Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Ebert Reviews 'Silent Hill' 124

Posted by Zonk from the not-so-much dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ebert Reviews 'Silent Hill' More

Ebert Reviews 'Silent Hill'

Comments Filter:

  • Saw it last night (Score:5, Informative)

    by Yoweigh116 ( 185130 ) <yoweigh@gmail. c o m> on Friday April 21, 2006 @03:45PM (#15176365) Homepage Journal
    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
    • But didn't you like the headless nurses with big boobs minigame scene? Brilliant stuff.

      • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ronfar ( 52216 )
      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 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 horr

    • True to the Game (Score:2, Informative)

      by Waingro ( 946682 )
      Let me say first: If you are not a fan of the game DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE, you probably won't enjoy it.

      I for one love the original 2 games. (#3 and 4 not as much) I will never forget sitting down to play the first one late and night and being terrified. Never before did a game provide that level of horror and suspense.

      The movie is true to the game genre, and for that I loved it. It is loosely centered around ideas and themes from the first game so if that was your favorite (as is mine) you should enj
      • Please, anyone who has played this series before tell me you weren't scratching your end when you completed the game.

        It does get itchy sitting in one place for so long.

  • 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).
  • 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 hap

    • 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

      • 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.
    • Replying to myself, what can you do?

      Went and saw Silent Hill last night. I understand why Ebert couldn't communicate with his brain now. The movie is pretty well done. It's Silent Hills phycho-thriller aura through and through. Pretty true to the game. Not much (but still present) fanboyism. Pyramid head is back from number 2, but the storyline is from the original game. Either way, they did a great job capturing the feel of the game. Combat was avoided for the most part (no superheroes here) except

  • 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,

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

      by Anonymous Coward
      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 o
      • 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 t

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

          by Anonymous Coward
          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 p

    • Re:I'll still be there opening night (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mike Buddha ( 10734 ) on Friday April 21, 2006 @04:07PM (#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.
      • 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.

        • 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.....
          • 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.
            • I think (or atleast hope) the point the original post was trying to make, is that a movie that is only good as seen through the eyes of someone who has played all the games (or read all the books, or seen all the TV episodes) isn't as good as a movie that can stand on it's own.

              I don't remember the X-Files movie, but I can guess from its 70% rating on rottentomatoes.com that it was atleast good enough to be likable on it's own.

              There's nothing wrong with crossing over types of media. If a movie based upon
            • Yes but compare the people that bought a blockbuster game to the number of people that saw a blockbuster movie. Games are a large market, yes, but unless you are only perusing mechanics and plot points that are very common throughout games that's not going to help. In anime you often see shows refer to the generic idea of a jRPG with text boxes and defeating a great evil but never specific plot points of a specific game. Even the adaptions of videogames make sure to independently introduce the necessary plo
        • 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.
      • 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?

      • 50,000 (Score:2)

        by booch ( 4157 )
        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.
  • 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.

  • Who Knew? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rAiNsT0rm ( 877553 )
    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 garbag

    • Re:Who Knew? (Score:4, Funny)

      by iridium_ionizer ( 790600 ) * on Friday April 21, 2006 @04:29PM (#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?
      • 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.

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

  • 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.
  • 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, bu
    • 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....

  • Listen to my advice (Score:3, Informative)

    by zr-rifle ( 677585 ) <zedr@@@zedr...com> on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:02PM (#15177085) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.
      • Ok ***SPOILER ALERT***

        When you enter the room in which you find the flashlight, it is pinned to tailor doll with the clothes of the wife of James. You'll notice their resemblance if you look at the picture that James has in his wallet.

        Normally, you use the the flashlight to illuminate and reveal monsters in the game. This time, the flashlight is pointed towards you, revealing the true nature of James. For his wife, James was a monster because he killed her. It is a very subtle hint at the reality of the
  • 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 ga

  • It makes no sense to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 7Prime ( 871679 ) on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:33PM (#15177392) Homepage Journal

    ...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.

    • (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
      • 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.

        • 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.)

          I will totally agree with your assessment of Grandia II (haven't played I), great dialog and character portrayal it has... great plot it does NOT have, though I would say that character portrayal is probably more important than plot any day (and is more aggredously absent from most games). Same

    • 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 aro

      • 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.

        The problem is, it would be nice for filmmakers to raise the bar above "passable hollywood schlock", that's bassically what all game movies strive to be, and it's idiotic, noone feels good about enjoying blatent coorperate whore-ism with little artistic motivation. How about taking a page from Kubrick's book of tricks? Huge sections of 2001 were done

    • You are entitled to your opinion but if you honestly believe Woo hasnt made a great film ever you havent seen many Woo films. Watch Hard Boiled or The Killer and tell me they are not great films.

      On the subject of the Ebert review:

      I really dont mind this guy and im as big a horror fan as there is. He has an honesty I respect but he does tend to fall into the cliched Hollywood critic fallback response we see all too often. He harks on about how the film is confusing and dumb but made no real attempt to actual

      • All I ask from a game adaptation is that it stays faithful to the game. It looks like Gans has done this.

        If you ask me, I HATE it when people use the term "faithful to", when describing a remake/tribute. All I care is that a good film comes out. I don't need it to be proven in another medium as to whether the original is any good or not. When I cover another band's rock song, or some video game music, I tend to TRY to stray as far as I can from the original, while still using influences from the origina

        • I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of a film staying faithful to the game its based on. My mainpoint would be if you are not going to make a film like the game then why make a game adaptation at all. I mean Resident Evil was a decent action film but was nothing like the games at all. So why did they bother making it Resident Evil at all? Why not just make a complete different film that is standalone? The answer unfortunately is because they no if they attach the name Resident Evil to
  • Here are the rotten tomatoes user reviews.

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

    Just wait until the server goes back up, apparently it's been heavily accessed.
  • (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

  • 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

  • No screenings for critics (Score:3, Informative)

    by Megane ( 129182 ) on Friday April 21, 2006 @08:43PM (#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.
  • was mario brothers.

    seriously.
  • The movie was pretty damn cool, and, if you aren't a mental invalid atleast, has a pretty good storyline. The ending was pretty bad but it just leaves us waiting for Silent Hill 2.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close