Not made for the average Horror viewer

Rating: 10/10 (8 August 2006)

I had gone to see this movie on opening night. The seats were packed, the crowd was rilled, and the popcorn vendor had gone clinically insane, crumbling under the pressure. I left that theater truly impressed; though the film was based on the game, and through trailers and news it looked as though the storyline would be ripped right out of the thumb twiddling fixating series known as SILENT HILL, but the minds behind this project have truly made this their own. But soon afterward, reading reviews, I found that not everyone was able to enjoy the film. I began to read every review I could. Pam Grady simply knocked the film in every way possible. From Radha Mitchell's performance to the CGI. In actual fact, not much CGI was used in this film; most of the creatures were people, dancers and such, in make up and/or suits. The problem: most people just didn't get it. Roger Ebert (Ebert & Roeper) isn't a favorite critic of mine, though Ido respect his opinions, reason being that he can back up his reasons with compelling arguments. He often gives a horror film low marks, so when I began reading his review on SILENT HILL, I was expecting a constant hacking, much like the fore-mentioned Pam Grady's review. However, I was surprised to read that he admitted to his readers that he just plain and simply didn't get it. And that's the problem; Temporal Dynamics isn't something a lot of people had ever heard of. The fact that this version of Silent Hill had three layered dimensions isn't hard to conceive, correct? There was the version Sean Bean and Kim Coates explored, which is like a desolate American Wasteland. Then there is the fog-filled world, which is home to what appears to be a sect of 'god fearing' witch hunters, who believe they are living in a post apocalyptic era, and of course the "Darkness", that dimension which appeals as eye candy for the viewers. The whole movie is filled with compelling performances, such as Anna. It wouldn't be a SILENT HILL without an odd character, and we can see that Anna's character is lacking in the psychological department, but there seems to be an ignorant child-like state to her. Of course I do love Laurie Holden's take on Cybil Bennett. I won't go further into detail as not to release any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film yet. The only disappointment I had been met with was Akira Yamaoka. C'mon, man! I mean the music was good, and some of the music had been revamped (example; "Innocent Moon" from the SH3 OST, with a cello duet). I was expecting for a whole new soundtrack to blow my mind away... at least one new track. I was also curious as to how he'd stand as a film composer. Guess it'll be a long time before we see that happen, if we ever do. All in all, this is one of the best horror films I've seen in a long time, and we all know that 2006 was lacking in good horror. Good enough to earn a sequel (But I beg you, Roger Avery, DO NOT touch any of the game story lines, and oh GOD please not the comic books! Keep it original, keep it fresh...) So to all you nay sayers and newbies, give this story a chance, and don't put too much thought into something simple, but keep an open mind to the ever so compelling richness this film has to offer.