Silent Hill: Director's Cut, anyone?

If anything, they should cut some scenes out of the movie. There's like 15 minutes of Rhada Mitchell screaming that could be cut out

 

3 1/2 hrs ?!?!?! what were they thinking?!
the movie was so boring to me, i guess if there was more to it...
i think thats a misprint about 31/2 hrs though, thats ridiculous.
i dont think the studio would have approved a script that long for a video game movie, nor the budget that comes with that.

 

NO WAY IN HELL.

It was boring enough. Besides, it felt like it was four hours long already.

 

In an isolated town with **** with this happening, there would probably be much more running around screaming than what they showed her doing in the movie.

As for it being boring, it's loaded with one freakish, eerie creature sequence after another and keeps you too busy trying to figure out what the hell is going on to become tedious(which can be a good thing or a bad thing, but it leaned towards good in SH).

 

I enjoyed the 127 minute version.

If the director still has what was cut out and includes it on the DVD, it would be interesting to see. If it's not included, it wouldn't bother me.

 

Cut out some screaming, cut out some pointless grotesque visuals, add some tension and genuine scare factor. Plus, maybe they should have the plot unravel throughout the film, and not just be explained by one character in the last ten minutes.

 

I ****ing loved the film, i'd love to see a directors cut.

 

I'd love to see a cut of the movie that didn't suck.

 

I don't think it's sucked, it's certainly light years ahead of every other video game adaption. But it still doesn't quite work as a movie. obviously it's noway near as good as Brotherhood of the Wolf.

 

I thought Doom and Resident Evil were better for a variety of reasons. They were both far more entertaining, and less pompous. This film's head was so far up it's own ass it needs surgury to remove it.

Brotherhood was also pretty boring. Christopher Gan's movies look good, but boy will they send you to sleep fast. Both films like they went on forever, and both films where honestly chores to sit through. RE and Doom may not be sophisticated, but they were fun, which is more than I can say for this sorry mess of a movie.

 

Pompous, eh? I see what you mean. It's like a love letter from Gans to the video games, it's constantly saying, "Hey, isn't Silent Hill great?" - much like Peter Jackson with King Kong.

However, pompous or not, SH has moments of excitement and drama and characterisation, and maintains an eerie atmosphere throughout. Neither Doom not RE gert anyway near that, they are both action-oriented, lowest-common-donominator crap.

Boring? Brotherhood of the Wolf? A 17th Century French period romantic martial arts monster horror thriller? How dare you, sir.

 

Meh a bad movie with some nice direction but an overall very stupid piece of cinema. Why have more of it. And for the record it is the best video game movie to date, but that is like winning a race at the special olymmpics.

Big deal.

 

The SIlent Hill games have never been about jump out of your seat scares. Mostly that youe going to see some messed up **** and youll have a hard time sleeping at night.

 

See I disagree with that completely....I thought Silent Hill was completely lacking in excitement, life and everything else that makes a movie halfway decent (just my opinion).

The Rock in Doom has a good character, and the others may have been stereotypes but at least I remember the names and who they were. I can remember very little about the characters in silent hill, except that all the actors seemed to be exceptionally bored and phoning it in. It was honestly one of the few times I have ever regreted seeing a movie in a theatre, along with Tomb Raider and Phantom Menace (and those are just the ones I haven't blocked out).

 

I know, that's exactly my point. Tension building up from unease to terrifying.

 

Ultimately the problem with Silent Hill is inescapable; it's based on a video game. Video games are not story telling mediums like films, books or comics, they are about action and interaction. They are games, not stories. Silent Hill the game does have it's own complex story, sure, but it's a story written to support a roaming, puzzle-solving adventure game.

 

I thought the bathroom stall was pretty damn tense. I don't care what anyone says, everyone was waiting for that corpse to jump up and attack her in the process.

The hallway of deformed blood crazed nurses was tense too. I wanted more of Pyramid Head, however, I realize his story wasn't necessary at the moment and it can be used to further the James Sunderland storyline for the sequel.

And oh yeah, those who complain about it being too long, it's perfectly obvious that they have short attention spans.

 

I'd so ****ing watch a DC. I want it. Do one of those DVDs that has the theatrical and Director's Cut on it. So I can watch back to back

Burned up bandaged alessa still scares me

 

It's nothing to do with short attention spans. A film should be as long or short as is required to tell it's story. Return of the King (extended) spans 4 hours perfectly because that's how long it takes. King Kong has a 90 minute story stretched to 3 hours. Silent Hill could lose 25 minutes.

 

IMDB is wrong.

Christopher Gans said in an interview that the finished version in the theatres is pretty much the director's cut. Nothing was taken out. Nothing was changed. The only thing that was changed was the script to add in more male characters which we saw in the movie.

So there will be no directors cut, because what we got was pretty much it.

 

I have a short attention span? I think long movies can be great. I loved King Kong, and I love Aliens. I love Terminator 2. All longer than SH. The difference? They had good characters and plot, and were not terminally dull.

So that comment you made kinda came from your ass

 

will the director's cut have good dialogue?