With the Halloween season comes the usual onslaught of horror movies to watch through squinted eyes and parted fingers. One such flick that’s come out for the season of screams is “Silent Hill: Revelation.”

It’s been a while since the popular survival horror videogame franchise made its way to the big screen. The last attempt to adapt the “Silent Hill” series was in 2006 with the very aptly titled “Silent Hill.”

However, despite all its gorgeous yet horrifying art direction and beautiful score, the film was a mess, chock full of flat writing, annoying amounts of exposition and explanation, and some pretty wooden acting (I complain a lot, but perhaps I doth protest too much; watching “Silent Hill” was still fun for me, even if my critical side was sighing the whole way through).

But it was a profitable mess, nonetheless, and so we have “Silent Hill: Revelation.” But does it do anything to improve upon its predecessor?

To put it as tactfully as possible – no, not really. The same problems are all there, except maybe even compounded a bit. In the film, we follow Heather Mason (Adelaide Clemens), a teenage girl who has been on the run with her father (Sean Bean) from…you see, it doesn’t take long at all for things to get complicated. In its simplest form, the plot follows Heather going back to the cursed town “Silent Hill” to save her father, with the help of a guy named Vincent who might as well hold up a sign declaring himself the love interest.

That’s a really rushed and unclear description, but I assure you, the movie doesn’t do a much better job at explaining its own storyline. “Revelation” does have ties to its predecessor, but for me to explain them would needlessly and cruelly confuse you even further.

The acting does not fare much better, although how much of that is because of the less than stellar script is up for debate. I know what Sean Bean (“Lord of the Rings,” “Game of Thrones”) is capable of, and this is not his acting at its finest by any stretch of the imagination. A bright spot does exist in that of Adelaide Clemens; this film doesn’t ask very much of her, but she has an undeniable charm and spunk that I couldn’t help but like, and I’m very excited to see her true acting chops when “The Great Gatsby” film adaptation comes out next summer.

“Revelation” does excel in a few things however. The art direction, while not quite as impeccable as “Silent Hill’s,” does shine and there are some truly haunting sets and creatures that capture the horror of the games. The carnival and the whatever-the-heck-that-she-devil-is monster come to mind. It’s just a shame that the film doesn’t really know how to use them to evoke as much fear as there could be had (I’m looking at you, mannequin monster). The fear-inducing moments are all too fleeting. “Revelation” has a terrifying atmosphere, but less than terrifying use of that atmosphere.

The score is also beautiful and haunting, also capturing much of the feel from the games and the first film. Nothing beats that simple, iconic piano riff.

Admittedly, I had fun watching “Silent Hill: Revelation” in that very cheap, Halloween thrill sort of way, and there is some inspired art direction in it. But such positives are drowned in the ridiculously convoluted story, overall mediocre acting, and a shortage of scares. But if your expectations are set low enough and you’re still willing to buy a ticket, you’ll have fun regardless.

Oh, and there’s the ever-necessary sequel hook at the end. But only time will tell if the “Silent Hill” films have hit a dead end.