Yahoo Games "worst videogame movies" Silent Hill

Post by **alone in the town** » 19 Mar 2010

I could be a Top Critic too, if I could convince the right people to give a shit about my opinions and pay me to print them in mass media, right?

I still think it was good for what it was, and better than most horror movies I've seen (mostly because I've seen very few horror movies I'd consider 'good').

Post by **JKristine35** » 19 Mar 2010

DamienPales wrote:Because it actually really sucks?

There's a reason why the film has a 0% approval rating in the Top Critics category at Rotten Tomatoes.

Because it actually really sucks.

Opinion is subjective and changes from person to person, making it neither right nor wrong. Just because you and the top critics on rotten tomatoes think it sucks, doesn't mean it does.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 19 Mar 2010

Who gives a shit what Rotten Tomatoes has to say about anything? I pretty much stopped caring about what anyone on that website had to say about anything when the Top Critics said Avatar didn't need a good script or story because it was just so goddamn pretty.

Now, if you could answer the question and tell me why the script sucks, instead of saying "It sucks because other people told me it sucks" please.

Post by **DistantJ** » 19 Mar 2010

Once again pretentious people are forgetting the all important thing called personal taste. I think Silent Hill had a fantastic script, just because it's not philosophical and doesn't have all the pathetic traditions the middle-aged critics want to see in every single damn movie doesn't mean it sucks.

Top critics opinion means SHIT ALL with ANY horror movie, and most movies, in fact. The critics whinged about Avatar and yet it's had such a positive effect on so many people and became the new Star Wars (which the critics also bitched about). Usually the stuff the critics do like tends to be boring as all hell. SH is my favourite horror movie, and I have The Exorcist, Halloween, all those in my collection, and outside of horror I have The Godfather, Citizen Kane etc. so I clearly don't have 'bad taste' and I'm not a 'dumb' person or a member of this makebelieve 'general public' group you elitists whine about so much.

Anybody on this board in particular complaining about gore or story either has forgotten the original game, is looking at it through nostalgia-tinted glasses, or is in the "I think that Silent Hill 2 represents the entire series even though it's completely different to the rest" crowd.

I don't know a single person in real life who didn't enjoy the hell out of Silent Hill when they watched it, only internet people, who are the only people who actually listen to critics anyway. I mean, who are these people, and they must be awful to go to see a movie with. Picking everything apart... Entering the movie like a teacher picking up a pile of homework ready to grade it, rather than looking to be entertained.

It drives me absolutely insane, but I feel better when I remember I'm the one who has great Friday night cinema outings with a group of friends and a girlfriend and we all have a great time. If somebody talked the way people do on the net about a movie afterwards we wouldn't invite him again! Actually, when we were watching Alice in Wonderland recently there was some girl in the theatre who was having that attitude and stuff and in the end she got shouted at by a bunch of people and told to shut up or leave.

Post by **DamienPales** » 20 Mar 2010

I had a lengthy post a while back that explained exactly why this film is fucking awful. I'd rather not retap painful memories. But why bother explaining, since opinions are subjective?

Speaking of, yes, opinion is subjective. But when the subjective opinions of about 40-50 of the top professionals in the movie review business all agree that it's a load of crap, thus the 0%, then maybe that says something? If at least a handful of them had disagreed and said the film had merit, then maybe you'd have an argument, but not a single one of them liked it.

I recommend you actually read all their reviews, 'cause they explain in great detail why the movie blows.

Also, this is a Silent Hill board. So...the opinions of the people here are way more suspect than the opinions of paid professionals, because of the obvious bias involved with actual fans of the series.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 20 Mar 2010

Speaking of, yes, opinion is subjective. But when the subjective opinions of about 40-50 of the top professionals in the movie review business all agree that it's a load of crap, thus the 0%, then maybe that says something? If at least a handful of them had disagreed and said the film had merit, then maybe you'd have an argument, but not a single one of them liked it.

Popularity of an idea does not mean validity of an idea.

Post by **Chuckles** » 20 Mar 2010

>Popularity of an idea does not mean validity of an idea.

True, but the general consensus will give you a good idea whether a film is particularly good or bad. I prefer acquainting myself with a film's reviews before watching.

Post by **simeonalo** » 20 Mar 2010

Worst video game movie? Silent Hill?

Resident Evil Extinction was WAAAY crappier B-Movie shit.

Writer: Oh, we should make Claire a smoker! Then, we should make Alice psychic, that would totally boost up the franchise. Wait a minute...I just had a FUCKING AWESOME idea...We should make Alice have clones!

Post by **DamienPales** » 20 Mar 2010

We're not talking about ideas. A movie is a physical object that we can analyze and experience unilaterally.

There are standards of moviemaking that I don't think anyone will disagree should be upheld. A coherent plot, likable/three-dimensional characters, an intuitive sense of how to present things onscreen. If you're going to break the rules, you'd better be a fucking genius like Lynch or Goddard. Otherwise, it just ends up being unwatchable to the point of artistic offense.

The scene where Rose fills up at the gas station was unnecessary. The scenes in the school were unnecessary. The character of Anna was unnecessary. Pyramid Head was unnecessary. Those stupid cockroaches were gratuitous and unnecessary. All of Chris' and Gucci's scenes were unnecessary. The scene where Alessa kills everybody was gratuitous, childish, and unnecessary. The writing was laughable ("It's gonna be okay," that silly little speech that Rose gives the parishioners, Cybil pointing a gun at and yelling "Freeze!" to a Lying Figure...You can't be Mrs. Professional Policewoman one second and then start blasting it with bullets one-handed the next second), etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera.

Also, it's not really explained why in hell Alessa would split her good and bad halves to begin with, and why one is a baby and the other is not. And why not just use Dahlia to enter the church rather than Rose? And...God, I don't even want to go on.

Post by **JKristine35** » 20 Mar 2010

Why is it so hard for you to understand that your opinion is not a God-given fact that all of society must adhere to and that people have the right to disagree with you and the reviewers without being wrong? All of those things you listed were problems for you . Not everyone agrees that the characters weren't three dimensional, that the story wasn't coherent, that all those things you listed were useless. And we have the right to disagree with you without being told our opinions are wrong.

Post by **DamienPales** » 20 Mar 2010

I don't think I've ever claimed that I'm speaking from a level of scientific objectivity. However, the opinions of those who dislike the movie far outnumber the opinions of those who like it.

Here's another opinion: Your taste in movies must really suck if you sincerely believe this movie is anything more than sub-par.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 20 Mar 2010

We're not talking about ideas. A movie is a physical object that we can analyze and experience unilaterally.

There are standards of moviemaking that I don't think anyone will disagree should be upheld. A coherent plot, likable/three-dimensional characters, an intuitive sense of how to present things onscreen. If you're going to break the rules, you'd better be a fucking genius like Lynch or Goddard. Otherwise, it just ends up being unwatchable to the point of artistic offense.

Alright. and I don't have the belief that Silent Hill breaks any of these rules. The plot is coherent, the characters are likable and possess all the qualities and fleshing out they need to, and things are presented onscreen pretty well.

The scene where Rose fills up at the gas station was unnecessary. The scenes in the school were unnecessary. The character of Anna was unnecessary. Pyramid Head was unnecessary. Those stupid cockroaches were gratuitous and unnecessary. All of Chris' and Gucci's scenes were unnecessary. The scene where Alessa kills everybody was gratuitous, childish, and unnecessary. The writing was laughable ("It's gonna be okay," that silly little speech that Rose gives the parishioners, Cybil pointing a gun at and yelling "Freeze!" to a Lying Figure...You can't be Mrs. Professional Policewoman one second and then start blasting it with bullets one-handed the next second), etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera.

Mind explaining why all that stuff was unnecessary? Why Alessa's vengeance was gratuitous and childish (by the way, calling Alessa's revenge childish is highly ironic, considering she IS ONE). Why is the writing laughable?

You can't just say "X is shit and/or unnecessary" and not explain why. Back up your opinions.

Also, it's not really explained why in hell Alessa would split her good and bad halves to begin with, and why one is a baby and the other is not. And why not just use Dahlia to enter the church rather than Rose? And...God, I don't even want to go on.

Um, yea it is.

Alessa's dark side needs to be her demonic avatar in the Otherworld to act out her will, as we see her do. Alessa's good side is a baby to be given to hopefully a great mother, and basically be the bait.

Dahlia won't work because Dahlia fucking betrayed her and demonstrates that she does not have the emotional and mental fortitude to stand up to the cult for her child. This is explicitly given to us in the movie, try and keep up.

I don't think I've ever claimed that I'm speaking from a level of scientific objectivity.

We're not talking about ideas. A movie is a physical object that we can analyze and experience unilaterally.

There are standards of moviemaking that I don't think anyone will disagree should be upheld.

lol.

However, the opinions of those who dislike the movie far outnumber the opinions of those who like it.

Can you prove that? Have you interviewed everyone who saw the movie? Because disappointed SH fans who bitch loudly on the internet doesn't really prove anything, nor do centralized internet critics who have established pre-defined standards and tastes akin to Zero Punctuation auto-hating on JRPG's as a rule.

Here's another opinion: Your taste in movies must really suck if you sincerely believe this movie is anything more than sub-par.

Here's an opinion: That was totally fucking uncalled for, rude as all hell, and you totally owe Ramirez an apology for being a snot.

Post by **DamienPales** » 20 Mar 2010

What's with all the feigned outrage in this thread? We're discussing a shitty movie, not some grand political issue.

And frankly, I don't really want to get any more detailed than what I just was. Suffice it to say, it won't really do any good, and I despise wasting my time. Just read all the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and that pretty much speaks for me.

Especially Roger Ebert's review. Man knows his stuff. God help us all when he dies.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 20 Mar 2010

People are going to be outraged when you say their taste in movies is shitty because they disagree with you. That was childish and bratty.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying that you can't/won't elaborate on your point of view, and you're just going to tell us to go to the person you're parroting.

Post by **JKristine35** » 21 Mar 2010

What's with all the feigned outrage in this thread? We're discussing a shitty movie, not some grand political issue.

Because by continuously stating your opinion as a fact, you are demeaning the opinions of others and pompously declaring yourself to have better taste than them. In short, you're acting like an elitist jerk.

And frankly, I don't really want to get any more detailed than what I just was. Suffice it to say, it won't really do any good, and I despise wasting my time. Just read all the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and that pretty much speaks for me.

Especially Roger Ebert's review. Man knows his stuff. God help us all when he dies.

Guess what all those reviews are? Opinions. Guess what's subjective (especially in art) and is neither right nor wrong? Opinions. Every single thing you listed as being a problem for the film was nothing but your own personal opinion, which you arrogantly decided were 'facts' that the rest of the world had to accept. I don't care how many people you get to either agree or disagree with you, neither side's opinion of the movie is correct until every single person agrees it's either good or bad. Until then, it's subjective and people who disagree with you have the right to do so without being labeled 'wrong' or as having 'bad taste' (and that bad taste comment you made was pretty rude and pretentious, I might add).

Post by **DamienPales** » 21 Mar 2010

So you're saying that I should only spout an opinion as long as I don't believe it to be fact? Why bother believing anything then?

I'm allowed to have convictions. It seems more like you're the one who having problems accepting alternative points of view.

This is a strange philosophical tangent you're going down.

Post by **JKristine35** » 21 Mar 2010

That's completely ridiculous. If you seriously cannot understand why it is rude, pompous, arrogant, and elitist to declare that everyone who disagrees with your opinion about a movie is, in fact, wrong and has bad taste, then you're beyond any attempts to have a rational conversation with. It is apparently useless trying to explain this to you, as you appear to have the mentality of a bratty 5-year-old in this particular thread.

Post by **DamienPales** » 21 Mar 2010

Of course I believe that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Because I believe I'm right. I still don't see the controversy here.

Why would I say anything if I didn't believe it to be correct?

If I believe molesting a kid is wrong, and someone disagrees with me, I don't have to then say, "Well, I understand that this is just my opinion and everyone has their own point of view so hooray!" Subjectivity vs. Objectivity has nothing to do with the situation. It's my own conviction and I'm allowed to hold it.

You're basically upset with me because I believe something to be true.

But since you brought up pretentiousness, let's talk about pretentiousness. What do you think is more pretentious? Claiming that something is true? Or claiming that trained professionals who know what they're talking about are all wrong and I'm right goddamnit? Every single professional reviewer I talked about earlier have established careers and reputations in the movie review business. If I've never seen the movie before, I'm going to hold their opinions to a higher value than anyone else's. Sort of like how I don't go around trying to disprove scientific theories that professionals have put to the table, while being a non-scientist myself. I'm obviously allowed to disagree with the assertion that the Earth is 4 billion-some years old, but my opinion doesn't really mean shit because I'm not a scientist y'see.

There are plenty of movies that reviewers become split upon. The Star Wars prequels, for example, have their supporters and detractors. There's room for ambiguity there. However, it is exceedingly rare for a movie to get universally panned by every major movie critic out there. Silent Hill is one of them. I happen to agree with them. Accept it. Move on.

Post by **Video Gamer** » 21 Mar 2010

I'm gonna have to agree with Damien here; the movie really wasn't very good. There were good things about it - the visuals, certain lines of dialogue- but for the most part it was pretty sloppily constructed. Most of what makes it enjoyable - to us Silent Hill fans, at least - are the small glimpses of what the movie COULD have been.
At least, that's what I got out of it.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 21 Mar 2010

But since you brought up pretentiousness, let's talk about pretentiousness. What do you think is more pretentious? Claiming that something is true? Or claiming that trained professionals who know what they're talking about are all wrong and I'm right goddamnit?

lol trained professional internet critics.