Movie Defense Force: Silent Hill
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Hmm, to be honest I'm surprised this one made it onto "Movie Defense Force" largely because I wasn't aware that it really needed defending. It's "failure" seemed to be the result of the movie not succeeding immediately in theaters, it however succeeded well enough overall that it received a sequel a few years later. Not only that but it's popular enough within the nerd culture that when "Critical Miss" did a joke about the Lamnent Configuration from "Hellraiser" a number of people thought it was a joke about "Silent Hill", which should say something about the current generation. The movies also did well enough where Universal Studios made "Silent Hill" the theme of their Halloween event (last year I believe).
That said, unlike my usual comments about how things need to be judged based on the relative handling of the material, I will say that "Silent Hill" actually fared pretty well given what a train wreck it was in that respect. They seemed to have little problem shying away from the gore, but at the same time they seemed to get away from the whole idea of what the cult operating in the town was all about, whether that was for fear of offending people, or the writers wanting to get some jibes in at Christians, I have no idea. It also features perhaps the absolute dumbest scene in any movie to date which involves (Spoiler to the right, since I can't make spoiler space work today for some reason) a certain lady cop telling the homicidal cultists she is out of bullets after successfully holding them at bay with an empty gun, which she could have continued to do.
The Silent Hill Sequel (more spoilers for anyone who cares) on a lot of levels managed to be a little more loyal to the source material, which makes it kind of funny when I run into fan boys who slam it harder than the first one for whatever reason. Silent Hill 2 was pretty much using the plot from the third game, albeit instead of the twist that all the monsters the protaganists seeing are actually people and she's hallucinating (albeit with the source of this coming from Silent Hill) it's handled in a more straightforward "they are real" sense. They did it more or less right, except for the actually fairly clever twist in a storyline that was inferior to the first two games in the series, which is more or less what sold the entire thing as far as it went. The idea that the monsters are people is an ancient one, but it was interesting when you learned that slightly easier combat in some areas compared to the harder survivial aspect of the first two was simply to bait you given that the ending was largely determined by how many people you killed thinking they were monsters.
It's also worth noting that the first Silent Hill movie was NOT even attempting to follow a game storyline, instead it was blending plot points from Silent Hill 1 and 2 together into one narrative. The actual twist ending as far as it went is actually the twist from the first game, not the second.
To be honest though, given that the guys holding the license have been unable to string together anything more than a mediocre "Silent Hill" game since the third one, I think the movie guys deserve some slack when dealing with material no professional has been able to write well in a long time. I suspect largely because of fears over backlash that started when the Silent Hill team got complaints about how the demo for "Silent Hill 2" went too far causing them to edit "Silent Hill 2" for content (true story) with later games being done as if they were tip toeing across a mine field, wanting to make the game messed up, but not TOO messed up, as a result it failed to deliver to genere fans who expected the ante to be upped in each sequel.
It's also noteworthy that people tend to project onto "Silent Hill" quite a bit, and to be honest a lot of the explanations people use for how things work and fit together, and how everything is based on the psyche of the latest victim, are based on theories that were presented in the game that people ran with beyond what was actually said, especially when it came to "Silent Hill 2". Totally overlooking that the conclusions could have been entirely wrong, especially in light of the facts established in SH1 where the driving force was actually confronted directly. I've often felt that Silent Hill kind of suffered from writers figuring that they liked the Fan's explanations a bit better than what they originally thought of, and then ran with them. Those explanations while fairly elegant do make for some pretty craptastic and predictable storytelling. It also tends to overlook why a driving intelligence wouldn't want to keep something as powerful and intimidating as Pyramid head around as a minion even after the guy that inspired the intelligence had moved on. One of the few things I've always boggled at is why certain fans object to his appearance, while at the same time argueing there is a malevolent intelligence at work. Nobody complains about the nurses, which are arguably a sign that the town does like to keep a few stock tricks in it's bag.
That said, unlike my usual comments about how things need to be judged based on the relative handling of the material, I will say that "Silent Hill" actually fared pretty well given what a train wreck it was in that respect. They seemed to have little problem shying away from the gore, but at the same time they seemed to get away from the whole idea of what the cult operating in the town was all about, whether that was for fear of offending people, or the writers wanting to get some jibes in at Christians, I have no idea. It also features perhaps the absolute dumbest scene in any movie to date which involves (Spoiler to the right, since I can't make spoiler space work today for some reason) a certain lady cop telling the homicidal cultists she is out of bullets after successfully holding them at bay with an empty gun, which she could have continued to do.
The Silent Hill Sequel (more spoilers for anyone who cares) on a lot of levels managed to be a little more loyal to the source material, which makes it kind of funny when I run into fan boys who slam it harder than the first one for whatever reason. Silent Hill 2 was pretty much using the plot from the third game, albeit instead of the twist that all the monsters the protaganists seeing are actually people and she's hallucinating (albeit with the source of this coming from Silent Hill) it's handled in a more straightforward "they are real" sense. They did it more or less right, except for the actually fairly clever twist in a storyline that was inferior to the first two games in the series, which is more or less what sold the entire thing as far as it went. The idea that the monsters are people is an ancient one, but it was interesting when you learned that slightly easier combat in some areas compared to the harder survivial aspect of the first two was simply to bait you given that the ending was largely determined by how many people you killed thinking they were monsters.
It's also worth noting that the first Silent Hill movie was NOT even attempting to follow a game storyline, instead it was blending plot points from Silent Hill 1 and 2 together into one narrative. The actual twist ending as far as it went is actually the twist from the first game, not the second.
To be honest though, given that the guys holding the license have been unable to string together anything more than a mediocre "Silent Hill" game since the third one, I think the movie guys deserve some slack when dealing with material no professional has been able to write well in a long time. I suspect largely because of fears over backlash that started when the Silent Hill team got complaints about how the demo for "Silent Hill 2" went too far causing them to edit "Silent Hill 2" for content (true story) with later games being done as if they were tip toeing across a mine field, wanting to make the game messed up, but not TOO messed up, as a result it failed to deliver to genere fans who expected the ante to be upped in each sequel.
It's also noteworthy that people tend to project onto "Silent Hill" quite a bit, and to be honest a lot of the explanations people use for how things work and fit together, and how everything is based on the psyche of the latest victim, are based on theories that were presented in the game that people ran with beyond what was actually said, especially when it came to "Silent Hill 2". Totally overlooking that the conclusions could have been entirely wrong, especially in light of the facts established in SH1 where the driving force was actually confronted directly. I've often felt that Silent Hill kind of suffered from writers figuring that they liked the Fan's explanations a bit better than what they originally thought of, and then ran with them. Those explanations while fairly elegant do make for some pretty craptastic and predictable storytelling. It also tends to overlook why a driving intelligence wouldn't want to keep something as powerful and intimidating as Pyramid head around as a minion even after the guy that inspired the intelligence had moved on. One of the few things I've always boggled at is why certain fans object to his appearance, while at the same time argueing there is a malevolent intelligence at work. Nobody complains about the nurses, which are arguably a sign that the town does like to keep a few stock tricks in it's bag.
Really? I loved this film, most people I know who were Silent Hill fans don't dislike it, and at the time it was the first horror movie in years that was actually a horror movie, not a slasher or sequence of jump scares without atmosphere.
I have never understood the people who cry and scream for a game (almost any game, really) to make it to the big screen, then cry and scream at any change, major or minor, made to it. If you wanted a perfectly pure experience of the videogame, maybe just go ahead and PLAY THE VIDEOGAME AGAIN. Or realize that it would be impossible to translate a 10-15 hour videogame into a 2 hour movie without making SOME changes.
This was great, though, as someone who thought the film was just fine and had some genuine thrills AND chills.
This was great, though, as someone who thought the film was just fine and had some genuine thrills AND chills.
^Talvrae said:
100% this.
I Honestly cant remember much about the sequel. Was there some sort of scene people chowing down on human flesh? Thats all that seems to stick out in my mind.
I am still hesitant to watch the sequel because of how bad this first one was, I really hate how Hollywood has to take a massive shit on any material not original to itself. I am still massively insulted by the bullshit excuse given for the entire premise of the movie, Wanting to help/save your child is NOT and exclusively feminine/maternal thing it is universal between both sexes/parents, so that choice is shot out of the water off the bat, hell the whole opening scene where they explain that Cheryl is adopted outright is just stupid and fucking pointless in the game you don't find that out till at least the halfway point or later so it gives much more weight to Harry's actions and willingness to delve into the hellish horrors of Silent hill to Save his daughter, blood or not. The coal-town thing was idiotic as well, hell the entire "what is Sean Bean doing?" section of the film was pointless and ultimately served no purpose to the story
I second this, although those slow motion parts in Max Payne were really poor, they went almost full stop. Either way Max Payne should have gotten a better film, it was an easy (easier then most) game to turn into a movie since the game was so attached to noir, something that if the movie did well it could have been a great movie for the now basicly dead noir genre (even if its somewhat of a satire).Ruisu said:
Still enjoyed it though.
I really enjoyed Silent Hill movie (the first at least, haven't seen the other). It wasn't true to the game's story, sure, but it was its own and it kept true to the theme of the Silent Hill series. It was really good.
I pretty much agree, it was my favourite video game to movie adaption up until the complete awesomeness that is Ace Attorney. Proof that the Japanese can do those adaptions the best.
Never, ever, EVER call Silent Hill Revelations "Silent Hill 2" Unless you're deliberately trying to troll the fanbase. Trust me, they will hate you for it. (and I'm one of them)IllumInaTIma said:
OT: Yay, glad to see I'm not the only one who enjoyed this movie here. (Plus it got me to play Silent Hill 2, so that's just gravy).
Please excuse me for calling a second Silent Hill movie Silent Hill 2. Oh please, please, please, Silent Hill fan base and especially you, Aptspire, don't hate me for that!Aptspire said:
I've always liked this film. I remember thinking it was the best game to movie film I'd seen at the time. (maybe it still is... having a hard time remembering game to movie films I've seen recently)
I never had a problem with it. In fact quite the opposite, I really quite enjoyed.
That being said, I was never massively in to the games... so maybe that would have changed my opinion.
The only part I remember not being that fond of was the end... but it did somehow work even if it did leave me not quite understanding what exactly had happened.
But as it stands - this is a movie I really liked.
I never had a problem with it. In fact quite the opposite, I really quite enjoyed.
That being said, I was never massively in to the games... so maybe that would have changed my opinion.
The only part I remember not being that fond of was the end... but it did somehow work even if it did leave me not quite understanding what exactly had happened.
But as it stands - this is a movie I really liked.
I'll take a stab at explaining why. Max Payne and Silent Hill 2 are two of my favorite games of all time (Max Payne probably #1 on my list), and the reason I like Silent Hill's movie but not Max Payne's movie is because while neither were perfect adaptations, Silent Hill at least captured the feeling and spirit of the game.Sgt. Sykes said:
Max Payne is literally a god damned story board, so there is no excuse for screwing it up like they did. Take those graphic novel cutscenes and boom, there's your script. Pepper some action scenes in between and you're done. Instead, the movie loses the entire gritty film noir feel by eliminating the brooding narration (something Sin City did perfectly), leaving out entire major characters (Vinnie Gognitti, Vlad the Russian, etc.), and changing others (Jack Lupino). Oh, and the "blaming himself for the death of his family, nightmare drug sequences" were entirely omitted as well.
I was actually fine with Mark Wahlberg as Max. Not my first choice, but I had high hopes. He wasn't bad (though I think Mel Gibson would have been better if the movie had been made just a little sooner; think "Payback"). Mila Kunis as Mona Sax though? Awful. Too young, too weak, too... small. I don't know. There was literally nothing about her that I liked as Mona Sax.
The icing on the cake for me was when I saw that the storage facility was called "Gognitti Storage". That was like a slap in the face to me. As if they were saying, "Ya, we know the story. Ya, we know who the important characters are. No, we aren't going to use any of that." This is exactly why I refuse to see World War Z. You want to make your own movie that bears no resemblance to the source material? Fine. But why even use the license then? Just make your own thing.