Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ebert Reviews 'Silent Hill'

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-so-much dept.

124

Last week, along with attending an 'epic' debate, Ebert had the time to take in Silent Hill. Did he enjoy it? Not so much. From the article: "Now here's a funny thing. Although I did not understand the story, I would have appreciated a great deal less explanation. All through the movie, characters are pausing in order to offer arcane back-stories and historical perspectives and metaphysical insights and occult orientations. They talk and talk and somehow their words do not light up any synapses in my brain, if my brain has synapses and they're supposed to light up, and if it doesn't and they're not, then they still don't make any sense. Perhaps those who have played the game will understand the movie, and enjoy it. "

cancel ×

124 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

game movie (0, Redundant)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176320)

Wow, a critic doesn't like a game movie.

Weird.

Re:game movie (1)

Tepshen (851674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176352)

This is not so out of place. I'm a gamer and *I* dont like most video game movies. Everytime I see one I think to myself: "Well, hollywood has seen the rise and success of videogames and they hope to leach all they can from another game to feed thier dying empire." Admittedly that is a weird thing to think to oneself but ehh.

Re:game movie (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176618)

From what I've seen, Ebert likes what he likes, regardless of genre or background. He's no snob. Generally, when he thinks a movie sucks, I agree.

Re:game movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176626)

Wow, a shitty movie based on a video game.

Weird.

Re:game movie (2, Insightful)

shawb (16347) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176841)

Instructions on how to be a Karma Whore:

1) Don't read the article
2) Barely skim over the slashdot blurb and make some post that is intended to show anger, but pretending you're too cool to care by using an "ironic" posture
3) Get FP!
4) ????
5) Gloat in self satisfaction.

Anybody who read the article would see that Ebert didn't particularilly dislike the movie. He thought it was visually intriguing and had some interesting cinematographic effects. Yes, he did feel that the plot and dialogue were lacking. Actually, the complaints sound exactly like those aired over many anime films: style over substance. And sometimes that's what people want.

Re:game movie..."didn't dislike"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176871)

1.5 stars generally counts as "dislike." ;-)

Re:game movie..."didn't dislike"? (3, Interesting)

shawb (16347) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177043)

I take movie reviews as restaraunt reviews. A greasy spoon will never break 2 stars, but you can still get a decent meal and a real cup of coffee there.

Re:game movie..."didn't dislike"? (1)

Corbu Mulak (931063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177755)

Actually, Ebert himself has said he dislikes his own stars system. When reviewing Basic Instinct 2 [suntimes.com] , he gave it only one and a half stars, but said he still enjoyed the movie.

Who Cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176331)

While I have no doubt that this movie, like most others based on video games, sucks - who cares what Ebert's opinion is? He's a tool and a shill. I don't want a review from a 'professional reviewer,' I want it from normal people.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176428)

Normal people are the ones who say "A walk to remember is SO GOOD!!! Mandy moore is like OMG SO AWESOME i no critix say that the movie sux but its good! turn ur brain off and have fun @ it!"

I'd rather hear movies evaluated by someone who's seen enough of them to judge them well.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176593)

But I don't plan on watching Silent Hill to see any subtle nuances of the zombies or whatever and their motivation for kidnapping and eating people. I would watch it if I wanted to watch a cheesy horror movie. Reviewers tend to over-review a movie while ignoring its genre. They review most comedies as if they weren't lowbrow affairs. They want everything to be elegant and well-written with every plot hole covered, when most people just want a laugh/scare.

That said, Ebert does seem to be one of the better reviewers. When the Rundown came out, he said that it was a bad movie, but he also said he enjoyed watching it, despite the fact that the plot made no sense or something along those lines.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176836)

I've seen Ebert give reviews that boiled down to, "I went to this movie expecting to see things blow up, and that was exactly what I got. If you're looking for great dialog, don't go, but it delivered what it promised, and I like it."

Intelligent Filmgoers Care (4, Insightful)

edawstwin (242027) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176558)

I watch Ebert pretty much every week because he is intelligent and an insightful reviewer. Yes, his opinions differ from mine quite often, but he does a very good job of explaining why he doesn't like something, and sometimes suggests what type of audience would enjoy the film. He sees so many movies that I appreciate his point of view, even if I don't agree with him.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Kagu (606216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176956)

People seem to miss the one of the main advantages of a professional reviewer. To me the real value of a good professional reviewer is they have a consistent measure, the ability to see many more movies than I do, and practice at disseminating their opinions. By following the same reviewers I am able to learn their style, their likes and dislikes, and their ability to provide a synopsis of the film. I never see a movie because it is a critics pick, I frequently see a movie because of a critics description which I then can use in my gauge of whether or not I would like that movie.

OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177131)

Ebert's review was glowing compared to what I'd say. The movie really really sucked. The audience I saw it with consistently laughed at the film's ineptitude. Overdramatic acting, broken dialogue, and even camera direction managed to get unintended chuckles. CGI sets were abundant and generally obvious. The special effects CGI was decent, though it wasn't well integrated into the action - any time there was a big CGI scene it was like a cutscene in a game where the action stopped and we waited for the pretty effects to finish. The attempts to integrate gameplay elements were phenomenally bad - there was literally a jumping puzzle and a rope swinging puzzle, neither of which added to suspense or plot (and which also evoked laughter from the audience).

And continuity: Why is there an offramp to a highway that ends at a big gate? Why does the father character's accent change from British to midwestern every few minutes? Why does the cop pull over the mother? Why does the mother accelerate away from the cop who just pulled her over? Why do cell phones sort-of work as a communications medium between reality and the land of the undead? Why didn't the falling elevator cause serious injury to its occupant when it landed? What motivated any of the characters to do any of the stupid things they did?

Really, Ebert was nice. The movie is really bad.

- Normal People

Ebert is to Cringley as he is to Dvorak (-1, Flamebait)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176341)

Seriously. When are people going to stop listening to these windbags. This is particularly true for movies where one sees one flick as the best movie ever made while someone else sees it as a steeping pile of crap. Movie reviews are so subjective. This is why I don't browse Rottentomatoes.com anymore. First off - as already alluded it - is is so subjective and secondly I think that most critics are self-important bastards. I actually prefer imdb.com because with that at least those reviews are written by everyday people who do not have a thesaurus next them like rottentomato movie critics to make themselves sound more important then they really are.

Thesaurus (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176374)

yeah anyone who uses the word "devalued" in the context of watching a movie, is almost certainly a buffoon.

Re:Thesaurus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176459)

He doesn't use 'devalued' in the context of watching the movie though, but rather in the context of a discussion he'd had before. Besides, if you need a thesaurus to come up with 'devalued', well... I'm not sure what to say here, other than that it's not a very obscure word.

That said, his review makes it sound like many games I've played: looks nice, and there's lots of exposition, but the plot just doesn't hold up.

Re:Thesaurus (1)

typobox43 (677545) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176605)

well... I'm not sure what to say here, other than that it's not a very obscure word.

Maybe that thesaurus would help here.

Re:Thesaurus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176688)

It might, but it's much more of a case of having thought out part of an argument, and then realising you've failed to think out how you're going to lead in to it.

Wait, I mean: that was an intentional joke on my part. Honest.

Ebert is a great critic (5, Insightful)

DG (989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176491)

While there are plenty of critics out there who are a waste of print, Roger Ebert isn't one of them.

He is a serious student of film, he has seen almost everything ever made, and his opinions are well informed with details to back them up.

And yet, he's no stuffy academic either - he can enjoy a guilty pleasure as much as anybody.

Very, very rarely do I wind up disagreeing with him, and even when I do, I can usually see his point.

The man is a rarity: a great critic.

DG

Re:Ebert is a great critic (1)

fossa (212602) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176595)

I agree. I don't read many reviews by Ebert, but when I do it's not so much whether I agree on the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", but his analysis of the movie often helps me decide if I would enjoy a film or not, even in conflict with his own tastes.

Time spent (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176621)

And his time spent doing that doesn't leave him much time for doing anything else to put in in any sort of context.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (1)

hobbesx (259250) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176624)

I still check rottentomatoes, but I think a better way to do things is to find a critic that is as close to 100% consistent with your opinions all the time.

For example, there's a critic at the Seattle PI that really enjoys all of the movies I can't stand, and nearly always tears apart the movies that I enjoy. Instead of a meta-review site, there should be some sort of movie-tastes profiling webpage. Critics and customers profile movies that they see, along with what they did or did not like about them. Then you get matched to critics that either match (or are violently opposed) to your tastes.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (5, Interesting)

MuNansen (833037) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176699)

Ebert is the only critic that I even read. I often disagree, but he's the most educated critic out there, AND he can let himself enjoy movies as they're meant to be enjoyed. He gave Mortal Kombat a well-deserved thumbs up, for instance. It was just a kung fu, game-based movie, but for a kung fu, game-based movie it was quite good. Good fight choreography, an interesting spin on the Bloodsport genre, and it didn't try to be anything it wasn't. Eberts the only critic that always recognizes what the movie is trying to be, rather than what he thinks it should have been.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (1)

ToastyKen (10169) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177047)

Are you sure he reviewed Mortal Kombat? How come it's not in his website archives?

Re:Ebert is a great critic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177251)

"Are you sure he reviewed Mortal Kombat? How come it's not in his website archives?"

Siskel and Ebert did review it, I remember seeing that one on TV when Mortal Kombat came out.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (2, Insightful)

CoffeeJedi (90936) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177192)

I remember way back when he and Gene Siskel reviewed Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Siskel complained that the film didn't fully explore the complex father/son dynamic between Indy and Henry Sr.
Ebert sort of looked at him slack jawed for a moment before exclaiming "It's an Indiana Jones movie! I don't want to see that! That has no place in a movie like this!" He then gave it thumbs up.
That's when i knew that i liked him as a reviewer.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (1)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176664)

Very, very rarely do I wind up disagreeing with him, and even when I do, I can usually see his point.

The man is a rarity: a great critic.


I think there's some correlation between these two statements. Although to be fair, I agree with you. But still. "He agrees with me. He is therefore great." I love it.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (1)

dknight (202308) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177750)

are you serious? Isnt this the guy who did Valley of the Dolls? I'm sorry, anyone who makes a movie that bad is NOT qualified to criticize others.

Re:Ebert is a great critic (1)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 7 years ago | (#15178075)

Exactly. I hate when people say 'he's not the target audience' or 'he's just old'. He's smart. If he says a movie is bad, he says why it's bad. I disagree with him on a lot of movies, but I respect that he knows what he's talking about.

Re:Ebert is to Cringley as he is to Dvorak (4, Insightful)

MagicM (85041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176568)

I think that most critics are self-important bastards.

I believe you just criticized critics, thereby making yourself a self-important bastard as well.

Ack! Now I'm one too!

Re:Ebert is to Cringley as he is to Dvorak (1)

ToastyKen (10169) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177023)

Actually, you're a meta-meta-critic! :D

Re:Ebert is to Cringley as he is to Dvorak (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176655)

I like Ebert, though you need Roper to counterbalance him. They both argue why a movie is good or bad, and their split decisions reveal a lot about whether I'm gonna like a movie.
"The star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then [The United States of] Leland clocks in at about two." (from Wikipedia)

Saw it last night (5, Informative)

Yoweigh116 (185130) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176365)

A friend of mine got some screener passes so I went and saw this last night. I only have one word for the movie: AWFUL!

Let me say first of all that I was never a big fan of the game series. A number of the people I was with were, though, and they were just as dismayed as I was. There were little bits from the game stuck in there, but even those who caught them said they felt like scraps from the dinner table. The storyline vaguely follows the game, but I totally agree with Ebert for once. I even said to my friends afterwards that I felt dumber after having seen that movie.

I guess they must have realized their movie was terrible, because they threw in massive amounts of wanton violence and excessive gore in to try and cover it up. I had to actually turn my face away, something I've never had to do before, to avoid wathing a closeup of someone's face melting over a pyre. After that, it only got worse, and some of the disturbing stuff is definitely not from the game.

-Yoweigh

Re:Saw it last night (1)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176455)

But didn't you like the headless nurses with big boobs minigame scene? Brilliant stuff.

Re:Saw it last night (1)

Yoweigh116 (185130) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176773)

Only for its humor. They sucked out anything else that may have been redeeming. This includes, but definitely is not limited to, any connection with anything else that happens anywhere else in the movie. I guess that kinda makes sense for a minigame, though. -Yoweigh

Re:Saw it last night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176845)

That is where your problem lies. You went into the movie not liking the video game series and you brought that with you in your opinions as you watched the film. On the other hand, if you were one of the people that loved the game series and beat them all (like myself), you would have at least given it a chance. Instead you come babbling here on Slashdot saying that it sucked and it was awful. Good for you... I just wish you were more objective thats all.

P.S. If you said disturbing "stuff" was not in the games, what games have you been playing? The series is based on "disturbing stuff" and this was very apparently especially in the 3rd game.

Re:Saw it last night (1)

Yoweigh116 (185130) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177272)

Flame much? I forgot my asbestos suit when I posted, damnit.

Re:Saw it last night (2, Insightful)

ronfar (52216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177215)

The real problem with Ebert reviews of videogame movies (and his review of Resident Evil [suntimes.com] shows this as well) is that he always assumes that movies based on games are actually based on the games they are based on. (Try saying that three times fast!)

Probably, this has a lot to do with his low opinion of games in general. Since most movies based on games are in no way based on the games they are based on. Someone just buys a game's name, makes a movie and sticks the name on it. I wonder what he thought of the movie version of Super Mario Brothers for example.

I'd like to get him and explain this to him. "You know how American International Pictures would name movies after Edgar Allen Poe stories or poems and then use an H. P. Lovecraft story (see Haunted Palace [amazon.ca] for example) or some historical horror story from England (see Conqueror Worm [amazon.com] for example, well actually in that case they just imported the movie and slapped on the name with some edits) for the actual plot? Well that's what video game movies are like."

Re:Saw it last night (1)

curunir (98273) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177552)

The real problem with Ebert reviews of videogame movies ... is that he always assumes that movies based on games are actually based on the games they are based on.

Here's one [suntimes.com] where he doesn't make that assumption. Sometimes a movie is so badly done that it can seem like they copied the video game because you can't imagine a screenwriter coming up with so bad a plot. Many times the plots of Video Games are horrendously bad, but are intended to facilitate gameplay. These can be hard to distinguish from horrible movie plots which have no such justification. Only someone who has played the game would be able to distinguish between the two. But when a movie takes the basic premise of the game and expands it to become a movie in its own right (see Tomb Raider in the link above), there's no confusion. You really can't blame Ebert for speaking ill of the video game inspirations for these horrendous movies. You can, however, blame the people who take your fond memories of playing the game and destroy them by making such horrible films, simply because they know you'll fork over $10 to see it.

Game or Movie? (1)

Physician (861339) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176396)

At first I thought Ebert was branching out into video game reviews since /. listed this under "Games". However, the reviewer I rarely agree with anyway doesn't seem to like the movie Silent Hill. Surprise surprise. He's older than my dad. Then again I wouldn't want some G4TV like kiddies reviewing movies for me either (because their game reviews are pitiful and the powers that be think the tv people all have to look so... well you know if you ever watch that channel).

Inevitably, it will likely suck, but... (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176400)

I'm still going to see it. Mostly because it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll. Christophe Gans had his hand in this one, and he directed The Brotherhood of the Wolf (le pacte des lueps), which I enjoyed. It had an arty flair and lots of but-kicking goodness. I'll give this fellow a chance.

The game plays like a movie, so it should be difficult to screw up. Just as long as they don't overdo it on the dialoge. Just keep my mind on the movie and keep it a phycological thriller like the games, and I'll be happy.

Re:Inevitably, it will likely suck, but... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176982)

I'm still going to see it. Mostly because it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll.

They should actually use that in the promo literature:

"At least it's not directed by Uwe Boll!" says Peter Travers of Rolling Stone

Come to think of it, that might be a useful blurb for a lot of movies. Paulie Shore could finally have a blurb for one of his movies!

-Eric

Re:Inevitably, it will likely suck, but... (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177035)

I might actaully watch a Paulie Shore movie if that were in the headlines! Oh, God... memories of my last girlfriend. She repeatedly asked me over to watch Paulie Shore movies. She didn't want to ignore the movies when I got there ethier. What a nightmare.

ohnoes! (0, Offtopic)

SaidinUnleashed (797936) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176409)

Heard nothing good about this movie, and now I read bad things about it on /.

Everyone knows Slashdot is never wrong!

Re:ohnoes! (1)

random256 (676708) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177467)

You read bad things about everything posted on /. if you look hard enough

I'll still be there opening night (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176423)

In short, Ebert isn't the target audience. Those of us who've played through all the games and are eagerly hoping for a new one are. Some of us like the extra backstory (and would even call it "plot development") as it contributes to the enjoyment of the franchise, not just the movie itself.

I don't hate on the guy for having a different opinion than I'm likely to, but do find it annoying that he judges movies by criteria that the people who will actually want to see them won't have.

On the other hand, he has something of a point. For example, we didn't need to know that midichlorians are responsible for The Force. Sometimes it's easy to cross the line between backstory and stupidity.

Bin those games and play Maniac Mansion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176494)

It's creepy and has 98% less pretentious bullpoo

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176570)

The thing is, the majority of people don't have the same background information that you do, and -- if they wish to recoup the costs of production, marketing, and so on, at least -- it's being marketed to the general public, not just the fans of the games.

Which, from what I've read, makes it look like it falls into a category of films that I consider failed as a movie. (Some of them I even like, but that's another story.) Basically, I'm of the opinion that if a film requires knowledge of the plot points of some other fictional source in order to understand the plot, then I feel it's failed as a coherent film.

(This doesn't include stuff that could be considered general knowledge -- such as, say, the general plot to Hamlet -- or information from other films in a series of films.)

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176958)

So... it's not okay to make a movie that is only really enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from playing the videogame, but it is okay to make a movie that is only enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from reading a comic book, watching other movies or seeing some old play?

While I can't think of any video games that I would classify as "high art" they are art nonetheless. And they have been a cultural phenomenon for a good while now, so it makes sense that people try to expand on the culture (or subculture... whatever) by taking the stories presented into a new medium. It's just that Uwe Boll has made a few stinkers which make people shy away from making a movie adaptation of a video game.

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177183)

So... it's not okay to make a movie that is only really enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from playing the videogame, but it is okay to make a movie that is only enjoyable if you have learned the basic story and world from reading a comic book, watching other movies or seeing some old play?

I believe you misunderstand me.

Reading a comic book (or any other book) or seeing some play? No, that's not alright. For example: I said the general plot to Hamlet, not the exact specifics of the plot. I consider this to be one of these things that people know, even if they've never read or seen the play. I mean, I can generally say "Claudius killed the king" without someone screaming at me about spoilers. Same goes for Moby Dick, the backstory of Superman, the identity of Darth Vader -- things that have achieved enough mass in the popular mindset that even people who've never read/seen the item itself know the basics of it. If you wanted to, you could consider this a form of obliteration phenomenon. [wikipedia.org]

(As for why I used Hamlet as an example: it wasn't meant as snobbishness or "high art" or anything, I was merely thinking of Fifty Works of English and American Literature We Could Do Without [amazon.com] , which is based around the idea that some works could disappear from the face of the earth, never to be read or performed again, and it wouldn't make a difference as they are so well known to the general public. At least, I think that's the book I want; I haven't had a copy of it in a while and am not certain on the title anymore.)

Watching another movie? Only if it's part of a series. For example: someone who jumped in to The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the King, or something like that and then complained that they didn't understand what was going on? They have no right to complain.

Video games in general may have reached a high level of awareness in popular culture, but it's arguable whether individual video games have achieved that same level of awareness. For example, I can refer to the XBox and expect people to understand what I mean. However, to refer to even a general plot point of, say, Halo, and expect the general public to understand it is a different matter, as outside of gamer culture the game hasn't quite acheived the same degree of penetration into the awareness of the general public.

Does that make any sense?

Re:I'll still be there opening night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177521)

"I mean, I can generally say "Claudius killed the king" without someone screaming at me about spoilers."

SPOILER ALERT next time that Claudius killed the king! Some of us haven't made it past the opening scene yet!!!

Re:I'll still be there opening night (4, Insightful)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176581)

In short, Ebert isn't the target audience. Those of us who've played through all the games and are eagerly hoping for a new one are.

Oh, so all 50,000 of you can go see the movie and it'll be a phenomenal failure. I hate movies that suck to someone who "doesn't get it" or who "hasn't read the book" or "hasn't played the game". We have a word for those kind of movies: crap.

The film is a different media. If the film can't stand on its own 2 feet, than as a film it's a horrible failure.

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176715)

Oh, so all 50,000 of you can go see the movie and it'll be a phenomenal failure. I hate movies that suck to someone who "doesn't get it" or who "hasn't read the book" or "hasn't played the game". We have a word for those kind of movies: crap.

You mean like how The X Files [imdb.com] only grossed $189 million? Yes, there's clearly no business logic behind making entertainment that appeals to niche audiences.

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176838)

But the X-Files wasn't just another video game.. :)

There was already a TV screen presence (Scully, Mulder(sp?)) that even if you weren't totally into the X-Files, you probably still saw an episode or two, and knew who the characters were. That's the hook.....

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177178)

US video game sales were over $10 billion in 2005 [wikipedia.org] . The point I'm trying to make is that video games are about as mainstream as you can possibly get, and not just the province of a few kids in their parents' basements. I liked "The X Files" (show and movie), but although it was wildly popular amongst geeks, but I don't think it's in any "top 10 popular shows" lists.

Re:I'll still be there opening night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176853)

It's raises a good question though: once something passes a certain point, can it truly be called niche? (Namely, what I'm curious about is: what were the ratings at the peak of the X-Files viewership? I'd imagine that they were quite high, and significantly more so than the number of people who have played all the Silent Hill games -- making an analogy between it and Silent Hill severely flawed.)

From what I recall, the X-Files movie was considered to be crap as well. (Yes, I know it has a 6.7 on IMDB, but I'm talking about the general consensous among movie goers that I'm remembering from when it was originally released. Yes, yes, anecdotal evidence, I know.)

Re:I'll still be there opening night (2, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177024)

But the X-Files movie could also stand on its own. It was good for anyone who hadn't seen a lot, if any of the TV show, and it was great for those who had. If your sole enjoyment of a movie is predicated on you having read/played/watched the story previously, then it very much little more than crap.

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176788)

he film is a different media. If the film can't stand on its own 2 feet, than as a film it's a horrible failure.

You assert that, but other than saying that you hate such movies, you give no supporting criticism as to why a movie that only appeals to 50,000 is a huge failure. Do you equate sales to success? If so, then what if 50,000 sales was enough to be profitable, would it then be a success?

Re:I'll still be there opening night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176954)

It's all about the target. Some Indy film may have an expected target of 100 people, and winds up having 500 people watch it - a great success.

Other films, like Silent Hill, expect to measure the number of viewers in the millions. If they only get 50,000 people to watch, that would be a miserable failure.

Given that Silent Hill has been marketed as one of the latter, if it does only get 50,000 people to watch, it'd be a miserable failure.

Of course, given that the user reviews on Ebert's site give it 3.5 starts over his 1.5 stars, I think Ebert may just be completely wrong. Again.

50,000 (1)

booch (4157) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177600)

I bet if you made anything that sold 50,000 copies, or had 50,000 attendees, you'd be very proud of yourself. Maybe that can be considered a failure as a mass-market movie, but I think a lot of independent film-makers would be happy to get that kind of audience.

Re:50,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177961)

You're right, I'd be damned happy if I made a film or wrote a book and 50,000 tickets or copies of it sold. However, chances are good I wouldn't be making it based on the assumption that anywhere near as many as 50,000 copies would sell, and therefore I'd be doing it in such a way that I wouldn't be losing my shirt, so to speak, if fewer copies sold.

That's the thing though: this isn't an independent film, it's a mass-market movie. Therefore, it's been made on the assumption that it's meant to appeal to more than just those 50,000 people.

Context is everything.

Re:50,000 (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 7 years ago | (#15178223)

I think a lot of independent film-makers would be happy to get that kind of audience.

Yeah, particularly independent film makers like SONY PICTURES [sonypictures.com] .

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177771)

We have a word for those kind of movies: crap.

Actually, that would be the word for the other kind of movies - the ones that shamelessly pander to the illiterate lowest common denominator.

Re:I'll still be there opening night (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178900)

I hate movies that suck to someone who "doesn't get it" or who "hasn't read the book" or "hasn't played the game".

Most of the people I know"don't get" the Mona Lisa or John Cage, either.

Being a bit too true to the source materials (1)

Goldrush (888847) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176471)

A story that makes no sense... The movie represented the game perfectly! Love the series. However, the first game had so many cuts, it was impossible to understand the story until the third game came out.

Context (0, Troll)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176492)

Surprise, surprise... A man who gets most of his reality spoonfed to him through movies lacks the context with which to understand a movie that offers back-stories, historical perspectives, metaphysical insights, and occult orientations.

Horrible review!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176559)

I'm surprised. Ebert usually does better than this. Nowhere does he mention the avg fps or hardware configuration of the theater.

Fuck his celebrity status. (-1, Flamebait)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176588)

The man is a codger who only gets people's ears because of his name and the fact that he's been doing this for a while.

His opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's in this day and age.

Wake up Ebert: The world and especially the film industy have moved on, and you're just a dinosaur waiting to die that actual film-goers mostly ignore.

Re:Fuck his celebrity status. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177027)

I dunno man, you seem kind of angry. Is everything ok at home?

Re:Fuck his celebrity status. (1)

Yenshee (520082) | more than 7 years ago | (#15178218)

I strongly disagree with this. Having followed his writing for a while now, I think he has a real passion for cinema, as well as an impressive store of knowledge about film. If you're looking for some really exciting and challenging moviegoing experiences, flip through his list of Great Movies, available on his website. Of course, his opinion is of no more importance than anyone else's, EXCEPT for the credibility he gains from this vast store of movie knowledge, and his generally entertaining and funny writing style.

Who Knew? (1, Insightful)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176639)

OK, lemme get this straight... we have a videogame based movie and anyone expects otherwise?!? Now that is the real story here.

Doom was without a doubt one of the worst videogame movies next to Alone in the Dark... next to well I could go on and on.

Slashdot should be a fairly intelligent bunch, yet most of the 20 comments so far read: "I know it will suck, but I'll be there opening night..." What is wrong with you people? Are your lives that devoid of quality that you actually anticipate going to see garbage and wasting your money?

How's bout this, send the $10-20.00 to me and then sit and think about getting a hobby or interest besides computers/videogames/movies/porn.

Re:Who Knew? (3, Funny)

iridium_ionizer (790600) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176796)

How's bout this, send the $10-20.00 to me and then sit and think about getting a hobby or interest besides computers/videogames/movies/porn.

What's your address, or do you only accept Paypal?

Re:Who Knew? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177115)

What's your address,

123 Asskick Street.

Sorry. :-)

But I agree with the OP. Ain't It Cool News has legions of movie geeks flooding theaters to see what they know and admit is junk, and then they bemoan the fact that movies suck. But then again these are the people who hate CGI but love men in rubber monster suits. Whatever.

Re:Who Knew? (2, Funny)

iridium_ionizer (790600) | more than 7 years ago | (#15178192)

But then again these are the people who hate CGI but love men in rubber monster suits. Whatever.

I love men in rubber monster suits... I mean girls, yeah, *cough* women.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176990)

I don't know... the bit at the end of Doom that looked like a videogame was kinda neat. The rest of the movie was just something on the TV while I talked to my roomates and a couple of friends that happened to be over. Didn't expect great art from it, but sometimes some background stimulus like Doom is a good way to keep an eventing of hanging out a little more interesting. At least you can make fun of The Rock.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

pompeiisneaks (168217) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177367)

I find it comical that you're saying one should find a hobby or interest besides computers/videogames/movies/porn and then your sig mentions the Nintendo Revolution, maybe you should get some interests besides videogames too?

Re:Who Knew? (1)

Zoshnell (573838) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177609)

Nah, he obviously has a very active social life, making mad bennies has has sex everyday, with different women, while doing lots of drugs. Obviously he's the Internets Celebrity Mark Discordia! http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/mark.htm [seanbaby.com]

Re:Who Knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177503)

Hah! Flamebait from a /. poster.

You're so funny :)

Re:Who Knew? (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 7 years ago | (#15178247)

You forgot wing commander, doom is definatly not the worst.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178926)

Slashdot should be a fairly intelligent bunch, yet most of the 20 comments so far read: "I know it will suck, but I'll be there opening night..." What is wrong with you people? Are your lives that devoid of quality that you actually anticipate going to see garbage and wasting your money?

Because video game movies don't necessarily always suck. Mortal Kombat was good, Resident Evil and Doom were both 'ok', and the Pokemon movies (if you could get over the cutesy-ness) destroys box office/retail sales regularly. (Overall they're considered to be fairly good considering dubbing is still a mixed bag and the movies recieve nearly no marketing in the U.S.)

Mighty fine... (1)

softspokenrevolution (644206) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176764)

I thought that it was a mighty fine review, not having seen the movie (and not really planning until some sucker buys the DVD) this will save me $5.50. I especially like Mr. Ebert's comment at the end...
Walking out after "Silent Hill," I thought of that lonely pilot light, and I understood why I failed to understand the movie. My damn brain lit up too much.
That just about sums up what it takes to enjoy a videogame movie, just one synapse firing.

Naturally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176786)

Insert fanboi outrage that a fright-flick with piss-poor acting and character / plot development got a poor review here.

Slightly off topic, but (2, Insightful)

Zelucifer (740431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15176789)

Ebert is great at reviewing from an artistic perspective (although slightly narrow-minded and elitist), but I truly dislike his complete lack of commentary on emotion. Silent hill is intended to be a horror movie. Yes, it was horrible (his opinion... I haven't seen it), but did it scare you? Was it a true horror flick, or as the trend has become in recent years, just a bloody mess, filled with gore, more gore and naked women. I understand that it was a confused mess of plot, filler and characterization, but could you suspend your disbelief?

Re:Slightly off topic, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15177524)

The problem is that (IMHO), while you can be objective about various things, I don't feel that emotion is really one of them. What's scary to me may not be scary to you.

For example: quite a while back I saw The Grudge with a friend. They thought it was great for scares. I, on the other hand, didn't agree with them as I felt that all the scares had been telegraphed ages before they occurred. (There's obviously something going to jump out of the bathtub... There's obviously something going to jump out of the bathtub... OH MY GOD! SOMETHING JUMPED OUT OF THE BATHTUB! Ha ha! Bet you weren't expecting that!) So then: was the film scary and a true horror flick, or wasn't it?

Re:Slightly off topic, but (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177994)

The Grudge was almost tongue-in-cheek about it's scares. I.E The high-rise apartment section. The evil spirit has to be buzzed in?? I thought that was awesome!

Re:Slightly off topic, but (1)

bigdogs (90229) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177569)

as the trend has become in recent years, just a bloody mess, filled with gore, more gore and naked women.

You mean like Hostel? :)

Not that I disliked Hostel. I actually enjoyed it, in particular because of the T&A and the gore. But as far as a horror flick goes, the second half was pretty generic....

Rottentomatoes initial scoring of 70% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15176800)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/silent_hill/review s_users.php [rottentomatoes.com]

Pretty much if you are a fan of the series you'll enjoy the movie. Anyone totally fresh to the Silent Hill series will be somewhat lost..... so in a way this is a success for game movies in general, and a failure in the same way.

Hands down the best game movie ever made.

Listen to my advice (2, Informative)

zr-rifle (677585) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177085)

Screw the movie and get the second game in the series. Play it. Trust me, you will be impressed. Silent Hill 2 has the single greatest moment in the history of gaming ever. It happens in the apartment where you pick up the flashlight and no movie could ever replicate it. I won't spoil it for you, but if you understand its meaning it will send cold shivers down your spine. Brilliant.

Re:Listen to my advice (1)

Codename_V (813328) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177387)

Ok, wait. A lot of things happen in the apartment, so give me a hint here as to which part you're refering to. Anyway, I don't think I'd characterize any of them as the single greatest moment in the history of gaming. I mean, the pyramid head guy kinda freaks you out when you first meet him, but if I had to pick my favorite moment from the game, it would probably be the very first encounter with one of the zombies or whatever. With the dischordant radio static and everything, that was pretty intense.

/. Law No. 1 (1)

underpope (952425) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177231)

If the article summary suggests that the film is bad, chances are the film doesn't even exist. So when you see something like that, you know that you have to read the article, just to find out what the /. editor is trying to say. If a headline reads, "OMG STAR WARS VIII SUXS LOL" you know for sure that article is probably about a new brand of laundry detergent. In this case, of course, there is such a film as Silent Hill. My first reaction on reading Ebert's review was something like, "What? A video game movie that sucks? Say it ain't so!" Ebert's got a pretty good head on his shoulders, and has been known to give good reviews to films that other critics have panned for being too genre-specific, too predictable, or whatever. So given the industry's record with video game movies in the past and Ebert's sound criticism, I think it's fair to say that the movie Silent Hill probably will suck. Though it will probably look pretty.

It makes no sense to me... (4, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#15177392)

...why video games have never made great movies. I think a big problem is that most game movies require that you've played the game to understand the movie. This doesn't make any sense, since the game stood on its own and didn't require any back story. Even sequals to video games are meant to stand on their own. I'm playing Metal Gear Solid 3 right now, never having played an MGS title in my life, and I'm loving it. But even the most obvious choices of games for the big screen fail in their ability to be self-contained.

The bottom line is that these are all cash cow titles. Noone makes a video game movie because they want to make great cinema or great art, they think that having an established fanbase will make the movie a sure success. Strangely, they're usually wrong, because catering to a small fanbase almost always means alienating everyone else, and that "everyone else" is most movie goers. The budgets for these films are too big to rely soully on small, pre-established fanbases. Serenity demonstrated that quite well, for the most part fans enjoyed it (I was a bit lukewarm to it, myself, however), but it didn't stand on its own, and was a total boxoffice flop.

I'm not convinced that movies made from video games can't be good, it's really no different from making a movie from a comicbook series, and that has become surprisingly refined as of late: two great Batman movies, two wonderful X-Men films, arguably a good Spiderman movie, and everyone seems to be raiving about V... it seems that comic book movies are on the rise and becoming more and more sophisticated, in their own rite. But when I saw Batman Begins, I didn't have to know anything about the history of the Batman franchise, and I didn't. I came out feeling like I'd just seen a great action movie, one of the best... and the fact that it was from a comic book was fairly irrelivant, and even pretty moot.

Maybe the percieved proximity of cinema to games tends to cause some laziness on the part of the writers and directors. Since modern video games are so cinematic in nature, directors make the mistake of simply directing the movie like the game was directed, which is a big mistake, since when it comes to pacing and lack of interactivity, the differences between even the most cinematic games and films are still quite different. Novels and graphic novels, on the other hand, are far enough removed that the flow of the narrative has to be completely recreated. And, as we've seen time and time again, a good adeptation is possible: anything from Brokeback Mountain to Sin City (though I, personally, was repulsed by the latter, I can't deny it's success for accomplishing what it set out to do). A good adeptation of a video game is possible, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. And it has nothing to do with the cinematic nature of the original game. Silent Hill is one of the most "cinematic" games out there, and it seems that the movie has not lived up to expectation. The Metal Gear Solid series could be said to make a great movie... hell it's basically done by a film crew already, but I have no doubt that it could be ruined if not done in the right hands. The bottom line is, MGS has no better chance of making a great movie than Tetris; under the right guidence, practically any idea can be done thoughtfully.

I just hope to god John Woo doesn't follow through with doing a Metroid movie... he hasn't made a good film in years (if ever). The lack of dialog in the series would make it VERY hard to make a good movie, but if done right, with a really unique sense of artistic vision, could be amazing... and John Woo hasn't really proven himself to be much of a visionary.

Re:It makes no sense to me... (0)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178510)

(It makes no sense to me...) ...why video games have never made great movies.

I know why.

It's because what qualifies for a good video game story is, in general, an order of magnitude worse than what qualifies for a good movie story. Final Fantasy games, widely lauded for having among the best stories in the industry, tend to have the kind of narrative crap that would be lucky to be a trash paperback fantasy. Stuff that someone who's emotionally invested in the work might enjoy, but cannot survive the light of day.

There are good game stories out there. Sometimes you find them where you don't expect. (Grandia and Grandia II, for example, for all their cliches, have genuinely good dialogue and character development in them.) But generally, most game stories suck, for these reasons:

  • They don't need a good story for people to buy them. An excellent tale takes time, and thus money, to write, but "scenarios" are often looked down upon as being relatively unimportant compared to the rest of the game assets.
  • They are difficult to write well, and intrinsically different from most prior forms of narrative. Take a popular novel, and try to turn it into a game, and you'll probably meet inevitable failure. The best novel-to-game work I can think of, Infocom's classic adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was basically rewritten with loads of new material. (In some ways it's like a lost Hitchhiker's book, but no matter.) Most authors are not Douglas Adams, and even if they have his talent, they are unlikely to share the most-unwriterly enthusiasm for computers that inspired him to take on the project.
  • The game development industry has a poisonous atmosphere at the moment. Anyone with enough writing skill to produce an amazing game script will probably not be able to see it through the twists of a major studio's digestive tract -- and feel free to extend my metaphor if you want to imagine what it'll look like by the time it makes it through. Wonderfully irregular writing has a way of getting the corners broken off on the way through development meetings. There's too much money at stake to risk something truly different here.
  • What makes for a good novel or movie does not necessarily make for a good game. Players have to strongly identify with a protagonist, which mostly precludes giving him vague motives, or story structures other than The Great Quest. Not all writers want to spend their careers writing The Lord of the Rings over and over again.
  • Finally, the fact is, you don't need a good story to support a good game, but you definitely need a good game even if you have a good story.

Re:It makes no sense to me... (1)

stony3k (709718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178687)

The lack of good stories is also why many of the current generation of games suck, especially RPGs. Games like Fallout or Planescape:Torment could be made into pretty decent movies, because they have good stories.

Re:It makes no sense to me... (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178597)

In John Woo's defense, in a foreign country and a foreign language is very hard to communicate an artistic vision. He also remains very good at putting people in completely messed up, intractible situations. Sure, nothing has been as good as A Better Tomorrow, but nothing has been as bad as Hard Target was.

Unfortunately the sort of over-the-top action that seemed really cool on a Hong Kong budget just looks over-the-top on a US budget. For example, in MI2 he has a scene where the main character flips around a motorcycle and smacks someone in the face with the back wheel. In the US, it looks horribly artificial. In HK, they would have just hired a stuntman to do it, and it would have been awsome.

Metroid is possible. Partly by not having dialog that gives the film makers carte blanc to do whatever they want. Partly by being Sci-Fi it gives Woo the ability to do whatever HE wants, without it seeming too weird. The suit is a problem... it's going to come off terribly if it looks like it does in the games, and it will mask the actress' ability to be expressive. I almost want Andy Serkis in that suit, at least for the parts of the movie where you can't see her face.

Team of scientists in a secret lab on a planet which looks mysteriously like south america accidentally unleash the ultimate horror. Lab is destroyed, leaving none the wiser. Cut To - a woman breaking up a hostage situation in space. 5 criminals have taken over the control deck of a large, well populated ship, and have obviously been at this for a while. Samus makes a brazen entrance, killing four of the criminals in a quick sweep. The last one manages to get a hostage up as a shield, and Samus shoots both of them. Cut to Samus getting sent in to the lab planet with a small team of spunky expendables wearing XO suits. The lab tells them to leave, but the Spunky expendables ignore the warnings of the computer and break in anyway. They work their way down to the main computer area, but find it is too late. Much carnage is watched in computer flashbacks. The blast doors close and suddenly, the team is trapped... and the horror will only get worse.

See? Totally do-able as a piece of passable hollywood schlock, and all you had to do was rip off another game movie that almost got it right, Resident Evil.

I collected various critics reviews (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#15178126)

(Leeched them from rottentomatoes)

OK I read some of the critics reviews, And it seems to be safe. The movie DOESN'T SUCK (at least not so bad), some of the critics actually liked it :)

by Jeff Otto [ign.com] . 2.5 / 5

by Kit Bowen [hollywood.com] . 0 / 4

by Edward Douglas [comingsoon.net] . 7 / 10.

by Moriarty [aintitcool.com] . Doesn't give a rating, but he loved it.

by Mike Sage [rottentomatoes.com] , Peterborough This Week. 4.5 / 5.

by Kevin Carr [7mpictures.com] (2.5/5)

by Sean Means, Salt Lake Tribune [film-finder.com] (1.5/5)

by Brian Orndorf [rottentomatoes.com] , EFILMCRITIC.COM (rotten, D)

by Peter Hartlaub [sfgate.com] , SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. (Didn't like it at all)

by Peter Howell, [thestar.com] TORONTO STAR ("The dumbest")

After reading the various reviews (I didn't watch it - yet), It seems Silent Hill has some flaws:

a) The action part is slow and repetitive (Well, that's what you get in the game, duh). Perhaps having shorter and less running away sequences would have worked.
b) Some of the acting and dialogue is bad (altho not always, the critics who gave it a positive review forgive this point)
c) The plot is too confusing, and these parts are VERY LONG. Most of the critics would have enjoyed having less confusing plot parts. It seems Gans tried to explain the whole concept of Silent Hill, and ended up spoiling it.

But Some of the negative reviewers gave it a 2.5/5 (that means in my lingo: "Not that bad", or "good enough for a fan".

However, there's one point that ALMOST ALL reviewers give to Silent Hill: It's visually astounding. In other words, if you enjoyed Star Wars: Episode 1 despites the horrible story, you'll LOVE Silent Hill.

I particularly liked Moriarty's review, because he's NOT a gamer, and did NOT play the game. However, he might be biased because he's a fan of the horror gender. But hey, maybe that's representative of the intended audience!


"SILENT HILL worked for me because of the confidence and command of director Christophe Gans. I'm not familiar with the source material at all, so I'm not going to discuss it as an adaptation, except in the broadest terms. I can't tell you how faithful it is to the already-established mythology of the various SILENT HILL games, but I can tell you that there are certain touches in the way the film's put together that seem like a sly nod to the basic experience of gaming. ...

Roger Ebert seemed to find the film's explanations baffling even as he was impressed by it technically. I'm not sure why this would confuse anyone... basically it boils down to a vengeful spirit looking for payback against the town that did it harm... but I also think the answers are far less important than the way the questions are presented. For example... I have no idea what the fuck Pyramid Head is, or how he's connected to the Demon, or what purpose he serves aside from freaking my shit out, and frankly, I don't care. He's one of the most striking images I've seen in a horror film in recent memory, and both of his big scenes are exhilarating. If you're tired of teenagers in danger and you're tired of remakes of Asian titles, SILENT HILL is a fascinating antidote."

ebert hates games (1)

Allison Geode (598914) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178447)

I don't know, this movie may be bad, but its apparent that ebert just hates games, and I'm going to take any review by him with a grain of salt.

look at these two blurbs:
"They talk and talk and somehow their words do not light up any synapses in my brain, if my brain has synapses and they're supposed to light up"

"At first, when they were figuring out the games," he said, "the whole brain lit up. But by the time they knew how to play the games, the brain went dark, except for one little point." Walking out after "Silent Hill," I thought of that lonely pilot light, and I understood why I failed to understand the movie. My damn brain lit up too much.


he contradicts himself there. I believe he went into this movie fully expecting it to be awful. he probably made his opinion before he went to see it. I don't trust him.

No screenings for critics (2, Informative)

Megane (129182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15178485)

Or at least not many. I was listening to the radio (that's like television without pictures) today, and they had their weekly talk with a local movie critic. He said they weren't giving screenings to critics, and that was a baaaad sign. Folks, this is going to be a bad movie. Maybe not Highlander II bad, but still bad. Wait for it to come out on DVD, wait for a friend rent it, then ask to borrow it for a night.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?