Silent Hill - Révélation

Now I'm okay with movies that didn't follow exactly like the original plot from games, books, etc like the first Silent Hill movie, I think it is still fine. But this one is just BAD. I'm not sure what I was watching but I didn't feel like I was watching a full movie. It just lack of many things. Maybe it's too short, maybe Silent Hill 3 is just not suitable to be made into a movie because the story is all about Heather trying to find the truth about herself, and since we already knew that at the beginning, what is there to tell anymore? And we as an audience already knew how her father is doing, only Heather didn't know, again there's nothing to look forward too. We just merely watching Heather going from point A to B and nothing else. It is that dull and plain.

And the horror? the movie is trying too hard to be creepy. What's with all the pointless close up of meat cutting and bloody mouthful eating. I don't know it just didn't work for me.

"Silent Hill: Revelation 3D" is another example of how sequels usually fail to deliver with the same amount of impact and force as the original first movie did.

The story in "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D" is fairly mediocre, nothing out of the ordinary, and it does sort of come off as it being an attempt to make soup from the broth they used to make "Silent Hill". The story doesn't really offer much to the Silent Hill universe, except for a few bits and pieces of information.

What make this movie worth watching was the mood throughout the movie, and the special effects. As with the first movie, then they really managed to create a spooky setting and a place where you don't want to be caught out in the open when the darkness comes. It was genuinely a disturbing place, which worked out really well for the movie.

And the creatures found in the mysterious town of Silent Hill were also nicely made, just as in the first movie. Personally, I do enjoy these type of movies with grotesque creatures that you get to see up close and personal, and it is especially enjoyable when you get to see them in proper lighting, and not in perpetual darkness as many horror movies tend to do. The variety and design of the monstrous creatures in "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D" were great, and they alone make the movie worthwhile watching.

And that leads us to the acting, and the people on the cast list. The acting was not doing the movie any justice at all, and it was mediocre at best. Which just goes to prove that "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D" is the type of movie you watch for the effects and not for the acting or the people in the movie.

"Silent Hill: Revelation 3D" doesn't reach its predecessor in any way, but given the effects, the mood, the atmosphere and the creatures, then it is well worth watching if you are into these type of supernatural horror movies.

It's still watchable because it's a creepy Silent Hill movie, but compared to the first one, it's very meh.

The story isn't as good, the acting isn't as good and the fact that it was shot for a 3D cinema release doesn't help.

There are still some good, creepy scenes but overall, fairgrounds are not particularly scary.

Nice to see Sean Bean in this and a young Jon Snow. They will meet up in a years time to do Game of Thrones and Sean Bean will loose the terrible American accent he does.

Carrie Ann Moss really falls from grace. A fall that continues with the last Matrix movie and the appalling Acolyte.

Yea, so this movie wasn't exactly stellar, but I can't understand why there are so many 1 star votes for this film. I just got around to seeing this movie last night and it certainly wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, but reading some of the reviews around here (and on the critic sites) one would think this film is just a steaming pile of poop.

Well, it wasn't. The acting was decent, and I thought the lead was reasonably good. There were more "jump scares" than I would've expected, since the real horror of the games stems from atmosphere and a feeling of isolation. The monsters and CGI were passable - not great by certainly not bad by any means. The 3D was actually VERY good (maybe the best I've seen), though there were a couple of times that the use of the 3D was pretty cliché (think knives COMING RIGHT FOR YOU!!!). The only real gripe I had was with the scripting/story. I was impressed that the plot stayed as true to the games as it did, while still meshing well with the story from the first movie. I'm sure this was no easy task, but the amount of story they crammed into this film was too much considering the runtime of the movie. The exposition dialogue was REALLY cheesy at times, but I can understand the need for such when considering probably half of the target audience will have never played the games. I just would've hired a better writer.

TL;DR: Not as bad as the critics say, but certainly not the film I was hoping this to be. Worth the price of admission for 3D, as it's really well done.

"Everyone has a different nightmare in Silent Hill, I am theirs." Heather Mason (Clemens) has been plagued by nightmares ever since she was little. Her and her father (Bean) constantly are on the move trying to find a way to help her. One day when Heather is at school her father is taken and the only thing left are the words Silent Hill. Heather must now venture into her nightmare in order to get him out. It might just be that I'm older but movies like this don't tend to scare me at all. When the goal is to just out gore the previous scene it really has an impact on the movie. I knew going in that this wasn't gonna be an amazing movie anyway and the actual story wasn't really that bad but when mixed with the armless zombie things and gallons of blood it really is more of a distraction then anything. Again though it may be because I'm too old. Younger fans of this stuff may enjoy it, I did not. Overall, OK story line but tried to be Saw. I give it a C+.