Dead Silence

Movie Info

Genre(s): Horror  |  Mystery  |  Suspense/Thriller

Written by: Leigh Whannell (also story)
James Wan (story)

Directed by: James Wan

Release Date:
Theatrical: March 16, 2007
DVD: June 26, 2007

Running Time: 90 minutes, Color

Origin: USA

Summary

RATING: R for horror violence and images

Starring Ryan Kwanten, Amber Valletta, Donnie Wahlberg, Michael Fairman, Joan Heney, Bob Gunton, Laura Regan, and Dmitry Chepovetsky

From the writers and director of "Saw," comes this ghost story set in the sleepy town of Ravens Fair about Mary Shaw, a ventriloquist who went mad. (Universal Pictures)

Also On Metacritic

FILM: Death Sentence Saw

Also On The Web: Internet Movie Database View The Trailer Official Studio Site

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

What Our Users Said

Vote Now!The average user rating for this movie is 6.9 (out of 10) based on 41 User Votes

Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Amarilis M. gave it an8:
I don't usually get scared by movies, but this one was spooky. I actually liked it better than the Saw movies, which are making me sick already.

John gave it a1:
James Wan should never direct, he should go back to his day job, and not get into movie indsutry.

Donna gave it a9:
The acting had me in stitches. As did the dolls. It's kind of a Chucky meets Nightmare on Elm St. But I liked it! It even made me jump once, which movies never do. The ending was... imaginative... think that's the nicest way of putting it! It was a big twist, but one of those silly ones that tries to make you go "ooooh!", unfortunately it didn't quite work that way.. Rather than being shocked by the ending, I was amused to see how far the writers had stretched it. Nonetheless, I thought it was a great film and will be watching it again! Although I'm yet to figure out why I enjoyed it so much..

Jonathan s. gave it a3:
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.

A Movie Critic gave it a6:
Pretty decent horror movie. James Wan (Saw 1) is a really good director who can really build to some great scares. Unfortunately, he's working with a pretty dumb script and scenario, and the movie can't escape its "B-movie" feel. The twist ending at the end is REALLY stretching it, although I'll praise it for being, at least, unique. Still, the movie itself feels a little slow at times, James Wan yet again reverts to the "clowns are scary" technique to scare people (they're not scary.) and there aren't really many likable characters here. Still...decent horror movie. I would have been disappointed if I saw it in a theater but it makes pretty decent DVD entertainment.

Melanie M gave it a0:
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.

Calvin H. gave it a10:
I don't give a crap what the critics say, I thought the movie had its scary moments and as always in any of James Wan's movies there is a great twist.

Read more user comments >