Silent Hill: Revelation

The first half of the film was great. It was creepy, it was suspenseful, and it was almost scary (speaking as someone who considers most scary films to be dull and silly). The film did a good job of summarizing the first, and the 3D was generally well-done. So where did this film fail? Well first, the character relationships were extremely superficial, to the point where it felt like they were tacked-on or unrealistic. Some of the character motivations were also underdeveloped and made the characters come off as stupid or just hard to relate to, especially towards the end. The characters take a while to actually enter Silent Hill, and when they do the film quickly devolves from creepy moments to explaining the story, which is not particularly compelling. Obviously, the film makers had to work within the context of the original while trying to tie it into the third game, but so much of the film was devoted to characters explaining the plot that it made the film feel somewhat dull. Think of the old adage "show, don't tell". The film was overly short, and it seemed as though this was the central problem. 20 more minutes to SHOW the plot, interspersed with a few more creepy scenes, and this film could have easily surpassed the original. Alas, the director chose to keep the film succinct, and the result is that it feels rushed and the last ten or fifteen minutes feel more like a cheesy action movie than a horror film. As I said, with twenty more minutes of footage, the film could have easily been one of the scariest movies of the last 10 years, and could have had believable characters and a more expertly revealed plot. Instead, we're left with a decent movie with a few good scares.

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.

1) A much smaller budget than the original (20 mil vs 50 mil).

2) Jump scares. The original had none because of the great story/plot which gave the entire film a terrifying & unnerving feel. This sequel is so cheesy and pretentious that in order to call itself a horror film there needs to be long quiet pauses followed by doors slamming or monsters making loud noises causing the audience jump.

3) "3D"... throw in some scenes where swords thrust out toward the audience even though this kind of gimmicky nonsense breaks any feel of authenticity the movie might have had, even when watching it without the 3D glasses.

4) Flavor of the week actor(s)... Kit Harrington from the popular HBO series "Game of Thrones" is supposedly a high school student along with the main character, but unfortunately he looks (and is) 26 years old... he just feels out of place throughout the film.

I really enjoyed the original (as well as the games) and wanted this one to be good as well. Unfortunately Silent Hill: Revelation sets out to do two things: A) Continue the story SOMEWHAT from the first film to satisfy Silent Hill fans while having characters reveal story lines piece by piece in "plot dumps" that seem forced and out of place. B) Try to make as much money as the original, but with a terrible script, less money, and MUCH less passion.

I think the biggest issue with this sequel was making it a sequel to the 2006 film to begin with. Because how the director for that film changed so many things from the video game this sequel had to suffer for it. Although Sean Bean as Harry Mason /Christopher Da Silva gets a lot more to do compared to the last film, his daughter Heather/Sharon feels very underutilized compared to her role in Silent Hill 3. The character Vincent is the biggest downgrade as he's unrecognizable and has now been reduced to a generic semi love interest. It's also depressing to know the slow scare buildups from the last film have now been replaced with underwhelming predictable jumpscares.

Although far from a good movie there's definitely highlights. Going in I was thinking this movie was just going to be 3D CG garbage but to my surprise they use many sets and props that look really good so it definitely scores high for production value. There's a few epic sequences like a mannequin monster, another creepy scene with the nurses, and a pyramid head battle that's quite a spectacle. Also Malcolm McDowell has a role im pretty sure was really fun to play.

While it sadly lacks the slow tense psychological thriller tone of the previous movie, it seems like the makers of this were just trying to make a fun dumb video game adaptation for the fans. Definitely one to get some friends together and drink and laugh to.

"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.