Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by Hellbilly, Sep 3, 2006.
Although it was deeply flawed, I think Silent Hill was a far better film than Phantoms. I did like Phantoms, though, when I saw it first ...
Not a fan of either, but I would say Phantoms because of Rose McGowan.
I deeply love Silent Hill. I think it is a fantastic movie. The use of music alone makes it a better film, and that's just one of its good points.
Phantoms, well, it was god awful. It could have been so bad you could at least laugh at it, but instead, it was just god awful. Save Rose McGowan being pretty, I have nothing good to say about this one. There's not one inspired shot. It's crap across the board. No matter how much it tanked at the box office, it deserved to tank more.
I still haven't seen Phantoms, but I hear Affleck was the bomb!
I'll hold my vote, but don't see how in fuck it could possibly come close to the awesomness of Silent Hill.
I liked Silent Hill. Phantoms, not so much.
I really liked Phantoms. Silent Hill annoyed the hell out of me. Great, great visuals but such a lame script.
Exactly. Even though I wasn't really annoyed but it was quite tiresome/dull at times.
I always thought Phantoms was fun. Sure, it ain't great but I'll take it over Silent Hill anyday. Plus I have fond memories when I first bought and watched Phantoms on Laserdisc. Good times when the bass made our bathroom door vibrate
Phantoms is pretty entertaining, though disappointing when compared to the book. Not as disappointing as Silent Hill though.
The internet is so weird. :eek2:
liked both but went with silent hill
I'm with Katatonia and Hellbilly on Silent Hill. Loved some of the sequences, but the story was really poor. However, it was still a better movie than PHANTOMS, which was just plain bad, and not bad in the fun way, either, more like bad in the "God, I wish I had those 90-120 minutes back" way.