First up is Silent Hill. Directed by Christophe Gans, this film is quite possibly the best adaptation of a video game into a movie I've ever seen. Considering some of the competition it doesn't seem that hard to be the best, but this movie pretty much blows away most of the other video game movies I've ever seen. Sorry Uwe, looks like Christophe done knocked you out.
What's causing this reaction? Is it some horrible monster? Or a naked man eating a ham sandwich and writing movie review.
In the other corner we have 28 Days Later. While Silent Hill is all about atmosphere and horrifying monsters that come to get you (albeit very, very slowly), 28 Days Later is up front and in your face with its Zomb... I mean, infected people. The infected run straight after the
characters, and usually quickly. The atmosphere of 28 Days Later isn't quite as creepy as the town of Silent Hill, but what it lacks in setting, it makes up for with scenes of shocking violence.
"I don't get it. All I did was ask him for a light."
So what will it be Spore fans? Which of these movies is scarier? Will it be the creepy and occasionally violent Silent Hill? Or do you prefer a bit of the old Ultraviolence in 28 Days Later?
2 comments:
my vote would be for Silent Hill. while 28 Days Later was much more violent, Silent Hill was extremely grotesque. what's more grotesque than busty nurses in 3-inch heels? however, Gans loses big points for not making that nurse scene a musical dance number.
I think the 28 Days Later was the better movie, though.
i agree with min (if i don't, i get beat). Silent Hill was creepier, but 28 Days was a better movie. Actually, 28 Days Later was kind of an idyllic fantasy for me. There's mostly no people around, and when they do come around, drooling, screaming, and generally causing a ruckus, it's OK for me to hack them up with a machete.
Post a Comment