Slashdot Mirror
Ebert Reviews 'Silent Hill'
Last week, along with attending an 'epic' debate, Ebert had the time to take in Silent Hill. Did he enjoy it? Not so much. From the article: "Now here's a funny thing. Although I did not understand the story, I would have appreciated a great deal less explanation. All through the movie, characters are pausing in order to offer arcane back-stories and historical perspectives and metaphysical insights and occult orientations. They talk and talk and somehow their words do not light up any synapses in my brain, if my brain has synapses and they're supposed to light up, and if it doesn't and they're not, then they still don't make any sense. Perhaps those who have played the game will understand the movie, and enjoy it. "
Ebert is the only critic that I even read. I often disagree, but he's the most educated critic out there, AND he can let himself enjoy movies as they're meant to be enjoyed. He gave Mortal Kombat a well-deserved thumbs up, for instance. It was just a kung fu, game-based movie, but for a kung fu, game-based movie it was quite good. Good fight choreography, an interesting spin on the Bloodsport genre, and it didn't try to be anything it wasn't. Eberts the only critic that always recognizes what the movie is trying to be, rather than what he thinks it should have been.
But the X-Files movie could also stand on its own. It was good for anyone who hadn't seen a lot, if any of the TV show, and it was great for those who had. If your sole enjoyment of a movie is predicated on you having read/played/watched the story previously, then it very much little more than crap.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I take movie reviews as restaraunt reviews. A greasy spoon will never break 2 stars, but you can still get a decent meal and a real cup of coffee there.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
OK I read some of the critics reviews, And it seems to be safe. The movie DOESN'T SUCK (at least not so bad), some of the critics actually liked it
by Jeff Otto. 2.5 / 5
by Kit Bowen. 0 / 4
by Edward Douglas. 7 / 10.
by Moriarty. Doesn't give a rating, but he loved it.
by Mike Sage, Peterborough This Week. 4.5 / 5.
by Kevin Carr (2.5/5)
by Sean Means, Salt Lake Tribune (1.5/5)
by Brian Orndorf, EFILMCRITIC.COM (rotten, D)
by Peter Hartlaub, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. (Didn't like it at all)
by Peter Howell, TORONTO STAR ("The dumbest")
After reading the various reviews (I didn't watch it - yet), It seems Silent Hill has some flaws:
a) The action part is slow and repetitive (Well, that's what you get in the game, duh). Perhaps having shorter and less running away sequences would have worked.
b) Some of the acting and dialogue is bad (altho not always, the critics who gave it a positive review forgive this point)
c) The plot is too confusing, and these parts are VERY LONG. Most of the critics would have enjoyed having less confusing plot parts. It seems Gans tried to explain the whole concept of Silent Hill, and ended up spoiling it.
But Some of the negative reviewers gave it a 2.5/5 (that means in my lingo: "Not that bad", or "good enough for a fan".
However, there's one point that ALMOST ALL reviewers give to Silent Hill: It's visually astounding. In other words, if you enjoyed Star Wars: Episode 1 despites the horrible story, you'll LOVE Silent Hill.
I particularly liked Moriarty's review, because he's NOT a gamer, and did NOT play the game. However, he might be biased because he's a fan of the horror gender. But hey, maybe that's representative of the intended audience!