In 2006, I took a trip to "Silent Hill." I enjoyed the experience and wanted to return. In 2012, I got my chance with the sequel, "Silent Hill: Revelation" and was disappointed with the lackluster excursion.
Heather Mason's (Adelaide Clemens) dreams are full of hellish creatures that inhabit a town called Silent Hill. She doesn't know what they mean but she is desperate to find out. When her father (Sean Bean) is kidnapped by a mysterious and sinister cult, it's up to her and newfound friend Vincent (Kit Harington), whose past is as mysterious and convoluted as Heather's, to travel to Silent Hill and meet their destinies.
For those who haven't seen the first film, there will be some confusion involved with the plot. Even for someone who's seen the original, I found myself scratching my head a few times wondering just what was going on. Fortunately, anyone going to see this movie isn't looking for a plot, although they do try to keep it engaging. Unfortunately, they fail by introducing plot twists that are laugh-out-loud ridiculous. Let's be honest. It's the carnage and blood-letting that is going to get people in the theater, and that's where this movie delivers in abundance.
I've seen a lot of 3D movies and am usually never impressed with them. However, the 3D here is one of the few things that "Silent Hill" does well. It's not overused in such a manner as to have blood and bone constantly flying in your face, but allows itself an indulgence now and then to do so. It's mostly used to accentuate the dismal, gloomy weather of the titular town.
Another thing the film does well is have a creepy atmosphere throughout the film. The images of the town are unsettling, as well as its inhabitants. They're a miserable, hopeless bunch and add a nice touch to the town's crumbling aesthetic. The film's score is also able to heighten the tense moments of the film.
Unfortunately, that's about all that's redeeming about "Silent Hill: Revelation." From the outside, the macabre and madness presented makes it appear as if the trip will be worth taking, but once inside, it's all style and no substance. It's a cash-in that, based on the box office earnings so far, won't actually be making that much for the studio. I suppose it's a hard learned lesson that if you're going to make a sequel, at least make it within a time period where people still remember the first.
Scott Viau can be reached at email@example.com.