Silent Hill: Revelation 3D

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.

I'll first of all point out that I am quite the Silent Hill fan before explaining that this director did not get the point of Silent Hill.

The games and indeed some aspects of the last film provoked fear through the unknown, the fact that the characters were totally lost and on their own in a place where anything could happen. The creatures were scary and the less we knew about them, the scarier they were. In the last film the acting was great and there was plenty of suspense, and a decent director and art team running the project.

This one had some great visuals, the environments were great to look at. The CGI effects however, were not. Neither was the poor use of the actors talent, and the over use of extra human characters and monsters. These combined with a terrible attempt to almost follow the 3rd game TOO closely whilst remaining loyal to the first film, makes for a bad experience. It's nice to see that the director here tried to make a nice little tie in with both the games and the film, but the last film wandered into it's own little story, which luckily turned out well. he should have stuck to following the games, or the last film instead of both. Then he needed to write up some less cliché' lines for the actors.

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.

"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.

"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+.