First half was perfect; second half was a WTF director's indulgence

Rating: 5/10 (22 April 2006)

The trailers pulled me in. The sirens, the intro music. One of my favorite games had been brought to the big screen. For some reason I put aside my current cynicism about the incredible amount of unoriginal crap coming out of Hollywood and opted for nothing but excitement and anticipation.
The first half of Silent Hill delivered just that. Sure there were differences with the game. Harry the Dad instead became Rose the mom. Cheryl was now renamed Sharon (who the hell names their kid "Sharon" nowadays anyway?). Sean Bean (a wonderful British actor) was obviously written in at the last moment (and struggling to keep an American accent), just to keep the cast from being all female. But, it was still the Silent Hill that I loved. Exciting, horrific, mysterious. My husband knew nothing about the game yet he was equally transfixed once the sirens started and all went dark. It was perfect until...
*****THE HEART OF THE MATTER*****
Midway through the movie something went terribly wrong. It's not just that the movie changed the plot of the game. That's been done before and usually for very acceptable reasons. Instead, the director hijacked the movie with his own creative indulgence. And, it wasn't good. In fact, it was cliché and preachy. I was instantly pulled out of the story. All I could do was think of how boneheaded I must've been to assume Hollywood wouldn't screw it up. The movie lost me and the intensity and enjoyment were gone.
Suddenly what was originally (in the game) the cruel experiments of a group of ambitious doctors, instead became the fanaticism of a group of Hollywood's biggest enemy, you guessed it, evil Christians led by a "pious" ringleader who controls them with their own fear of evil and the impure. They take all that's different and burn it at the stake. This was so stupid it was insulting. Not only are we expected to believe that they burned a little girl at the stake as a witch, but that this occurred in 1974 (well it :was: West Virginia).
Nevermind the fact that a) witch burnings NEVER occurred in America and the last witch hanging occurred over 300 years ago (not even close to 1974); b) witch burnings only ever occurred in Europe.
And what the hell were witch burnings and fanatical Christians doing in Silent Hill anyway???
Well, let's take a look at the last movie by director Christophe Gans... that would be the thriller Pacte des Loups - what we in the US know as The Brotherhood of the Wolf.
Advertised as a thriller about an evil supernatural beast that goes around slaughtering folk all over the 18th century French countryside, this film also had my full interest for the first half. Until you find out who the *real* bad guys are. The *true* evil in Brotherhood of the Wolf were a group of fanatical Christians led by a "pious" ringleader who seeks to control the people of France using their own fear of evil and the impure. It was done in a very preachy and exaggerated manner, with none of the subtleties that could've made it remotely believable. Gee, that sounds familiar.
So what we have here is a director whose last 2 movies (Silent Hill and The Brotherhood of the Wolf) were:
TWO VERY DIFFERENT STORIES WHERE THE BAD GUY APPEARED TO BE SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL AND EVIL BUT WAS IN FACT A GROUP OF HYSTERICALLY FANANTICAL CHRISTIANS CONTROLLED BY THEIR OWN FEAR OF DIFFERENCE AND CHANGE, WHO IN TURN SLAUGHTER THE INNOCENT IN HORRIBLY GRAPHIC WAYS TO PROTECT AND RELISH IN THEIR CHRISITIANITY.
Hmmmmmmmm.................................................
Bit of an agenda out there.
Especially when that had absolutely nothing to do with the original Silent Hill storyline. A change in story to make it more accessible and understandable would be fine. BUT DON'T PUT IN SOME GUY'S PREACHY RELIGION-IS-EVIL AGENDA THAT HE DUPLICATED FROM HIS PREVIOUS MOVIE!!!!!!!! That's beyond lame.
Final note: What they did to Cybil was needlessly graphic. It wasn't art, it wasn't horror, it was disgusting and indulgent.
I gave this movie a 5 out of 10 because the first half was perfect and the 2nd merits less than zero.