Dead Silence
User Score
6.4 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 56 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 56
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 56
  3. Negative: 16 out of 56

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Ellie
    Mar 15, 2007
    0
    A simply stupid film. Repetitive, boring, and not even amusing in its stupidity. Very bad.
  2. MelanieM
    Jul 2, 2007
    0
    This film had no redeeming qualities...the rhyme was annoying (can 'Shaw' and 'dolls' even be considered slant rhyme?), the acting was probably the most horrific aspect of this movie...and I'm not certain that the directors have been in an actual graveyard--most of the tombstones would read 'Betty' or 'Fred' with no last name or date. Also, Mary Shaw's grave was in pristine condition, even though she had died like 50 years earlier and her headstone was covered in these weird cockleburr-type things--a setting needs realistic details, otherwise, it's just a distraction. Those "atmospheric effects" were like trying to watch a movie through a dang smokescreen--if you plan on watching this, invest in some good glasses.… Expand
  3. AndrewG.
    Mar 19, 2007
    1
    I like the Saw movies, but Dead Silence is terrible. The idea to telegraph the scary parts by making everything go absolutely silent was cool, and earns the movie one point. Otherwise, it's easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
  4. John
    Mar 12, 2008
    1
    James Wan should never direct, he should go back to his day job, and not get into movie indsutry.
  5. Jonathans.
    Dec 21, 2007
    3
    The movie could have easily taken a turn as a throwback/satire of all those old, terrible horror conventions, and it most likely would have been better if it had. Look at all the most generic aspects of the horror genre (or at least the oldest, and, now, never really used any more): a mysterious package with no sender listed; constant, inexplicable lightning and thunder that appears even though there was no previous signs of even rain falling; a weird hotel room and cemetery; a dusty, cob-web filled (and of course cavernous) theatre (which would normally have been a mansion in other cases); and of course a town lynching and the vengeful spirit that comes as a result. Not to mention horrific acting-- a must. However, unfortunately, the movie was fully meant to be taken seriously, and, as a result, was pretty much insufferable except for a few minutes of footage every now and then. The beginning was undeniably the worst part, due mostly to the atrocious pacing and poor writing that seems to have been just hastily thrown together for that scene to exist and set up the following "plot." And from then on, the pacing is just as uneven throughout most of the movie until you reach the flashback-- which, by the way, was the only intriguing part of the movie, along with a few minutes that followed it-- which was paced and filmed well (or maybe it was all just relative, compared to what we just had to sit through). The pace didn't stay completely even after that for very long, but it was still much improved. The dialogue-- sorry New York Post-- WAS terrible, in all cases, and was (in my opinion) probably the main reason Wahlberg did such a bad job with the part. It's like the Star Wars Prequel Effect-- actors who have proven that they can do a good job are given horrific dialogue, and their performance is reduced exponentially. The only reason to attribute this movie a 3 is because of the minor jump-scene scares it elicited (but only on a 50% mark), cinematography which deserves a much better movie to go with it, and the fact that there were points in the movie where I was somewhat interested in what happened (though that amounts to maybe 15 minutes of screen time in a 90 minute movie). As for the "twist"-- well at least it was SOMEWHAT contextual to the plot, unlike the first Saw's-- which, really, wasn't a twist at all and added absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. However, the twist still didn't really have to much effect on the plot. And given the fact that it was such a terrible movie up to that point, and the fact that we had basically already suspended all disbelief (most likely due to brain cells shutting down)-- it wasn't terrible, just about 95% illogical. The only other thing I can say the movie had going for it, was the fact that the innovators of the splat-pack did manage to make a horror movie that didn't rely on gore, and actually built minor tension every now and then. That, and this was an incredibly tame "R" movie, even more so when looking at the people behind it. And Calvin H., sorry the twist wasn't great-- just because you can't see a twist coming doesn't mean it's good (especially when they don't even add much to the movie)-- in fact, if you have absolutely no idea about a twist, it's likely a bad one, since a good twist will still leave evidence along the way (and no, three seconds of cumulative footage "explaining" the twist does not count as laying evidence-- please go watch Shyamalan movies or, if you thought this twist was good, you might enjoy even the predictable twist in Se7en). And Norm D. (I'm on a roll here), no, you seem to be one of the few people who hasn't seen this doen a million times before, and can't seem to recognize that all the things you're saying are basically untrue. This "freaky idea" would barely even hold up as a Supernatural episode. And in terms of what more do we want than "eyes moving"? Are you serious? I'm a sixteen year old boy who has a horror fix, and I can still basically see all these things you somehow can't. I honestly hope you're a 10 year old who wants to see grown up movies (which I also would hope accounts for your atrocious writing). So for anyone actually reading this, it does work as a cheap horror fix, but I would strongly suggest other movies to help out the fix: The Descent, which is undoubtedly one of the greatest horror movies to come out in quite some time; 28 Weeks Later, one hell of an incredible thrill ride; even guilty pleasures like Hostel, which at least is well shot, pretty well acted, and at least has a smart script (or themes to it, if you'd rather). So I would generally reccommend against this movie, even to those who think it'll be scary because of the doll-- the eyes moving, head turning schtick gets old pretty quickly, sicne that's about the only gimmick they employ. Honestly, I had realized this was going to suck utterly, but I had expected some good scares given the premise. Unfortunately, no.… Expand
  6. asylumspadez
    Nov 26, 2011
    0
    It was pretty terrible. Too much like any other generic straight to dvd horror film and wasnt all that interesting and it wasnt even scary either. I was disapointed.
  7. Anyanka
    Oct 26, 2010
    1
    I was the type of horror movie done over and over. Where the viewer should be surprised, there is often disappointment. The main character was dull, and the plot line even more so. The ending was supposed to shock, but I just looked down and thought, "I wasted a thing of Popcorn on this?"

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
34 out of 100

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 15 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 15
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 15
  3. Negative: 8 out of 15
  1. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Frank Scheck
    50
    Boasts nothing new under the sun, but it does provide a few decent scares.
    Read full review
  2. Variety
    Reviewed by: Staff (Not credited)
    30
    Only those in a cold sweat for their weekly horror fix will bother with this formulaic and rather lazy exercise in booga-booga scare tactics.
    Read full review
  3. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Ed Gonzalez
    0
    A conflation of the horror genre's laziest tropes, plot angles and shorthands, this inept creation isn't so much a film as it is a smorgasbord.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »