Silent Hill Heaven

Mrs. Carmody's agenda is a little shaky, but I think she wants lots of followers, and I wouldn't put the idea of human sacrifice beyond her.

So here's Ebert's quote, basically saying he wouldn't doubt if Carmody would try sacrificing people.

It's called understatement. It is supposed to be humorous, involving a faculty of the mind which you seem to be sorely lacking in with the discussion of this movie, JRamirez.

Mrs. Carmody's agenda is a little shaky, but I think she wants lots of followers, and I wouldn't put the idea of human sacrifice beyond her.

Sarcasm isn't too obvious in writing. One simple smiley would have removed the ambiguity in that sentence perfectly.

Mrs. Carmody's agenda is a little shaky, but I think she wants lots of followers, and I wouldn't put the idea of human sacrifice beyond her.

^^ See the difference! Though I'm sure the general public wouldn't appreciate the addition of smileys to their everyday literature.

emFox wrote:

Mrs. Carmody's agenda is a little shaky, but I think she wants lots of followers, and I wouldn't put the idea of human sacrifice beyond her.

So here's Ebert's quote, basically saying he wouldn't doubt if Carmody would try sacrificing people.

It's called understatement. It is supposed to be humorous, involving a faculty of the mind which you seem to be sorely lacking in with the discussion of this movie, JRamirez.

Wow, you made one post ever just to insult me. How quaint.

I really don't see anything humorous or an attempt at humor in that quote. He simply seems to not know what he's talking about.

JRamirez35 wrote:

emFox wrote:

Mrs. Carmody's agenda is a little shaky, but I think she wants lots of followers, and I wouldn't put the idea of human sacrifice beyond her.

So here's Ebert's quote, basically saying he wouldn't doubt if Carmody would try sacrificing people.

It's called understatement. It is supposed to be humorous, involving a faculty of the mind which you seem to be sorely lacking in with the discussion of this movie, JRamirez.

Wow, you made one post ever just to insult me. How quaint.

I really don't see anything humorous or an attempt at humor in that quote. He simply seems to not know what he's talking about.

Eh the insult was unnessecary. That said, I have to say that I agree--I'm pretty sure Ebert was being sarcastic with his comment, too, there. As was said, a smiley might help the situation since it's in text but still, yeah.

Martee:

You couldn't pay me to watch this movie again. I'd sooner watch "Saw IV" in slow-motion.

And I don't mind a 2-hour movie if it's freakin' changing my life.

^ I've yet to see a movie of any length do that. As for the SAW thing, I feel the same about Pride and Prejudice, yet my mom thinks it's the greatest thing since the wheel and insists on watching it like every time I'm at the house.

You couldn't pay me to watch this movie again. I'd sooner watch "Saw IV" in slow-motion.

Oh come on, it wasn't THAT bad! We're talking about Silent Hill, not Doom.

The fact that you had to lie to your friends to say your not much of a fan of silent hill just because of a movie, you loose all my respect, being scared of what other people think, pathetic.

I liked the movie, I didn't see very many things wrong with it besides the acting at some points. It was my expectation of a silent hill film.

JRamirez35 wrote:So basically it said: "Silent Hill was smarter and had more symbolism than normal horror movies, so it sucked because we didn't get it."

Pretty much. Remember when critics were saying Spider Man 3 was hard to follow? If you're over 6, you can follow that movie.

Silent Hill isn't even hard to figure out either, at least to the extent of understanding the story. Among my friends, I am the only real SH fan, but all of them really liked the movie.

I didn't mind Ebert until he started going on those weird tirades about how videogames will never be on the same artistic level as movies.

warfare315 wrote:

JRamirez35 wrote:So basically it said: "Silent Hill was smarter and had more symbolism than normal horror movies, so it sucked because we didn't get it."

Pretty much. Remember when critics were saying Spider Man 3 was hard to follow? If you're over 6, you can follow that movie.

Silent Hill isn't even hard to figure out either, at least to the extent of understanding the story. Among my friends, I am the only real SH fan, but all of them really liked the movie.

Well I didn't think it was hard to follow, but as far as the ending goes, I can see why it probably confused a lot of people who hadn't played the game. Most of my non-SH game fan friends who saw it either didn't know what to make of the ending, or came to a 'they were dead all along' conclusion. Playing the game does indeed help one to follow the premise of the storyline.

Can't really remember Spiderman 3's ending, but there was nothing in the entire movie that confused me, well, it even bored me

Silent Hill is not a "hard to follow" movie. It never was. Just pay more freaking attention or something.

When i went to the movies to see Silent hill i remember seeing people looking so confused and one person started asking me questions about whats going on it the movie....kinda annoying

People refuse to pay attention, or if they do, they hang on to set expectations that cloud their view.
A movie that explains LITERALLY EVERYTHING to you is not confusing.

Basically the entire last half of the flashback explains Alessa has psionic powers. I'm not sure how people don't get that and insist it was an outside entity responsible for her revenge.

I like how Uwe Boll populated most of that list haha.

i have to disagree with Yahoo, i dont think the movie was the 'worst movie from the video game', i think there are far worse

House of the Dead for example.

Alone In the Dark, you guys. Oh God. You know what, I'd rather watch a marathon of Uwe's other movies than have to watch Alone In the Dark just one more time.