ALL Discussions on Professional Reviews

Post by **the man in the planet** » 22 Apr 2006

since this is the spoiler forum, shouldn't we have reviews of the film here?
edit by amphreded: From now on, please keep all professional reviews in this thread

Rotten Tomatoes Galore

Critiques:
BBC UK Review
ManilaStandardToday
Bloody Disgusting's take.
Freeze Dried Movie's review.
Roger Ebert
IGN
Penny Arcade

External Fans:
Fan Reviews at DVDTimes

old locked threads:
IGN
DVDTimes
Roger Ebert

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » 22 Apr 2006

Every critic said either a: Tt was to confusing and there intelligence was insulted or B: It wasn't screened for critics so they pout like sissy's. Or a mixture of A and B. A few critics who liked it actually said they knew other critics would cry about it.

Post by **kingscratchie** » 22 Apr 2006

I don't understand why everyone relies on a 40 or 50 year old guy to watch a movie that is based on a video game and review it.
Its obvoius that the reviewer isn't going to understand what is going on in the film, sure it's what they are paid to do. But I think it's time to find more reliable sources to review films.
I'm not sayin to go out and hire some frat guy to review a movie and get quotes such as " when you see here boobs, I was all "yeah dude!"
But get someone with more contemporary tastes to review the movie, not the "great I'm 50 and have to watch another adaptation of a video game movie" gut

Post by **the man in the planet** » 22 Apr 2006

Rotten Tomatoes has a whole slew of them from various sources.

Empty_Eyes · Post by **Empty_Eyes** » 22 Apr 2006

Chicago Sun Times quote "more like an experimental art film than a horror film"

I'm inclined to agree. Some of the scenes more disturbing, then scary. But I don't find this to be a negative comment this is a plus. It's not just some throw away horror film. There is no specific force really out to get the protaganist, the pain of Alessa drives them sure, but as you can tell it's not about killing Rose.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » 22 Apr 2006

Screw the critics. Their panties are in a wad because they didn't get their prescreenings. They had to watch it with :GASP: normal people! Their poor elitist heads didn't understand the plot so they gave the movie bad reviews because they were ashamed they didn't understand a video game plot. Stupid elitist bastards.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 22 Apr 2006

Utah Jak wrote:Screw the critics. Their panties are in a wad because they didn't get their prescreenings. They had to watch it with :GASP: normal people! Their poor elitist heads didn't understand the plot so they gave the movie bad reviews because they were ashamed they didn't understand a video game plot. Stupid elitist bastards.

wah get over yourself, so you liked it so what, so they didnt so what...do you think they set out with a mindset to hate the movie and be vindictive because they dont "understand" and you are just so goddamned smart??? Elitist??? hahahah read your own post.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » 22 Apr 2006

Being a former critic myself let it me put it this way. They pay these people to go into see a movie that they more than likely don't want to see and act like they'll review it objectively, but that doesn't happen. You will always get their review of it and horror films as much as I hate to say it are frowned upon since their not "Oscar worthy" projects.

Seriously take these people with a grain of salt and just enjoy the movie. Don't let them lead you on.

Post by **amphreded** » 23 Apr 2006

Oops sorry Godzilla, if you want to post your own review, go to this Thread instead

This thread is for discussing professional reviews and other fan reviews (who are not yourself or other members in this forum).
Sorry for the confusing title, I'll edit now.

Post by **Godzilla** » 23 Apr 2006

Argh I've done it wrong again lol. You can delete that last post then if you want.

edit by amphreded: wasn't your fault. It was mine. Sorry for the confusing title lol

Post by **Lost In Fog** » 23 Apr 2006

Meh. Critics never drive my tastes in movies. They usually have a high and might approach to movies and they like very feiw. Ebert. Pssh! Don't get me started on that failed screenwriter.

Post by **nebloof** » 23 Apr 2006

I never listen to critics, and I think that movie critics DO have a mind-set. For example, if it's a war movie, it's probably gonna get great reviews no matter what. In this case for Silent Hill, they probably WERE thinking "oh great, another video game movie". And from what I've been reading in a lot of the bad reviews, they say the plot is too complicated!!! Well, then they're obviously morons if they can't understand the Silent Hill movie plot, because I think the plot was really dumbed down from the games. Not to mention the whole thing was EXPLAINED at the end.

But I do agree that the first part of the movie was great, then it kind of went downhill (not to say I thought it was horrible). But you can see where the first part followed SH1, then they tried to go off on their own tangent. If they had stayed with SH1 all the way through, it might've done a lot better.

Oh well, I love this movie. I definitely believe Rover Avary was a horrible choice for a writer, but this movie could've been a lot worse. I don't want think what it would've been like if Uwe Boll had done this...

Post by **Meta4** » 23 Apr 2006

Empty_Eyes wrote:Chicago Sun Times quote "more like an experimental art film than a horror film"

I'm inclined to agree. Some of the scenes more disturbing, then scary. But I don't find this to be a negative comment this is a plus. It's not just some throw away horror film. There is no specific force really out to get the protaganist, the pain of Alessa drives them sure, but as you can tell it's not about killing Rose.

The while idea of SH to me was not a horror game but more play on the mental side. Although the games are scary as hell they mos def play on the psychological side more than the fear side. The movie was a near perfect addaptation of that in my eyes. It shows a good amount but your perception takes it that much further, for the better that is.

Post by **boblecon1096** » 23 Apr 2006

I'd like to find a professionnal review (good or bad) that doesn't destroy the movie because it was too complicated or because it's based from a VG. It seemed these profesionnals are all people still living in the 60's who do not want to accept that something good and intelligent can exist in a videogame.

They don't seem to destroy a book adaptation when they haven't read the book.

Post by **Fersevis** » 24 Apr 2006

I look at these reviews differently than most people. Everyone seems to get so up in arms because the reviewers "didn't get it". Thus, they must be ignorant, stupid, or too old to understand. I think a big part of any movie is the desire to care. A movie that requires thinking not only needs to have logical conclusions to draw (which SH does), but also needs a reason for us to care about coming to these conclusions. Because I was very disappointed with the movie, I have to say I can understand where Ebert and others are coming from. It wasn't that they couldn't get it if they tried, the movie just wasn't memorable or good enough to really warrant that kind of attention or thought.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » 24 Apr 2006

This isn't really a professional review, but it's a very interesting article about the movie, interviewing all the major players. I didn't want to spam with another thread.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?pag ... ril24_2006

Post by **boblecon1096** » 24 Apr 2006

Fersevis wrote:I look at these reviews differently than most people. Everyone seems to get so up in arms because the reviewers "didn't get it". Thus, they must be ignorant, stupid, or too old to understand. I think a big part of any movie is the desire to care. A movie that requires thinking not only needs to have logical conclusions to draw (which SH does), but also needs a reason for us to care about coming to these conclusions. Because I was very disappointed with the movie, I have to say I can understand where Ebert and others are coming from. It wasn't that they couldn't get it if they tried, the movie just wasn't memorable or good enough to really warrant that kind of attention or thought.

Now that's more like it

Post by **Smokey** » 24 Apr 2006

Empty_Eyes wrote:Chicago Sun Times quote "more like an experimental art film than a horror film"

I'm inclined to agree. Some of the scenes more disturbing, then scary. But I don't find this to be a negative comment this is a plus. It's not just some throw away horror film. There is no specific force really out to get the protaganist, the pain of Alessa drives them sure, but as you can tell it's not about killing Rose.

I do somewhat agree - unfortunately it's more of a disturbingly pleasing visual than a film. That's where it sucks - it's supposed to be both.

Post by **Loveless_Dogg** » 24 Apr 2006

Fersevis wrote:I look at these reviews differently than most people. Everyone seems to get so up in arms because the reviewers "didn't get it". Thus, they must be ignorant, stupid, or too old to understand. I think a big part of any movie is the desire to care. A movie that requires thinking not only needs to have logical conclusions to draw (which SH does), but also needs a reason for us to care about coming to these conclusions. Because I was very disappointed with the movie, I have to say I can understand where Ebert and others are coming from. It wasn't that they couldn't get it if they tried, the movie just wasn't memorable or good enough to really warrant that kind of attention or thought.

....Or it maybe it's just because it's just not that good of a film.

The movie was made, if I recall correctly, with the fans in mind, but Gans and company decided somewhere along the line that the general public, old people, ect... just aren't that important enough to please, and to me that's just a mark of a bad film maker. Itâ€™s good to satisfy one group of people but donâ€™t alienate everyone else in the process.

Just look at Uwe Boll and Paul Anderson. There's very little difference there in the way these too directors think and it's not that different than Gans' idea of how to make a good video game movie. Theyâ€™re all doing it the way they want to with no one telling them otherwise.

Gans just had a better group of people working with him. Nothing else.

...But thatâ€™s me.

Post by **28/m/nazareth** » 24 Apr 2006

I just can't wait until UHM writes a review.