‘Return To Silent Hill’ Review – An Incoherent Mess Of A Movie

Video game movie adaptations usually don’t have a high bar to overcome, but back in 2006, director Christophe Gans did admirable work with Silent Hill, a supernatural horror film based on the popular video game series published by Konami. While not totally faithful, the film captured the essence of the games through its visual aesthetic, use of the game’s score within the movie, and competent recreations of some of the source material’s signature creatures. It’s an adaptation that has only gained more recognition in the years since its release as one of the good video game adaptations to hit the big screen.

Given the film’s financial success, pulling in $100.6 million globally on a $50 million budget, a sequel followed in 2012 called Silent Hill: Revelation. Gans could not participate behind the camera because of prior commitments, so M.J. Bassett stepped in, which resulted in a major step down from its predecessor. The movie lacked the atmosphere of the previous installment, and the plot was borderline incomprehensible with paper-thin characters to boot. Gans is now back in the director’s chair for Return to Silent Hill and is also responsible for the film’s script, which generated some confidence going in, considering his work on the first movie. Sadly, all hopes are soon dashed not long after Return to Silent Hill gets going because it soon becomes an incoherent mess as it slogs along from one scene to the next with some of the style Gans showcased back in 2006, but that’s not enough to warrant much of a recommendation.

Return to Silent Hill begins with a prologue that sets up the union of protagonist James Sunderland (Jeremy Irvine) and Mary Cane (Hannah Emily Anderson). Through a series of flashbacks, the audience learns that Mary was the love of James’ life, but the present day is a completely different story. James has lost his beloved and turned heavily to the bottle to ease his pain. Perhaps this is why he’s so willing to accept a random letter allegedly from Mary, with no postmark or return address, that urges him to return to Silent Hill. It’s not long after James makes this voyage that it all turns a bit bizarre, and his quest to find Mary becomes more than he bargained for.

Credit to Gans and cinematographer Pablo Rosso because, visually, Return to Silent Hill is mostly a winner. Gans is a big fan of the games, and that was evident aesthetically in the 2006 film, and it’s evident here. The signature fog that permeates the games is on display, and there is enough spooky imagery here that catches the eye, but this is an example of style over substance.  The settings can be suitably startling and the creatures awe-inspiring, but if they aren’t displayed within a coherent plot worth caring about, the shallowness of the film’s look becomes redundant. It really feels as if you are playing a video game, moving from level to level, but one without a narrative that holds your interest.

The film is a mix of some impressive production design courtesy of Jovana Mihajlovic and Mina Buric, which gives some life to the atmosphere, but there are other times when the surroundings are a definite creation of CGI as James makes his way on his unholy journey. Some of the CGI is so bad that it’s jarring and definitely doesn’t mesh well with the production design that clearly had heart and soul put into it. Learning that the film was shot on a $23 million budget makes a lot of sense because, despite some moments of visual flourishes, it looks much cheaper overall than the 2006 film.

Part of the problem is that the central plot and “epic” love story between James and Mary doesn’t reach a level that makes you invested in his journey. If he’s going to go to these crazy places for his lady love, the screenplay, credited to Gans, Sandra Vo-Anh, and William Schneider, needs to make his motivations damn well worth it, considering all the madness he encounters. Even more baffling is that the audience learns via the flashbacks that set up their love story that there was a reason he left her there in the first place. Mary was involved with some pretty strange residents there during their past that would make anyone with half a brain question the longevity of this union. This honestly isn’t the fault of Irvine or Anderson, who do a decent job with the material that they’re given.

Full disclosure for those who are rabid fans of the games. I have not played the 2001 Silent Hill 2 or the 2024 remake on which this film is apparently based. It may be faithful in ways I don’t understand. Composer Akira Yamaoka is back to give the film its signature and creepy score, while Evie Jaye Templeton, who portrayed Laura in the second game, fills that capacity as well in this film. Beyond this little research, I can’t say just how well Return to Silent Hill adapts the source material. Given the fanbase, one has to believe it’s better than what we’re given here.

Return to Silent Hill doesn’t do video game adaptations any favors. By the time the film jumps between flashbacks, the present day, and different realities, it all doesn’t add up to much. There is a madness associated with Silent Hill that makes the game series such an effective horror video game brand, but the madness here is just a deafening mess of a film that proves to be disappointing because of how well this film series started.

Return to Silent Hill is now playing in theaters courtesy of Cineverse.