Yahoo Games "worst videogame movies" Silent Hill

[DamienPales]

What are you talking about?

The top critics at Rotten Tomatoes are all syndicated columnists for major publications (i.e. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc.). They're the best in the field. All Rotten Tomatoes does is compile the reviews of major publications into a pool so as to ascertain an average rating for any particular film. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't actually review anything as a website.

[JKristine35]

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.

Because stating your opinions as facts, especially about a movie, makes you very holier-than-thou and shows you have no respect for the ideas of anyone but yourself. Just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean you shouldn't respect it. I disagree with your opinion on the film, but I have never said you don't have the right to it. I have said that it's arrogant for you to declare my opinion wrong on a matter that is known to be entirely subjective.

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.

I figured you'd try to make a ridiculous comparison like that. We're talking about a movie, in case you haven't noticed, and I have pointed out again and again that art is subjective. And it is. No matter how much you may not like it. Until you can pull up proof that Silent Hill has ever caused actual physical pain to someone, this comparison means nothing.

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

I'm irritated because you arrogantly attacked my personal belief and declared my opinion to be wrong (which isn't actually possible), and yourself to have better taste than me. That's just rude and pretentious. I'm sorry that you either don't understand that or don't care.

Or claiming that trained professionals who know what they're talking about are all wrong and I'm right goddamnit?

I hate to break this to you, but movie critics are not 'trained professionals'. Why don't you look up the word 'critic' in the dictionary? Wanna guess what word that I've been using over and over is used in its definition? Even by dictionary definition, critics are nothing more than people giving out their own opinions.

Every single professional reviewer I talked about earlier have established careers and reputations in the movie review business.

So... you're saying that anyone who doesn't have an established career as a movie critic isn't smart enough or trained enough to have an opinion?

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.

lol You're actually comparing an opinion on art to scientifically provable facts.

I happen to agree with them. Accept it. Move on.

As both Aura and I have pointed out multiple times, it's not your opinion that we have a problem with, but the fact that you devalue our ideas and essentially declare us to be not as tasteful/smart/right as you by declaring that you are right and we are wrong over an entirely subjective matter.

[emFox]

The movie isn't any more gory than the original game it's based off of. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

The games are gory, no doubt about it, but they don't go out of their way to celebrate and bask in it. Unlike the movie, such as Christabella being violated with barbed wire and Dark Alessa dancing in the shower of blood. It's not there for any reason other than to enjoy it for being violent, and that's not what should be in a Silent Hill movie.

The script was plenty decent and coherent, I don't see why everyone keeps bitching about it.

You're speaking as a fan of the games upon which the movie is based. You know the ground rules, ie. that the town of Silent Hill acts as a purgatory with symbolic meaning. That wasn't established nearly enough to make the movie work for people who had no previous engagement with the story, and this is a mistake on the behalf of the filmmakers. Not only that, but there were plenty of moments of needless exposition, most of them minor but for Dark Alessa's narration over her flashback. We do not TELL the action, we SHOW it, which Gans failed to do here.

Also, you're contemptuous to the point of arrogance. Instead of addressing other people's points, you simply state your own without any kind of information to back them up, or you dismiss them with some broad generalization. You have no place in this thread if you are not going to actually discuss anything.

[simeonalo]

What are you talking about?

The top critics at Rotten Tomatoes are all syndicated columnists for major publications (i.e. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc.). They're the best in the field. All Rotten Tomatoes does is compile the reviews of major publications into a pool so as to ascertain an average rating for any particular film. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't actually review anything as a website.

The percentages of Rotten Tomatoes reviews should be doubled. Great movies are often given percentages under 30%, which makes me feel sad . Lol.

[Video Gamer]

The percentages of Rotten Tomatoes reviews should be doubled. Great movies are often given percentages under 30%, which makes me feel sad . Lol.

Which movies, exactly?

[DistantJ]

Damien, you are beginning to disgust me. Do you have any friends? What are you like to go see a movie with, ripping stuff apart and claiming you're 'right' because the critics are on your side, as if ANY real person actually listens to the critics. The critics also had complaints about Avatar and look how popular that has become.

Reviews are opinions too. The opinions of people who have to sit and watch movies all day every day. When, exactly, was the last time you read a positive review for a horror movie? A teen comedy? I think reviews ruin the experience of a movie. You could go and have your mind blown by a movie, never care what anybody else thinks and have memories of it forever, or you could read what some old-fashioned, middle-aged pillock passively thought of it in his day of watching 6 movies back to back while waiting to go home and get his paycheck, and you'll enter the theatre ready to notice all of the flaws he pointed out, which more than likely would have escaped you otherwise.

Reviews make the ridiculous assumption that everybody is the same, has the same taste and is looking for the same thing. In truth everybody is completely different, physically in age, sex, race and upbringing, and mentally in personal tastes, opinions etc. If the only good movies were the ones critics deemed to be so, then there wouldn't be a fourth movie coming out in the incredibly popular Resident Evil series, a seventh SAW movie, a third Twilight movie... The MAJORITY of us are against the critics, and are looking for a good time. We can't ALL be 'wrong'.

The fact that you compare opinions on movies to whether or not child molestation is okay is just insane, and proves your inability to understand how humans work... This is NOT subjective. In this example, somebody is being harmed, therefore no good can come of it. Nobody has ever been harmed by a movie (except the guy who had a stroke from excitement watching Avatar, but what a way to go!).

Everybody I've shown SH to has loved it, and none of them have played the games... That includes my girlfriend, my mum, my neighbour and his girlfriend (who went on to get their own copy on DVD), my friend Jon, my sister, my brother-in-law... I must add that when I saw the movie I hadn't played any of the games yet, just read about them, the movie got me into the series. I like the story of the movie better than the game (I find a potentially real, pseudo-Christian fundamentalist cult far scarier than a handful of people worshipping some demon), and I love the perfectly created world of Silent Hill.

What the hell is wrong with just saying "I didn't like the movie" instead of "You're all wrong, it's shit, and this web page proves it"? What you're saying is incredibly insulting to people like me, and all my friends/relatives I just listed, implying that our opinions are less valid because we don't have a career in watching movies. What these 'critics' consider a good movie usually turns out rather boring and/or depressing in my eyes, and I'm a smart, educated man, with a career in graphic design.

[JKristine35]

The games are gory, no doubt about it, but they don't go out of their way to celebrate and bask in it. Unlike the movie, such as Christabella being violated with barbed wire and Dark Alessa dancing in the shower of blood. It's not there for any reason other than to enjoy it for being violent, and that's not what should be in a Silent Hill movie.

I actually thought the gore was very well done, as the intensity of Alessa's hatred definitely called for it. In all honesty, I remember thinking something along the lines of 'Uh-oh' when that organ music started playing, because I knew whatever was about to come was going to be pretty wicked. I think the level of gore perfectly matches Alessa's hatred and the amount of pain she's been in.

You're speaking as a fan of the games upon which the movie is based. You know the ground rules, ie. that the town of Silent Hill acts as a purgatory with symbolic meaning. That wasn't established nearly enough to make the movie work for people who had no previous engagement with the story, and this is a mistake on the behalf of the filmmakers.

I had never even heard of the games when I saw the movie, and I got it. While I admit, I put more thought into it than the average fan, I don't think they should be so heavily faulted for assuming the fans of the movie would be as symbolism-hungry as fans of the game.

Not only that, but there were plenty of moments of needless exposition, most of them minor but for Dark Alessa's narration over her flashback. We do not TELL the action, we SHOW it, which Gans failed to do here.

I actually don't believe the flashback was used entirely to explain the story. There are numerous clues found throughout the movie that all but spell out that Alessa was considered a witch and was burned by the cult because of it. Really, the only things we don't know before the flashback are what happened to the janitor (and even that can be inferred given enough thought due to the nature of his restraints, actions in the bathroom, and the placement of his corpse), why Alessa was burned, what Dark Alessa is, or how the alternate realms came into being. And even then, Dark Alessa explains what she is later, so I believe the flashback was moreso to force the viewer to accept Alessa's suffering. Just noticing an implication of her being burned is far different from actually watching her being burned, and having to listen to her screams and moans. I think that whole scene was put there so that people would be brought face-to-face with what happened to Alessa, and to help them understand how her soul could be so tainted that she created Dark Alessa and the Otherworld. The only thing I see as legitimate exposition is the hospital scene, and they failed miserably on that because the symbolism was way too heavy and most people didn't get that Dark Alessa was Alessa's dark side or that Alessa was responsible for the creation of the Otherworld.

Also, you're contemptuous to the point of arrogance. Instead of addressing other people's points, you simply state your own without any kind of information to back them up, or you dismiss them with some broad generalization. You have no place in this thread if you are not going to actually discuss anything.

A lot of people do that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they're unwilling to. All Aura said was that he thought the movie's gore was the same as the game's and that he doesn't understand why people complain about the film. He didn't say ' I'm right ur wrong ur stupid lol'. Asking him to expand on his viewpoint would be a better way than insulting him.

[AuraTwilight]

The games are gory, no doubt about it, but they don't go out of their way to celebrate and bask in it. Unlike the movie, such as Christabella being violated with barbed wire and Dark Alessa dancing in the shower of blood. It's not there for any reason other than to enjoy it for being violent, and that's not what should be in a Silent Hill movie.

It's there to show just how terrible Alessa has become, consider the context.

And that statement is absolute bullshit anyway, did you play the first game at all? That game was gory as shit. Skinless corpses and shit all over the place.

You're speaking as a fan of the games upon which the movie is based. You know the ground rules, ie. that the town of Silent Hill acts as a purgatory with symbolic meaning. That wasn't established nearly enough to make the movie work for people who had no previous engagement with the story, and this is a mistake on the behalf of the filmmakers.

Fair enough. My non-fan mother and brother managed to figure out the plot (with only some error on Dark Alessa's identity), but considering it's Silent Hill, you can't really make opaqueness of plot into a flaw without risking hypocrisy.

Not only that, but there were plenty of moments of needless exposition, most of them minor but for Dark Alessa's narration over her flashback. We do not TELL the action, we SHOW it, which Gans failed to do here.

Well, Dark Alessa's flashback did show what was happening

But seriously, this is the biggest gripe I see and I see where it's coming from, but it never really bothered me. I just figured it was justified because, in the plot structure there's really no better way for Rose to learn what's going on. It not only shows Rose the truth, but also plays up Alessa's innocent, sympathetic character to the point of persuading Rose to help her by exploiting her motherly instincts.

Would the scene be perfect if there was no voice over? Because otherwise I don't think I understand.

Also, you're contemptuous to the point of arrogance. Instead of addressing other people's points, you simply state your own without any kind of information to back them up, or you dismiss them with some broad generalization. You have no place in this thread if you are not going to actually discuss anything.

What the hell are you talking about? I've backed up my points and I've addressed other people's respectfully. The only person in this thread doing as you're saying is Damien, so shut the hell up and get some damn manners before you go snapping at the wrong person.

[Mephisto]

Do you have any friends?

Whenever you try to start an argument with someone that is pissing you off you add this line that I quoted. Does it really matter if a person haves friends or not? What if he doesn't have? What if he haves? Christ.

[DamienPales]

What the hell are you talking about? I've backed up my points and I've addressed other people's respectfully. The only person in this thread doing as you're saying is Damien, so shut the hell up and get some damn manners before you go snapping at the wrong person.

I've addressed other people's respectfully.

so shut the hell up and get some damn manners

I've addressed other people's respectfully.

shut the hell up

[AuraTwilight]

A point relevant to the discussion on hand != ad hominem attacks such as the ones emFox flung my way.

[JKristine35]

"I've addressed" = past tense
"So shut up" = comes after "I've addressed"
You're using a past tense statement to describe something that is not past tense.

[emFox]

It's there to show just how terrible Alessa has become, consider the context.

And that statement is absolute bullshit anyway, did you play the first game at all? That game was gory as shit. Skinless corpses and shit all over the place.

Yes, it is to show how terrible Alessa is. However, the movie works to gain our sympathy for her and works to generalize all of the members of Christabella's flock as idiotic, hateful, spiteful and backwards. The movie clearly sides us with Alessa by portraying her horrific circumstances and pits us against Christabella and her congregation. I found it horrific not because the abused child sought revenge, thus becoming a tragic figure, but because her revenge was actively encouraged.

Fair enough. My non-fan mother and brother managed to figure out the plot (with only some error on Dark Alessa's identity), but considering it's Silent Hill, you can't really make opaqueness of plot into a flaw without risking hypocrisy.

There's a difference between mystery and being obtuse. Many critics felt that it leaned towards the latter than the former. We don't know where the Pyramid Head really comes from, or the cockroaches, or the straightjacket. The only monsters that have any real significant symbolic presence are the Grey Children and the Nurses, the former actually being frightening and haunting and the latter being handled poorly: too many people compare their movements and choreography to "Thriller" to take their one scene seriously.

Well, Dark Alessa's flashback did show what was happening

But seriously, this is the biggest gripe I see and I see where it's coming from, but it never really bothered me. I just figured it was justified because, in the plot structure there's really no better way for Rose to learn what's going on. It not only shows Rose the truth, but also plays up Alessa's innocent, sympathetic character to the point of persuading Rose to help her by exploiting her motherly instincts.

Would the scene be perfect if there was no voice over? Because otherwise I don't think I understand.

The flashback did show what was happening. And that was sufficient enough. Alessa's narration over it is redundant and unnecessary, probably the decision of a studio afraid that the audience wouldn't understand it. And Alessa does not come off as innocent and sympathetic through the narration, she becomes an "evil little girl" stereotype that is not frightening in the least.

And yes, the scene would've been much improved without the voiceover. It, however, contains the only instance of Alessa's ability to change the world around her before she brings everyone into purgatory. This should've been expanded upon.

What the hell are you talking about? I've backed up my points and I've addressed other people's respectfully. The only person in this thread doing as you're saying is Damien, so shut the hell up and get some damn manners before you go snapping at the wrong person.

lol trained professional internet critics.

Your contempt and your generalizing of others by lumping them into one group: the uneducated blogger whose opinion isn't worth a damn. In reality, there are plenty of informed people writing on blogs, or for other websites.

As for not backing anything up, you're simply stating that this movie was "decent" and "coherent" without citing even minor, brief examples, with the exceptions regarding Alessa and Dahlia. However, I found your interpretation of Dark Alessa to be misinformed when the movie so clearly wants the audience to support her revenge scheme.

[AuraTwilight]

Yes, it is to show how terrible Alessa is. However, the movie works to gain our sympathy for her and works to generalize all of the members of Christabella's flock as idiotic, hateful, spiteful and backwards. The movie clearly sides us with Alessa by portraying her horrific circumstances and pits us against Christabella and her congregation. I found it horrific not because the abused child sought revenge, thus becoming a tragic figure, but because her revenge was actively encouraged.

That's certainly the point. Alessa's been twisted into a monster, and it certainly is terrible, but in the end, she is ultimately still just, and the cult, in a twisted sense, deserve their fates. It's not like Silent Hill hasn't had similar morality invoked by characters and/or themes before.

There's a difference between mystery and being obtuse. Many critics felt that it leaned towards the latter than the former. We don't know where the Pyramid Head really comes from, or the cockroaches, or the straightjacket. The only monsters that have any real significant symbolic presence are the Grey Children and the Nurses, the former actually being frightening and haunting and the latter being handled poorly: too many people compare their movements and choreography to "Thriller" to take their one scene seriously.

The monsters, save for the Janitor, are pretty clearly Alessa's creations, though the director left some cues for you to think they're all formerly humans, if you want to see it that way, it's not really official.

No offense, but I don't see what's so mysterious about the origins of the monsters, considering that they only show up with the Darkness, and the Darkness, and the Foggy World is manifests in, are clearly shown to be Alessa's creation and totally under her control.

The flashback did show what was happening. And that was sufficient enough. Alessa's narration over it is redundant and unnecessary, probably the decision of a studio afraid that the audience wouldn't understand it. And Alessa does not come off as innocent and sympathetic through the narration, she becomes an "evil little girl" stereotype that is not frightening in the least.

That's your opinion. The voice of Alessa's narration is practically dripping with sympathy, to the point where if I had to criticize it, I'd go with the complete opposite direction and say they were beating us over the head with her innocence.

Besides, we don't know how much Rose is actually getting out of that experience. For all we know, she only hears the voice and the flashback visuals are for us, only.

And yes, the scene would've been much improved without the voiceover. It, however, contains the only instance of Alessa's ability to change the world around her before she brings everyone into purgatory. This should've been expanded upon.

I'd chalk this, and many other problems, up to executive meddling. The original script was MUCH more coherent, explaining, and generally all around pleasing, but got fucked over with the rewrite that also brought us "male characters" and the like. I'm not going to fully blame Gans' creative process here.

Your contempt and your generalizing of others by lumping them into one group: the uneducated blogger whose opinion isn't worth a damn. In reality, there are plenty of informed people writing on blogs, or for other websites.

Bear in mind that I was not the first to generalize or be contemptuous in this thread, and that it was in response to Damien's threads only. He writes off everyone who disagrees with him as being fundamentally, factually wrong, and cites the opinions of internet critics as his backup. I merely used his own methodology to point out that, lol, dude, they're just guys writing their opinions on the internet. No matter how educated, experienced, or veteran they are in the movie business, it's not at all uniform, and they are only giving their opinions. You can't take their word on something the same way you can take the word of highly trained scientists who went to universities so they can publish their papers on Chemistry or Biology.

As for not backing anything up, you're simply stating that this movie was "decent" and "coherent" without citing even minor, brief examples, with the exceptions regarding Alessa and Dahlia. However, I found your interpretation of Dark Alessa to be misinformed when the movie so clearly wants the audience to support her revenge scheme.

My opinion is that the movie is "decent" and "coherent", and I've never once proposed that it was anything other than my opinion, unlike Damien. I have said that I don't see any meaningful reason for why my opinion is flawed or wrong, but that's entirely different from saying I'm completely right.

How is my interpretation of Dark Alessa wrong, by the way?

[DistantJ]

This is getting fucking stupid. Some people like some movies, other people like other movies. Backing up your opinion and using the views of 'critics' to prove that 'you're right and we're wrong' makes you a complete waste of time spanner with no social skills. I'd BET there are plenty of movies you guys like which the critics didn't.

[emFox]

That's certainly the point. Alessa's been twisted into a monster, and it certainly is terrible, but in the end, she is ultimately still just, and the cult, in a twisted sense, deserve their fates. It's not like Silent Hill hasn't had similar morality invoked by characters and/or themes before.

I found it childish. The flock is obviously made up of dim-wits from a West Virginia coal mining town. Absolutely no dimension whatsoever, unlike Claudia from SH3, who was abused by her father and sincerely wished to make the world a better place. Dahlia certainly counts, I'll give you that, but with the exception of Judge Holloway of Homecoming (ugh) she was the exception to the rule. Quite a few of Silent Hill's characters are sympathetic, even if they have done bad things. It's not a matter of who deserves who's fates, it's a matter of why I should care. These are clearly evil people, and Dark Alessa is a clearly evil individual.

The monsters, save for the Janitor, are pretty clearly Alessa's creations, though the director left some cues for you to think they're all formerly humans, if you want to see it that way, it's not really official.

I forgot the Janitor (I knew I was forgetting something). And I don't agree with the idea that they were all formerly human simply because the idea was only elaborated on once, in a pre-release interview. In the movie, you just have a lot of bizarre creatures. And where they come from is not ambiguous, but what they represent and why they are the way they are is confusing to critics. I still don't know why the Lying Figure was included.

That's your opinion. The voice of Alessa's narration is practically dripping with sympathy, to the point where if I had to criticize it, I'd go with the complete opposite direction and say they were beating us over the head with her innocence.

Sympathy? For a different character altogether, sure. The Alessa from a previous life, who is also the Alessa lying in the sick bed. But the character narrating this scene, Dark Alessa, is not innocent in the least. She's clearly an evil being whose origins are contested. She is manipulative and violent and not childlike at all. But it failed to scare me because it wasn't convincing. She didn't feel like a dark intelligence pretending to be a child, it felt like a child pretending to be scary.

Besides, we don't know how much Rose is actually getting out of that experience. For all we know, she only hears the voice and the flashback visuals are for us, only.

She opens the door into blinding light, and we begin to see everything in the flashback. How much more evidence do you need that she's witnessing these events?

I'd chalk this, and many other problems, up to executive meddling. The original script was MUCH more coherent, explaining, and generally all around pleasing, but got fucked over with the rewrite that also brought us "male characters" and the like. I'm not going to fully blame Gans' creative process here.

It's really impossible to say, but watching Gans' "Brotherhood of the Wolf" was not an encouraging sign that somebody serious was attached to this movie. I suspect quite a lot that he simply cut out a lot of material to make the movie more enjoyable to watch, but only if you enjoy watching a Christian bigot stereotype being raped with barbed wire, which I'm sure plenty of horror fans enjoyed.

How is my interpretation of Dark Alessa wrong, by the way?

She's not an innocent little girl. She's manipulative and conniving, and may not even be a part of Alessa. Can you trust the word of a thing like that if it's so willing to take possession of Rose' daughter?

[AuraTwilight]

I found it childish. The flock is obviously made up of dim-wits from a West Virginia coal mining town. Absolutely no dimension whatsoever, unlike Claudia from SH3, who was abused by her father and sincerely wished to make the world a better place. Dahlia certainly counts, I'll give you that, but with the exception of Judge Holloway of Homecoming (ugh) she was the exception to the rule. Quite a few of Silent Hill's characters are sympathetic, even if they have done bad things. It's not a matter of who deserves who's fates, it's a matter of why I should care. These are clearly evil people, and Dark Alessa is a clearly evil individual.

You're kind of presuming quite a lot here. If the original script still holds, the cult were a group of Manchieasts(sp?), which is a real life religion that still practices ritualistic destruction of things they hold evil, such as witches. Granted, they're typically not found in America, but considering the Order of the original games, I wouldn't complain.

The cult was going to burn Sharon, and had already killed Cybil. They tried to kill Rose. Dark Alessa was going to let everyone go except the cult. Regardless of HOW evil she is, she is the lesser of the two evils, and she's only evil because of the cult's evil. It's just revenge and totally justified hatred that, after 30 years, became something totally disgusting. That's the point.

And, in the end, it is Just.

I forgot the Janitor (I knew I was forgetting something). And I don't agree with the idea that they were all formerly human simply because the idea was only elaborated on once, in a pre-release interview. In the movie, you just have a lot of bizarre creatures. And where they come from is not ambiguous, but what they represent and why they are the way they are is confusing to critics. I still don't know why the Lying Figure was included.

For what it's worth, one of the roaches is zoomed up upon and it has a human face.

So yea, it's not like, a confirmed fact, but it's still a valid idea.

Sympathy? For a different character altogether, sure. The Alessa from a previous life, who is also the Alessa lying in the sick bed. But the character narrating this scene, Dark Alessa, is not innocent in the least. She's clearly an evil being whose origins are contested. She is manipulative and violent and not childlike at all. But it failed to scare me because it wasn't convincing. She didn't feel like a dark intelligence pretending to be a child, it felt like a child pretending to be scary.

Exactly. No matter how evil Alessa is, no matter how much she has lost her innocence, no matter how terrible she's become, she is still, truly and utterly, a child, lashing against her enemies in a childish manner.

And Dark Alessa's origins are not contested; she's Alessa's evil side and inner rage, anger, etc. Fact.

She opens the door into blinding light, and we begin to see everything in the flashback. How much more evidence do you need that she's witnessing these events?

It also takes nearly two minutes to start doing anything besides being white as hell. Rose might've just stayed in the whiteness while Dark Alessa talked.

(this isn't a serious point of contention, I'm just being a Devil's Advocate to prove a point)

It's really impossible to say, but watching Gans' "Brotherhood of the Wolf" was not an encouraging sign that somebody serious was attached to this movie. I suspect quite a lot that he simply cut out a lot of material to make the movie more enjoyable to watch, but only if you enjoy watching a Christian bigot stereotype being raped with barbed wire, which I'm sure plenty of horror fans enjoyed.

I saw words, but I read "derp derp I hated his other movie so I'm just going to fucking assume Gans wanted to be a bigoted anti-Christian asshole despite evidence to the contrary."

If Gans just wanted to enjoy ripping apart a strawman fundamentalist, he wouldn't of put in so much work writing all this other shit that didn't make it on screen. What, are you going to say he enjoys pissing away money, too?

She's not an innocent little girl. She's manipulative and conniving, and may not even be a part of Alessa. Can you trust the word of a thing like that if it's so willing to take possession of Rose' daughter?

She is, factually, a part of Alessa. Deal with it.

I never said she was an innocent little girl, only that she was playing up the appearance of one, which she was (if you're going to deny that Dark Alessa was deliberately acting kiddy to get Rose's trust, there's no hope for you).

We can trust Dark Alessa's word, since it matches what the makers of the movie have said, she showed Rose the truth with absolutely no deceptions of any kind, and well, she's part of Alessa, so merging with Sharon isn't so much an evil act of taking over some victim so much as it is mending Alessa's soul as best it can and returning to her whole, original state (give or take 30 years of satisfied revenge plots).

[emFox]

You're kind of presuming quite a lot here. If the original script still holds, the cult were a group of Manchieasts(sp?), which is a real life religion that still practices ritualistic destruction of things they hold evil, such as witches. Granted, they're typically not found in America, but considering the Order of the original games, I wouldn't complain.

The cult was going to burn Sharon, and had already killed Cybil. They tried to kill Rose. Dark Alessa was going to let everyone go except the cult. Regardless of HOW evil she is, she is the lesser of the two evils, and she's only evil because of the cult's evil. It's just revenge and totally justified hatred that, after 30 years, became something totally disgusting. That's the point.

And, in the end, it is Just.

The point I'm trying to make is this: it's not interesting to me. It's quite easy to have a group of people who are clearly evil -- and I don't care where the idea for their religion came from, it doesn't make them look any better -- abuse a little girl to the point of absurdity, then make part of the movie into a revenge thriller where we want her to kill them all. You say it is "just," but I don't consider it just, I consider it a knee-jerk response. Kill 'em all! And I don't think this works because this movie is trying to be a dramatic work, before it derails by introducing strawmen fundamentalists (not Christianity as a whole -- fundamentalists) that lack any kind of character whatsoever and Alessa's corny "evil side." How am I supposed to take this seriously? How can you convey genuine pathos with such a lame set-up?

Exactly. No matter how evil Alessa is, no matter how much she has lost her innocence, no matter how terrible she's become, she is still, truly and utterly, a child, lashing against her enemies in a childish manner.

And Dark Alessa's origins are not contested; she's Alessa's evil side and inner rage, anger, etc. Fact.

Dark Alessa says "I have many names. Right now, I am the dark part of Alessa." Either she's stating she's a part of Alessa's psyche that, for now, is manifested into reality as rage, or she's something else entirely manifesting itself through Alessa. It is not that matter-of-fact.

And yes, Alessa was such a sad child, woe is her. And that's all the movie treats her as, a plot element to hurl abuse at. I'm not falling for it, like how I'm not falling for how sweet and innocent and wide-eyed and beautiful Sharon was. It's two-dimensional.

I saw words, but I read "derp derp I hated his other movie so I'm just going to fucking assume Gans wanted to be a bigoted anti-Christian asshole despite evidence to the contrary."

...
If Gans just wanted to enjoy ripping apart a strawman fundamentalist, he wouldn't of put in so much work writing all this other shit that didn't make it on screen. What, are you going to say he enjoys pissing away money, too?

"Brotherhood of the Wolf" was an exercise in style and nothing more. It was an adolescent fantasy, and not a good one. It really betrays what Gans looks for in his movies, which is style over substance. I remember his eloquent rebuttal to Roger Ebert's article about how videogames, in his opinion, do not count as art: "Fuck him."

And Gans didn't write all of the "other shit" that was cut from the movie. Roger Avary did. And if I recall correctly, Avary wanted an ending where Alessa forgave those that sinned against her. I can't find the interview, though, so I can't confirm it.

I never said she was an innocent little girl, only that she was playing up the appearance of one, which she was (if you're going to deny that Dark Alessa was deliberately acting kiddy to get Rose's trust, there's no hope for you).

Yeah, her innocent self mockingly talking about how "I'm burning," asking for retribution, styling herself after the Grim Reaper. And she clearly has good intentions now that she's trapped Rose and herself in a foggy purgatory, possibly forever.

[AuraTwilight]

The point I'm trying to make is this: it's not interesting to me. It's quite easy to have a group of people who are clearly evil -- and I don't care where the idea for their religion came from, it doesn't make them look any better -- abuse a little girl to the point of absurdity, then make part of the movie into a revenge thriller where we want her to kill them all. You say it is "just," but I don't consider it just, I consider it a knee-jerk response. Kill 'em all! And I don't think this works because this movie is trying to be a dramatic work, before it derails by introducing strawmen fundamentalists (not Christianity as a whole -- fundamentalists) that lack any kind of character whatsoever and Alessa's corny "evil side." How am I supposed to take this seriously? How can you convey genuine pathos with such a lame set-up?

You could pretty much say the exact same thing about Silent Hill 1 and the horror novels it was based off of.

Dark Alessa says "I have many names. Right now, I am the dark part of Alessa." Either she's stating she's a part of Alessa's psyche that, for now, is manifested into reality as rage, or she's something else entirely manifesting itself through Alessa. It is not that matter-of-fact.

Yes, it is. JRamirez has already demonstrated this, so I won't waste time repeating it. She's an aspect of Alessa's psyche.

And yes, Alessa was such a sad child, woe is her. And that's all the movie treats her as, a plot element to hurl abuse at. I'm not falling for it, like how I'm not falling for how sweet and innocent and wide-eyed and beautiful Sharon was. It's two-dimensional.

Same as Silent Hill 1.

And if I recall correctly, Avary wanted an ending where Alessa forgave those that sinned against her. I can't find the interview, though, so I can't confirm it.

Well, it's certainly not in the original script.

Yeah, her innocent self mockingly talking about how "I'm burning," asking for retribution, styling herself after the Grim Reaper. And she clearly has good intentions now that she's trapped Rose and herself in a foggy purgatory, possibly forever.

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?

[DistantJ]

I did a replay of Silent Hill 3 over the past couple of days and frankly I can't believe people complain about the script in the movie after the godawful dialogue throughout that game... Everybody acts like the game series is so deep and layered, when really out of the original four it's only Silent Hill 2 which actually has 3-dimensional characters with interesting psychology... I mean I was hugely disappointed by SH1's plot and dialogue, and SH3's was pretty much that of a good horror B-Movie... 4's is a lot more interesting but the characters are hardly developed. 0rigins takes a page out of SH2's book with Travis, which I like, and Homecoming does too (though not as well, in my opinion), but none of these games were out at the time of the movie...

I love this movie and I'm so fed up of it being torn apart when there are game movies which are so, so, SO much worse. The script is excellent and actually is inclusive of the whole audience, never being pretentious and trying to shovel all subtext crap your way, and the idea of the order being a christian-fundamentalist type cult makes it seem so much more scary as those kinds of cults really do exist and it makes Silent Hill relevant to our modern western society.