding away from Cybil. In the movie, you raise your hands and simply say, "What the fuck did you do that for!?" At least in the script, Sharon was days away from her own death, so it's not a stretch to assume that a mother would panic as a response to protect her terminally ill daughter.
Let's jump ahead more, to Anna. We get some terrible acting and dialogue on her behalf: she shows up simply to introduce certain plot elements, then is neatly disposed off like human fodder. The only impression we get from her is that she's backwards and very religious, and judging from how casually she's introduced and thrown aside, she could've just as easily been a stupid teenager in the "Friday the 13th" movies.
It's at this point where the mystery of the movie really begins to deteriorate: not that the talk earlier about the "abandoned coal-mining town" and Chris' needless intrusion as a tool for exposition helped. We're introduced to the scores of backwards church-goers led by Christabella, a bunch of sheeple devoid of any kind of character whatsoever. These are not interesting antagonists, and it really insults my intelligence to find that this movie is set in a fictional West Virginian coal-mining town with villains ripped out of a "Crucible" knock-off. They act as nothing more than the stereotypical murderous fanatics -- at least the game's Dahlia had delusions of grandeur and a manipulative side. Gans and Avary barely even try for the movie.
My complaints with Sharon apply equally to Dark Alessa, a character that's written just straining to be accepted as a seriously evil little girl. At this point, I don't even care if she's part of Alessa or not, she's still a blatant symbol with no mystery attached whatsoever. It was better when Rose was chasing the unburned representation of Alessa from earlier -- a girl who looked like Sharon, but wasn't because of the school uniform.
Soon, we get to the Nurses -- who are not intimidating if "Thriller" comes to mind when they start moving -- and the flashback. This still should've been used with little to no voice over -- perhaps something at the end to help segue into Alessa's sickroom, but not the voice over that pushes everything into our faces as it tries to act seriously. Following these scenes, we go back to the church, where the gore starts heaping up and blood spurts freely. This scene doesn't work to horrify, or even titillate anyone that isn't a gorehound. I just feel disgusted that this movie is even trying to make me feel anything for such bland, uninteresting and bald-faced characters and story. Rose is the only character I can ever identify with, even with some of her stupid mistakes and lines, probably because she has at least some nuance.
One can argue about how Dahlia in the original game is nothing more than a two-dimensional occultist, or that the game also simply burns the shit out of a little girl hoping to shock you. One would be right, except that the game doesn't pile all of these out onto your lap, with a look on its facing just begging you to sympathize. The game introduces one mystery on top of another, references obscure religious beliefs and occultism, suggest the possibility of hallucination or insanity. As Harry, you're confused beyond all belief as you go about solving weird puzzles and reading bizarre notes. Even when you learn about the death of Alessa, you're still wondering what Cheryl has to do with anything, or what her plans are. At the end, you're left wanting to piece all of it together, especially if you're like most players who got the Bad ending.
I won't try to speak for anyone else anymore. If Roger Ebert couldn't get it, or Mahnola Dargis or Jim Emerson or whoever else watched this movie, they didn't get it. I got it, loud and clear, and I'm shocked that such a straight-forward movie was inspired by such a mysterious, sinister game.
I'm sorry if I pissed anybody off. It just baffles me that anybody could appreciate this as being a serious movie with well-rounded characters. I tried arguing from someone else's perspective as well as my own because the thought of what Gans and Avary -- though especially Gans and the studio -- did to this movie really angers me, and nobody thinks coherently while they're angry. Which is odd, because I don't let myself get like this very often.
Now that I've managed to sort everything out and put it out there, maybe I won't look so contradictory anymore.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
Frankly, while Sharon's performance didn't bother me, I do kind of miss the scene in the original scene with Sharon socializing with other adults at a hotel and getting excited about pancakes.The more we see of Sharon, the more and more I intensely dislike her. I know the point of her character -- she's the good side, she's suppose to be nice, innocent and sweet, etc. -- but it just doesn't work for me. Her voice is high-pitched, she does nothing but act like a very, very young child, even younger than seven or so, to the point where one wonders if Christophe is even going to try to tone anything down. Easily the best moment between Sharon and Rose in the beginning is when they sit under the tree, both quiet and sharing a moment together of rest. The whole acting like a kitten thing was, again, not a believable way of putting across the fact that Sharon's an innocent kid.
Keep in mind that the movie established minutes before that Christopher froze all of Rose's cards, and he opposed Rose's plans, causing her to leave without his consent. It's completely believable that Rose would think that Cybil is after her, as Rose is technically guilty of kidnapping.Jumping far ahead, we have Rose speeding away from Cybil. In the movie, you raise your hands and simply say, "What the fuck did you do that for!?" At least in the script, Sharon was days away from her own death, so it's not a stretch to assume that a mother would panic as a response to protect her terminally ill daughter.
Way to generalize. Sorry, but I was surprised and terrified with the whole "vagina-rip-in-half" thing. You gotta give them points for that, if nothing else.This scene doesn't work to horrify, or even titillate anyone that isn't a gorehound.
The form of narrative that the original game uses just doesn't work in a 100 minute or so movie, though, dude.One can argue about how Dahlia in the original game is nothing more than a two-dimensional occultist, or that the game also simply burns the shit out of a little girl hoping to shock you. One would be right, except that the game doesn't pile all of these out onto your lap, with a look on its facing just begging you to sympathize. The game introduces one mystery on top of another, references obscure religious beliefs and occultism, suggest the possibility of hallucination or insanity. As Harry, you're confused beyond all belief as you go about solving weird puzzles and reading bizarre notes. Even when you learn about the death of Alessa, you're still wondering what Cheryl has to do with anything, or what her plans are. At the end, you're left wanting to piece all of it together, especially if you're like most players who got the Bad ending.
S'okay, I don't mind. I don't like fighting with people either. I was just bothered by your complete out of nowhere insult when you hadn't posted in the tread before and had less than ten posts to your name. I almost wanted to accuse you of being an alternate name of Damien's or something.I'm sorry if I pissed anybody off. It just baffles me that anybody could appreciate this as being a serious movie with well-rounded characters. I tried arguing from someone else's perspective as well as my own because the thought of what Gans and Avary -- though especially Gans and the studio -- did to this movie really angers me, and nobody thinks coherently while they're angry. Which is odd, because I don't let myself get like this very often.
Now that I've managed to sort everything out and put it out there, maybe I won't look so contradictory anymore.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
- DamienPales
- Rosewater Park Attendant
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: 25 Mar 2009
- Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
*promises to tell Aura next time she changes her name*Also, JKristine? WTF don't change your name like that without warning me, you bitch, you scared me. XD <3
Aside from what Aura said, I don't think you grasp what they were going to do with Sharon. Chris wanted her put into an institution, effectively ending Sharon's life as we know it. It's unlikely she would have been released from said institution until she was cured- which would probably be never because no medicines or doctors were working. Rose was literally about to lose her child forever.Jumping far ahead, we have Rose speeding away from Cybil. In the movie, you raise your hands and simply say, "What the fuck did you do that for!?" At least in the script, Sharon was days away from her own death, so it's not a stretch to assume that a mother would panic as a response to protect her terminally ill daughter.
There's also the fact that Rose's behavior is meant to parallel Alessa's. Alessa is irrational and obsessive, Rose is irrational and obsessive. It's supposed to show us just how much of the type of mother Alessa is looking for Rose is.
I'm not a gorehound, and I thought the scene worked very well.This scene doesn't work to horrify, or even titillate anyone that isn't a gorehound.
She has posted on this thread before, though it was way back. She jumped into an argument I was having to insult me because she disagreed with my interpretation of a quote.I was just bothered by your complete out of nowhere insult when you hadn't posted in the tread before and had less than ten posts to your name.
Yet she continues to endanger her child almost needlessly. It's baffling and could be considered bad parenting, to put Sharon in such risk driving off like that. It was much more sympathetic in the original script -- Sharon was dying within days, after all.AuraTwilight wrote:Keep in mind that the movie established minutes before that Christopher froze all of Rose's cards, and he opposed Rose's plans, causing her to leave without his consent. It's completely believable that Rose would think that Cybil is after her, as Rose is technically guilty of kidnapping.
Well, I won't. It's a cheap shot akin to "Hostel" and not something I'd expect from a "Silent Hill" branded title. You may have bodies strung to the walls, pieces of flesh lying on the ground and a severed dogs' head, but the mystery of why they're there is what makes those moments work.Way to generalize. Sorry, but I was surprised and terrified with the whole "vagina-rip-in-half" thing. You gotta give them points for that, if nothing else.This scene doesn't work to horrify, or even titillate anyone that isn't a gorehound.
Wrong. It may not work in a crowd-pleasing studio funded motion picture because executives can't stand anything that experimental, but there are plenty of movies out there that work to disorient the viewer and make them uncomfortable.The form of narrative that the original game uses just doesn't work in a 100 minute or so movie, though, dude.
There's most of David Lynch's movies, for starters. "Cache" is a film by Michael Haneke that toys with viewer's expectations regarding narrative structure and continuity. Hitchcock definitely toyed with the audience (the shower scene in "Psycho" is montage style editing to great effect, by replicating the chaos and confusion that would naturally come from being suddenly attacked in the shower). The story from the original game can definitely work in movie format so long as the long stretches of gameplay are reinterpreted cinematically, something that nobody in the film industry has yet to accomplish. It would have to be a visceral experience that, as Hitchcock put it, "plays the viewer like a piano."
That's what the movie franchise for "Silent Hill" needs: an independent atmosphere that isn't bogged down with demands from clueless studio executives that can't appreciate the franchise. It also requires someone with more sensibilities regarding interesting characters that don't push the boundaries of believability. Even Konami, a mega publisher of games, realizes this to an extent (they allowed "Shattered Memories" to go forward after the disastrous "Homecoming"), and perhaps they should dictate a little more control over the franchise name in the film industry.
I agree. I think that Kiyoshi Kurosawa could really pull something like this off with his unorthodox filming style. I'm not quite sure how any film-maker could really give off the exact same feeling as a videogame--the whole idea of interactivity kind of complicates things--but they could proably imitate the vibe of the games a bit more. That said, I enjoyed the Silent Hill movie, but while I felt that visually it was like the games, in terms of pacing and story it was vastly different.emFox wrote:Wrong. It may not work in a crowd-pleasing studio funded motion picture because executives can't stand anything that experimental, but there are plenty of movies out there that work to disorient the viewer and make them uncomfortable.
- Csilent Ihill
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 23 Mar 2010
- Location: Sweden
Not to deliberately cause any negative attention, hoping to become a critic the first day as a SHHF-newbie, but as for the outcome of the SH movie I consider it to be a let down. Gans visual capture of SH was magnificent to say the least; his caring approach of cinematography, camera work, wardrobe, make up and etc were ideal to the source material, and the sound settings from the surroundings that represented a major part of the atmosphere were impressive too. The cast was well choosen and intriguing, and many of them had made quite an impact in independent features prior to SH. However, I suppose it's mainly Roger Avary's fault that ultimately caused such substantial flaws, which was quite unexpected considering his previous praising work with Pulp Fiction, True Romance (not only did Tarantino wrote the scripts) and The Rules of Attraction. His inconsistent SH script had a bizarre mixture of being inane, foolish and laughable; having great actresses delivering those awkward lines from already shallow, foolish characters didn't actually help, obviously, but their facial expressions coupled with their body languages had a different outcome, implying that their underused acting skills were capable of a much better script.
Another aspect that caused the movie to suffer was the notable lack of dread, tension, danger, isolation and emotions; there were barrely no demons involved, since it instead was overcrowded with people; there was no tension nor excitement in narrative, and since the characters were so dull and the dialogue foolish, it made it exceedingly difficult to connect and feel commitment toward the story. True, there are a few scenes that start off promising only to get ruined, like the moment when Rose regains consciousness in the car, realizing Sharon's gone and she starts walking... that's a nice scene with silence, atmosphere and a slow pace. The moment later where Rose approaches this eerie town is also nicely handled... up until the moment where she sees the silhouette of the daughter; that scene was ruined because it was abrupted too sudden, because as a viewer I was just about to inhale the atmosphere, get a feel to the eeriness, but that state of mind vanished by this course of event. Ok, I admit, I am nitpicking... but basically, a great deal of the atmosphere backfires because of various course of events that occur too sudden, before we're able to get a perspective of the mood taking place.
Also, the restrictions the studio represented that there can't only be females so Chris and Gucci got involved partly contributed to the flaws, reinforcing the inconsistency of the already defective narrative. Just think for one second if Gans instead had rejected the studio's silly demands and after a great deal of various struggle reaching the decision to shoot the movie in France instead... But then again, well, the script would still be there, I guess.
I don't mind the changes Gans and Avary did to improve the transition from game to movie. The argument that Harry was acting feminine and that the idea of Rose basically arose from that statement still holds ground. Some changes were necessary, it always is, and most of those changes worked well. But that doesn't justify the treatment of the script... and I'm not saying it's Avary's fault alone, because during the writing process they were three inofficially (Gans, Mason). I surely give a few credits to the ambiguous, dark ending, though.
I think the first Resident Evil and Doom came out okay, unlike this film who had such potential to become an innovative classic in horror.
Another aspect that caused the movie to suffer was the notable lack of dread, tension, danger, isolation and emotions; there were barrely no demons involved, since it instead was overcrowded with people; there was no tension nor excitement in narrative, and since the characters were so dull and the dialogue foolish, it made it exceedingly difficult to connect and feel commitment toward the story. True, there are a few scenes that start off promising only to get ruined, like the moment when Rose regains consciousness in the car, realizing Sharon's gone and she starts walking... that's a nice scene with silence, atmosphere and a slow pace. The moment later where Rose approaches this eerie town is also nicely handled... up until the moment where she sees the silhouette of the daughter; that scene was ruined because it was abrupted too sudden, because as a viewer I was just about to inhale the atmosphere, get a feel to the eeriness, but that state of mind vanished by this course of event. Ok, I admit, I am nitpicking... but basically, a great deal of the atmosphere backfires because of various course of events that occur too sudden, before we're able to get a perspective of the mood taking place.
Also, the restrictions the studio represented that there can't only be females so Chris and Gucci got involved partly contributed to the flaws, reinforcing the inconsistency of the already defective narrative. Just think for one second if Gans instead had rejected the studio's silly demands and after a great deal of various struggle reaching the decision to shoot the movie in France instead... But then again, well, the script would still be there, I guess.
I don't mind the changes Gans and Avary did to improve the transition from game to movie. The argument that Harry was acting feminine and that the idea of Rose basically arose from that statement still holds ground. Some changes were necessary, it always is, and most of those changes worked well. But that doesn't justify the treatment of the script... and I'm not saying it's Avary's fault alone, because during the writing process they were three inofficially (Gans, Mason). I surely give a few credits to the ambiguous, dark ending, though.
I think the first Resident Evil and Doom came out okay, unlike this film who had such potential to become an innovative classic in horror.
Yeah, well... that is just like, ah, your opinion, man.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
I completely and totally agree that it was more sympathetic. Like JKristine said, though, Rose is meant to be irrational. If she was rational, she wouldn't be taking her kid to a dead town in hopes of a magic cure.Yet she continues to endanger her child almost needlessly. It's baffling and could be considered bad parenting, to put Sharon in such risk driving off like that. It was much more sympathetic in the original script -- Sharon was dying within days, after all.
Double Standard alert.Well, I won't. It's a cheap shot akin to "Hostel" and not something I'd expect from a "Silent Hill" branded title. You may have bodies strung to the walls, pieces of flesh lying on the ground and a severed dogs' head, but the mystery of why they're there is what makes those moments work.
I stopped reading here, because David Lynch pretty much makes things up as he goes along (as he admitted in an interview over Twin Peaks).Wrong. It may not work in a crowd-pleasing studio funded motion picture because executives can't stand anything that experimental, but there are plenty of movies out there that work to disorient the viewer and make them uncomfortable.
There's most of David Lynch's movies, for starters.
Oh, now let's be fair, here. Harry saw Cheryl like the second he got out of the car in the game, and the movie doesn't have time to dedicate much time to Rose just walking.The moment later where Rose approaches this eerie town is also nicely handled... up until the moment where she sees the silhouette of the daughter; that scene was ruined because it was abrupted too sudden, because as a viewer I was just about to inhale the atmosphere, get a feel to the eeriness, but that state of mind vanished by this course of event. Ok, I admit, I am nitpicking... but basically, a great deal of the atmosphere backfires because of various course of events that occur too sudden, before we're able to get a perspective of the mood taking place.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
- Csilent Ihill
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 23 Mar 2010
- Location: Sweden
Well, that's correct, but in the game after Harry sees Cheryl you can at your own convenience choose to embrace the atmosphere just by walking or standing still, since you're pretty much your own director. But in the movie there's a certain attitude... something has to happen every minute, or the audience will be bored. The way Rose' initial encounter with the town is handled is imperative due to atmosphere and build up; I believe the filmmakers should have stressed the effective "less is more"-approach of silence, a slow pace and extended shots, focusing on one character only for like four, five minutes, and then the silhouette of her daughter could surface, leading Rose to that dark alley.AuraTwilight wrote:Oh, now let's be fair, here. Harry saw Cheryl like the second he got out of the car in the game, and the movie doesn't have time to dedicate much time to Rose just walking.
Well, considering an interview with Avary prior to the release where he claimed it was a very silent and isolated movie and since the outcome turned out differently, I guess I'm extra disappointed and perhaps paying too much attention to this low-key, slow pace structure... It wasn't just the script that shattered the end result, but too much content like characters, unfocused story structure and pointless scenes as well.
Yeah, well... that is just like, ah, your opinion, man.
Not at all. The treatment of the gore is entirely different between the two, as is the atmosphere surrounding it. Christophe presents the violence in his film in an entirely different fashion than the game, and it's less disturbing to me because in the game, its faint glimpses of far off bodies, with the occasional "crime scene" here and there. It's more effective because you simultaneously wonder (and don't want to wonder) what could be out in that dark.AuraTwilight wrote:Double Standard alert.
It would be a double standard if both instances of gore were treated the same by their respective creators. They are not.
It's his method to be immensely spontaneous. But it works. Twin Peaks really benefited from the "accident" that is BOB, along with all the mysticism surrounding the Black Lodge. And whatever material he does come up with most definitely connects to one another: one always feels like he's watching a movie with a world that is cohesive and self-referential, even if any sense of reality and logic goes flying out the window. It's why Laura Dern's performance in "INLAND EMPIRE" always feels like one character in particular, even if she changes from Nikki Grace to Susan Blue, from established actress to whore. There's a core there that is unchanging, which is a testament to both Dern and Lynch's abilities as artists.I stopped reading here, because David Lynch pretty much makes things up as he goes along (as he admitted in an interview over Twin Peaks).
In the end, it's not the method that a filmmaker uses to shoot a movie or anything else. It's the final product, and if you see significance in that, then the fact that a filmmaker says that he "makes it up as he goes along" -- which everyone does as they fish for ideas, but few while in the actual creation of it -- should not matter. The final product matters. Art is supposed to stand on its own two feet and establish itself as its own entity, and the artist's statements or the critic's statements should not matter if the final product can speak for itself.
Also, you stopped reading as I mentioned "Cache," a movie whose creation is much more meticulous than David Lynch's process, and Hitchcock, who knew how to create a detailed thriller like nobody else.