Reviews

I know we all gotta start some where, and I'd guess this is the debut for a lot of folks involved with this film. We've heard of 'B' movies, this is a 'D' movie. When editing the film, I am surprised that they didn't just write it off. I made it half way through before I gave up and stopped. This movie does not turn it around at some point and offer anything. Just bad acting and weak story and effects. You have been warned.

Lets see...how can I warn you without spoilers. Well, my usual 3 sectioned review isn't needed. Well acted, well filmed but horrible written. A great and heavy sense of depression and dread is maintained, which works fine but is never justified. I can not grasp most of the characters actions. Is this what happens when you live too close to the Arctic circle for too long? Where is the characters motivation? On the cutting room floor.

Sometimes the trailers lie...not this time. For some reason, this movie took some digging to find, a part from its trailers. As far as this sub-genre goes, this movie will be hard to top. I usually fast forward or pause a film, not this time. Not quite a mystery. More like a puzzle that someone keeps handing you pieces of, and even after you can see the basic shape, the pieces keep coming faster.

By my usual 3 categories; story, acting, effects. 1, The story was interest all round. From how it was told; using video interviews, photos, and lastly a clip of found video, and point of view. Pacing was near perfect as we are carried a long. Skillfully put together. 2, the acting was really well done, very believable, no over acting. 3, effects. How do I explain this without spoilers? There is a definite art to what is clearly shown and what is indistinct, hinted at, in a horror movie. This balance was masterfully achieved in this movie. There are no big budget effects. In truth only one small snippet of live action at the end. Mostly its done with B&W photographs taken by the main character. 30 some photos that will leave you very uncomfortable. This film has a great sense of realism. The movie ends, but the story goes on.

What is this, a new low in torture porn? One reviewer said he found himself rooting for the Firefly family at the end...what? How do you root for characters that define themselves with lines like, ' I busted her jaw open and enjoyed her for four more days'. That's what you are rooting for. Aw, chill dude, its just a movie. That's true and our choices reveal much about us. When writing Texas Chainsaw, the real serial killer Ed Gein was drawn on. In truth, the only likable characters are the victims. All others are bottom of the barrel examples of humanity. Rob Zombie seems to have a fetish of trying to make wretches in anti-heroes. After seeing two films by Rob Cummings, I now never have to view another.

A solid 5 rated movie that could easily have been better. Effects were good. Acting was good, there is a small cast of 4. Story is passable, the problem is how the story is told. Flashbacks unless directly, related to real time event, really slows the story and jars audience. The use of flashbacks was to build and build and build upon mother and daughter's relationship and though it did that, the flashbacks did not really move story along. Movie felt 20 to 30 minutes too long.

No, not as good as you've heard. Other reviews were very generous and I wonder why? Obviously, much work went into the film. Well done for a period piece. lets go over the good and the bad, shall we?

Again, we'll use the 3 section review process; acting, story and effects. Some good acting. Acting, The characters you were suppose to dislike, the viewer certainly did. And one got their come upance. Two out of the three characters we were suppose to feel sympathy for we did.

Story, ya there was one but with holes. How did the old blind man survive on his own? Yes, I am mindful no spoilers. Not really scary though. Writers seem to be unable to settle on which theory of ghost lore they were using. I.E. can or cannot spirits interact with the physical world.

Effects, relied heavily on dark settings and jump scares; but then so does FNAF. Creature effects were sparse and effective. At least the viewer wasn't drowned in blood and gore without cause. As earlier stated use of dark, foreboding sets.

I gave it a low rating because it did not live up to its advertising. I did not fast forward; though I was tempted at times, in hopes the story would be better explained. The Woman in Black 2 is really a diet cola of a horror movie. To describe it in brief; dark, murky and somewhat unsatisefying.

Rigor Mortis/Geung Si. If you have seen a movie called, 'Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge' this movie will make sense. I still have some questions about the story; i.e., the father and son relationship. And how much of the movie follows traditional Chinese folklore. Even with sub-titles the film was gripping. Every actor/actress seemed perfectly suited to their role. The story is not exactly linear but, in the end all is explained. Quite a combination of action/horror and pathos. On my system of three elements, story, acting, effects it scores high on all three. I have read Geung Si is a homage to the Mr. Vampire series; which I have yet to see but, the a for mentioned source is said to have a component of humour. There was no humour in this movie I saw. Geung Si is a deadly seriously film with only one scene of sexual content. I watch this movie several times a year and for reasons I have yet to understand, I find it uplifting. I have recommended Rigor Mortis to friends repeated and I now recommend it to you. I am puzzled as to its low rating.

I saw the low score here and decided to add my two cents worth.I must read more of the other reviews to learn why the film failed for them.

Again, I will rate by my three section system; acting,story, and effects.

1. All the major leads were capable actors in my opinion. Jeff Bridges has proved before he was able to do comedy. And Ryan Reynolds does little else, and for good reason, he does it well. Kevin Bacon is more of a serious actor, which serves his character; a villain. 2.The story was not new, but what plot is truly original in 200 plus years of literature and film? To my knowledge, no other film covered the subject so well. Maybe its my sense of humour but, there was some mighty witty dialogue between Bridges and Reynolds. And I learned a new use for spicy food! Again, the story maybe a bit predictable, but solid. 3. Surprisingly enough, the CGI/effects were the weakest component. Some characters, though interesting, were off in mid-tones to fit realistically with the back ground. The films pace did work to minimize this flaw.

I am going to recommend this movie to friends.

Now, I know why there hasn't been a Silent Hill 3. Sillent Hill 2 killed any interest in a sequel. Lets divide the movie into three sections, 1:story 2:acting 3:effects To say the story is dis-jointed; despite the bi-polar nature of the video game it is based on, is an understatement! The story in no way makes the audience sympathetic towards the main characters. They all strike one as pathetic and survive only by sheer luck. Doesn't seem to follow the game all that well. 2:Acting. None of the characters are believable in their roles. Lets take Alessa...I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm confused. Somewhere deep in me I find the strength to fight back, though mostly I am frightened of my own shadow. And most of the teenage parts are played by actors who look like they are in there mid-twenties. I first though Rose/Alessa was the actress from the first movie. And what happened to Alessa's dark hair. Did anyone see her getting a dye job? 3:Effects. Not bad at representing creatures from the video game. Not all CGIs are created equal; I guess. Comparing the effects of the first Silent Hill movie to this one. Though ambitious in the number of scenes and creatures represented, most effects seem wasted out and 2 dimensional. Hopefull better in a movie house with 3D glasses. Overall, 5.1 is an exceedingly generous rating but, not realistic or helpful. I'll stick to the video game with this series.