Yahoo Games "worst videogame movies" Silent Hill

[DistantJ]

The only good videogame to movie adaption I've seen is Final Fantasy VII Advent Children.

Well, that explains it then... Bloody awful movie.

This is the way I see it... See, if I stand here and say "Art is subjective and it's value is in the eye of the beholder" I'm insulting the intelligence of any person who genuinely knows how to make a great movie. What's the point of hailing Picasso as one of the greatest artists of all time when I can shit in a bucket and declare myself a creative genius?

At the time, a lot of people hated Picasso. Especially critics. You destroyed your own "Rotten Tomatoes has low approval rating so ti's bad" argument right there.

But thank you for finally explaining what you disliked about it. At least we're getting somewhere with this. Perhaps the next step would be for you to not harass those who did.

For me, the complaints you have about character relationships and morals are movie standard stuff... Daughter talks about a place, mother is convinced that going to that place, by whatever means necessary, will sort her out. Totally unrealistic but this is quite common movie logic. The movie never tried to say barbed wire death was "A-OK" though, it's an act of revenge, even acknowledged that it's so wrong with Dahlia's "What have you become" etc. This is one of my favourite elements about the movie, that it doesn't get all preachy with morals, that the character you're sort of rooting for has bloody revenge and nobody is 'redeemed'.

So as you can probably see, I look for something different in my movies to you, and if you're about to tell me I'm 'wrong' and it's 'bad' I'm not about to accept that, I've never listened to critics and never will, all that period drama stuff they usually rave about has been some of the most poncey, boring crap I've ever seen, so...

[AuraTwilight]

What's the point of hailing Picasso as one of the greatest artists of all time when I can shit in a bucket and declare myself a creative genius?

Picasso's a bad example; many people in the higher art community tend to consider his work pretty bad, and that he was only worthwhile due to his innovations.

Behind the movie of Silent Hill, there is nothing. I thought the movie was supposed to be about the corruption that ensues from committing an act of evil, since The Order was punished for torturing Alessa by being trapped in a parallel dimension they can't escape from, but then Alessa goes and rips them to pieces with barbed wire. So let me get this straight...Burning a little girl to death? Wrong. Ripping an entire group of people to pieces in the most painful and torturous way possible? A-OK. What?

Nothing says that ripping an entire group of people to pieces is A-OK. Infact, quite the opposite; you're supposed to "root for Alessa, despite knowing she's evil."

It's a morality fuck.

Then I thought the movie was about the bond between mother and child, but the few instances of parent-child relationships in the movie were so horribly dysfunctional that I would immediately call social services if any of these people lived next-door to me. "Well gee, our daughter is sleepwalking, so I guess I better take her to a fucking abandoned town by myself. Oh, and let's try and outrun the cop that tried to pull us over back there. Put your seatbelt on, honey!" Rose is either clinically insane or has no concept of how to properly take care of a child.

See above. She was doing what she, ultimately, believed was necessary to keep her daughter from being permanently institutionalized. Admittedly, the original script handled it better, wherein Sharon had a terminal disease and Rose was taking her to a faith healer.

The games scared me, I expected the movie to scare me, it didn't. The plot was confusing and none of the characters were really that like-able. Is that better?

Holy shit, I can't believe a Silent Hill fan actually used that as a complaint, lol.

[Yuki]

Hey, Aura, do you have a link to the original script? I'd love to read it.

[DamienPales]

At the time, a lot of people hated Picasso. Especially critics.

Picasso's a bad example; many people in the higher art community tend to consider his work pretty bad, and that he was only worthwhile due to his innovations.

Neither of these comments is true at all.

Infact, quite the opposite; you're supposed to "root for Alessa, despite knowing she's evil."

Why in the flying fuck would I want to root for someone who's evil?

[AuraTwilight]

Neither of these comments is true at all.

[citation needed]

Why in the flying fuck would I want to root for someone who's evil?

Because you're supposed to find her sympathetic and tragic enough that her revenge feels justified and that the cult deserves it. Certainly, that's how Alessa herself, and Rose, feel. Alessa's not doing it because Being Evil Is Fun.

Hey, Aura, do you have a link to the original script? I'd love to read it.

I'll give it to you on AIM. I know there's a link here on the forum.

[The Adversary]

>[citation needed]
I think you need to provide the citation. After all: You're the one making the original statement. He doesn't have to prove you wrong until you've proven yourself right.

[Yuki]

>[citation needed]
I think you need to provide the citation. After all: You're the one making the original statement. He doesn't have to prove you wrong until you've proven yourself right.

I'm inclined to agree with this, though I think both should be proven if you guys are arguing it.

Thanks for the link, Aura.

[Csilent Ihill]

Because you're supposed to find her sympathetic and tragic enough that her revenge feels justified and that the cult deserves it. Certainly, that's how Alessa herself, and Rose, feel. Alessa's not doing it because Being Evil Is Fun.

True, but like I earlier have stated, the movie noticeably failes to convey these sympathetic and tragic elements since the script is mostly ridiculous and the characters are foolish and one-dimensional. For example, when Cybil attempts to pull over Rose's car, Rose randomly decides to escape... I mean what the hell just happened and what specifically made her do that? You can't honestly feel her desperation wishing to escape from the "crime scene" and to aid Sharon. You can't feel what goes on inside her, since Rose lacks any sense of development, credibility and motivations, and since several of her actions don't make sense. She's basically just an inane, flat character without credibility and motivations who make foolish, illogical acts and is genuinly uninteresting, and that's why we can't relate to her, that's why we can't feel her desperate quest for Sharon and her genuine love for Sharon. And it's not, by any means, Radha Mitchell's fault.

[DistantJ]

At the time, a lot of people hated Picasso. Especially critics.

Picasso's a bad example; many people in the higher art community tend to consider his work pretty bad, and that he was only worthwhile due to his innovations.

Neither of these comments is true at all.

I'm a qualified professional Graphic Designer. I know my art.

Infact, quite the opposite; you're supposed to "root for Alessa, despite knowing she's evil."

Why in the flying fuck would I want to root for someone who's evil?

Moral ambiguity for a morally ambiguous world. I guess you don't like Watchmen either, then?

[AuraTwilight]

>[citation needed]
I think you need to provide the citation. After all: You're the one making the original statement. He doesn't have to prove you wrong until you've proven yourself right.

It's easy to demonstrate that people didn't like Picasso's art in every instance. Statistically, there must be credible opinions that are unfavorable of him just like with every other artist in history. However, you can't do the same and say that no one hated Picasso's art, ever.

True, but like I earlier have stated, the movie noticeably failes to convey these sympathetic and tragic elements since the script is mostly ridiculous and the characters are foolish and one-dimensional. For example, when Cybil attempts to pull over Rose's car, Rose randomly decides to escape... I mean what the hell just happened and what specifically made her do that? You can't honestly feel her desperation wishing to escape from the "crime scene" and to aid Sharon. You can't feel what goes on inside her, since Rose lacks any sense of development, credibility and motivations, and since several of her actions don't make sense. She's basically just an inane, flat character without credibility and motivations who make foolish, illogical acts and is genuinly uninteresting, and that's why we can't relate to her, that's why we can't feel her desperate quest for Sharon and her genuine love for Sharon. And it's not, by any means, Radha Mitchell's fault.

It's actually pretty simple, but very subtle. Rose's cards have been cut off by Christopher, who didn't approve of the trip, and so it's perfectly logical for Rose to assume that Christopher, who's trying to permanently institutionalize Sharon, would tell the police that she technically kidnapped her, which is true.

Cybil, who overheard that Rose is taking Sharon to Silent Hill, a ghost town with poisonous gas and where people have tried to kill children there before, is obviously fucking concerned and follows her. Rose speeds due to her own suspicions, and the following clusterfuck happens.

[The Adversary]

>you can't do the same and say that no one hated Picasso's art, ever.
That isn't, from my understanding, what DamienPales suggested. You specifically wrote, "At the time, a lot of people hated Picasso. Especially critics" and "many people in the higher art community tend to consider his work pretty bad." You can't really change your argument by writing, instead, "people didn't like Picasso's art in every instance." There's a difference between "people," "critics" and "people in the higher art community." Originally you distinguished them; now you're saying they're all the same.

>Statistically, there must be credible opinions that are unfavorable of him
Right. Some, not "a lot," nor "many."

So. Citation?

[DamienPales]

Let's just let the Picasso thing go. It was supposed to be an analogy so I could illustrate a larger point, not start a discussion on Pablo Picasso's life and times. But I guess some of us just have to respond to everything that's said.

It's actually pretty simple, but very subtle. Rose's cards have been cut off by Christopher, who didn't approve of the trip, and so it's perfectly logical for Rose to assume that Christopher, who's trying to permanently institutionalize Sharon, would tell the police that she technically kidnapped her, which is true.

Cybil, who overheard that Rose is taking Sharon to Silent Hill, a ghost town with poisonous gas and where people have tried to kill children there before, is obviously fucking concerned and follows her. Rose speeds due to her own suspicions, and the following clusterfuck happens.

Yeah. That's what I was saying. Rose is a horrible mother who is needlessly endangering the child she claims to care so much for, and thus why she is such a poorly written character, seeing as how the movie is trying to present her as "the heroine."

Alessa deserves zero sympathy within this universe as well. After nearly dying, she decides to embrace hatred and kill a bunch of innocent people. Then the evil Alessa pops up to be evil and shit. Then good Alessa is created for some reason, sleepwalks for some reason, cries "Silent Hill" for some reason, and then merges with evil Alessa at the end to trap her mother in an alternate dimension forever...for some reason. This contrasts with the Alessa from the games, who was not evil and who didn't go around killing people she didn't like, thus helping us sympathize with her plight and actually saying something about how innocent people can be swallowed up by others' evil.

Cybil is the only halfway-decent character in the movie, but the scene where she needlessly sacrifices herself so Rose can go down the elevator is overwrought. Hey Cybil, why not go in the elevator with Rose? There's no reason for you to play the "Go on without me" card...I guess Gans and Avary couldn't resist killing off the sidekick. I'm just grateful they didn't force me to sit and watch her getting bitchslapped and then slowly roasted to a crisp...wait a minute...

Christabella is a stereotype and an unconvincing villain.

There's no reason for Dahlia to be in this movie.

There's no reason for Chris to be in this movie.

There's no reason for Gucci to be in this movie.

Thus concludes my character analysis.

[AuraTwilight]

Let's just let the Picasso thing go. It was supposed to be an analogy so I could illustrate a larger point, not start a discussion on Pablo Picasso's life and times. But I guess some of us just have to respond to everything that's said.

Right, I apologize, I was just pointing out that it brought us back to the "Beauty in the Eyes of the Beholder" thing.

Yeah. That's what I was saying. Rose is a horrible mother who is needlessly endangering the child she claims to care so much for, and thus why she is such a poorly written character, seeing as how the movie is trying to present her as "the heroine."

I wouldn't say it was needless. The whole "Silent Hill" thing was worth investigating, though she could've gone about it a lot better. I'm cutting her some slack since she was panicking and under pressure of permanently losing her daughter if she didn't do something. It's not like she had a more convenient option.

Alessa deserves zero sympathy within this universe as well. After nearly dying, she decides to embrace hatred and kill a bunch of innocent people. Then the evil Alessa pops up to be evil and shit. Then good Alessa is created for some reason, sleepwalks for some reason, cries "Silent Hill" for some reason, and then merges with evil Alessa at the end to trap her mother in an alternate dimension forever...for some reason. This contrasts with the Alessa from the games, who was not evil and who didn't go around killing people she didn't like, thus helping us sympathize with her plight and actually saying something about how innocent people can be swallowed up by others' evil.

The basic idea was to express the irony that the cult turned Alessa into the monster they feared through their own evil acts. She's basically a product of their own paranoia.

Cybil is the only halfway-decent character in the movie, but the scene where she needlessly sacrifices herself so Rose can go down the elevator is overwrought. Hey Cybil, why not go in the elevator with Rose? There's no reason for you to play the "Go on without me" card...I guess Gans and Avary couldn't resist killing off the sidekick. I'm just grateful they didn't force me to sit and watch her getting bitchslapped and then slowly roasted to a crisp...wait a minute...

Yea, except, if she went in the elevator with her, they would've stopped the elevator and brought it back up, like they were clearly trying to do.

That, and having Cybil go in with Rose to the final meet with Alessa would've been a bit inappropriate.

There's no reason for Dahlia to be in this movie.

I disagree, here, as she's a foil for Rose's character, but yea, we can ditch Chris and Gucci (Not the writers' fault, though. Executive Meddling.)

[DistantJ]

I'm gonna echo Aura in that I always saw Rose as a good mother trying every last thing to keep Sharon's free and safe. Even if she wasn't institutionalised, she's trying to save Sharon from sleepwalking almost off of a friggin' cliff again. The point is she'd have walked off and died if they hadn't found her and it'd just keep happening if she didn't do something about it, and as she keeps stressing, 'the drugs don't work'. The whole speeding away from a cop and driving through a gate thing was maybe a bit unrealistic, sure, but that doesn't break the whole movie.

Damien you seem to be crying out for the same old movie, like I always think a lot of critics look for, the same basic stories again and again. Just because Alessa is a bitch doesn't mean she can't get her 'revenge' ending (my favourite part of the film). Unexpected endings can be some of the best, and 'revenge' endings can be the most satisfying (am I the only one who would have been pissed off if those cult members were left alive? I was thrilled that the movie had the balls to brutally slaughter it's antagonists). I'm tired of right-wing good vs. evil morals. With Silent Hill, some religious fanatics bit off more than they could chew, Alessa's revenge was their own doing.

Christabella... There's a difference between stereotype and archetypal. Christabella is a religious fanatic who gets what's coming to her, with my hatred for preachers and fundamental 'faith' this character is particularly real and frightening to me, and I love seeing her get torn in two. Sure, she's a 'Lex Luthor' villain but people like her exist in real life, so devoted to their beliefs and so convinced that they're doing the world a favour by condemning and attacking others, and that makes her a really great villain to me. In comparison to the game version of Dahlia (who she basically replaces) who is pretty much a cackling wicked witch.

No reason for Dahlia?!?! She was the BEST character! I loved her lines, her anguish, and she was the tie to the 'mother is god' motif. I find her way more interesting than the Dahlia from the game. I loved how she was mislead by the cult and has become this lost soul because of it all.

I also found Chris' story interesting and it added another layer to the town (we see it in 3 different dimensions instead of 2). Without him it's just a ghost-town movie, with his story in there we get a feel for the way it's split into separate dimensions, leading up to the ending.

Was Gucci the cop? Because I really liked his character too, showing his burned palms, and how he rescued Alessa etc. it tied things up nicely and for me he was an 'anchor' for the town, the movie's reminder that it wasn't just this cut-off area full of fanatics, that there were normal people in Silent Hill as well. I love the shot of him carrying the burned Alessa, and the look on his face.

And I can't see how we can compare the characters to the 1-dimensional wooden planks from the game...

Can we now just say "I like the Silent Hill movie" or "I don't like the Silent Hill movie"?

[AuraTwilight]

Yea, I find it a hell of a double standard to say Christabella is a stereotype and not people like Dahlia. Both are cartoony strawman fundamentalists with little depth, the only difference being that Christabella hits closer to home and Dahlia was "LOL SUMMONIN TEH DEBBILS BRB"

[JKristine35]

and kill a bunch of innocent people.

What movie were you watching? By no means do the cultists count as 'innocent'.

Then good Alessa is created for some reason, sleepwalks for some reason, cries "Silent Hill" for some reason, and then merges with evil Alessa at the end to trap her mother in an alternate dimension forever...for some reason.

It's pretty obvious why this happens. Alessa creates Sharon for two reasons:
1) So she can bring someone to the town who would be willing to help her
2) So she can have a body to be reborn into once her revenge is complete
Makes perfect sense to me. Sharon sleepwalks so that she can push Rose to the point of being desperate enough to defy her husband and the police, and take her child to Silent Hill. She is reborn to have a second chance at life that she was deprived of when the cultists burned her. And she traps Rose in the alternate realms because she has no reason to want to return to our world.

Cybil is the only halfway-decent character in the movie, but the scene where she needlessly sacrifices herself so Rose can go down the elevator is overwrought. Hey Cybil, why not go in the elevator with Rose? There's no reason for you to play the "Go on without me" card...I guess Gans and Avary couldn't resist killing off the sidekick. I'm just grateful they didn't force me to sit and watch her getting bitchslapped and then slowly roasted to a crisp...wait a minute...

Cybil knew the cultists would go looking for Sharon once she and Rose disappeared into the elevator. By focusing their attention on herself, she figured she could buy Sharon time, at the very least. And she did.

[emFox]

Yea, I find it a hell of a double standard to say Christabella is a stereotype and not people like Dahlia. Both are cartoony strawman fundamentalists with little depth, the only difference being that Christabella hits closer to home and Dahlia was "LOL SUMMONIN TEH DEBBILS BRB"

At least Dahlia of the game tried to hide her motivations. There wasn't anything resembling this in the movie. It's why I didn't find Christabella or her flock to be interesting at all; the moment we see them, we know they mean trouble. At least Dahlia had the angle of an unhinged occultist who had an idea of what was happening an town and was presented initially as a bizarre ally.

It's part of what made the game so terrifying: not everything is made clear immediately. The movie at least starts on this note when Rose first enters town, excluding establishing the town as definitely abandoned and Sharon as definitely tied to it. Then we meet Anna, and the mystery -- and the horror it provides -- gets sapped out of the movie.

[AuraTwilight]

At least Dahlia of the game tried to hide her motivations. There wasn't anything resembling this in the movie. It's why I didn't find Christabella or her flock to be interesting at all; the moment we see them, we know they mean trouble. At least Dahlia had the angle of an unhinged occultist who had an idea of what was happening an town and was presented initially as a bizarre ally.

Christabella thinks she's completely in the moral right. Why should she hide her motivations? Dahlia, on the other hand, is basically knowingly evil for the sake of it because she wants to kill everyone.

[DistantJ]

Once again I agree with Aura, somebody convinced through blind faith that they're doing good by hurting others, is far scarier, far more realistic, and far more interesting than some evil "Imma burn mah own daughter to use her powers" witch lady.

I mean there are people in the world right now who are convinced that those who are gay or foreign are evil and damaging to society and thus try to deny them their rights or even hurt or kill them and feel 100% sure that they're doing a good thing, and those people are terrifying. Christabella was one of them - she thought she was saving the world and her church from sin by burning a child alive. That disturbs and frightens the shit out of me.

[JKristine35]

Agreed that stuff like that happens, and that it's scary. Christabella is the movie version of the real life phenomena of twisting religion to suit one's petty desire for control and glorification.