Sacrifices a coherent plot for horror and gore.

Rating: 3/10 (23 April 2006)

Has everyone seen a different film to the one I've just seen? Are there two films called Silent Hill? I cannot believe the amount of reviews I have read saying they enjoyed this film. It was incoherent, full of clichés and about 30 minutes too long.
I went to see this film after one user wrote on IMDb that it was the scariest movie they had seen in years. I know now not to make the mistake of believing everything I read. Not being much of a gaming person, I knew very little of the story for those of you who don't know, Silent Hill is adapted from a game) and wanted a good horror film. Saidly, this is not what I saw.
This film starts off with so much promise. The combination of the missing child and the scary deserted town make a very effective, frightening setting. The strange happenings and terrifying images begin soon after the characters arrival in the town of Silent Hill. The burning, children demons (you'll see!) grab your attention immediately. Let me assure you, the plot rapidly deteriorates from here on in.
As Rose (Radha Mitchell) continues the search for her lost daughter, the plot becomes more and more confusing, with the addition a police woman, an unkempt looking child, and a highly religious, witch-burning cult hiding inside a church.
And a word to the wise, if you are a fan of Sean Bean, DO NOT GO TO SEE THIS FILM! He attempts an American accent that does not go down well. You have been warned!
Honestly, if you do not want to spend 2 hours wondering what on earth is going on, trying to decipher a film from a none-existent ending, I'd steer clear of this one. But if you only go to watch films for their violent content and the use of special effects, then be my guest. Just don't say I didn't warn you!