Silent Hill: Revelação

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.

Usually as sequels tend to go, the first is always better, and in this case it's really really really true. Plot what plot?? The movie really tried to tie in the previous storyline but fell completely flat, trying to cash in more on the franchise. The only thing making it somewhat watchable is the awesome visuals and Sean Bean with Kit Harington, before they even worked together on Game of Thrones.

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.

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.