Return to Silent Hill

Among the more well-known film adaptations of video games, Silent Hill (2006), directed by Christophe Gans, is one of the more divisive ones. Critics at the time didn’t like that much, though fans and general audiences have had a more mixed response. When I saw it for myself at the time that I had immersed myself in the Silent Hill franchise, I did find some genuine criticisms, but otherwise found it one of the better adaptations, especially for its time. Although Silent Hill would stay on the small screen after the disastrous Silent Hill: Revelation (2012) (Revelation), directed by M. J. Bassett, the surprise announcement of a full Silent Hill revival in 2022 included another film, an adaptation of Silent Hill 2 (SH2) titled Return to Silent Hill (Return), with Christophe Gans returning to the director’s chair. In fact, this project acted as the catalyst internally for the series revival, as Konami thought that a film project alone wouldn’t satisfy fans. Now, over three years later, Silent Hill has finally returned to the big screen and, as someone who loved both the original SH2 and the remake, I went in to this one cautiously optimistic. However, while Return did meet my expectations, at least improving over Revelation, it unfortunately fell short where it mattered most.

Three years after the end of his relationship with Mary Crane (Hannah Emily Anderson), painter James Sunderland (Jeremy Irvine) has become an alcoholic and is in contact with a psychologist. One night, James receives a mysterious letter from Mary and drives back to the town of Silent Hill, where the two of them first met and fell in love. However, the town is now covered in fog and coated in falling ash. Despite these obstacles, James presses on to find Mary and meets others trapped in the town along the way.

James Sunderland (Jeremy Irvine) returns to Silent Hill in search of Mary.

I’ll mention right away that Return is not a 1:1 retelling of the game. Considering the difference between an interactive medium, which can tell a story at its own pace, and a linear one that doesn’t have the same luxury, I didn’t expect this and thought it clear from the early trailers that the adaptation would at least go in a slightly different direction to accommodate a sub two-hour film. There was no way that every environment, setpiece and game mechanic would make it in anyhow, which I didn’t mind. As such, I went in with an open mind and tried to understand Christophe Gans’ take on its own merits.

With that in mind, Gans displayed a more artsy take on the material at times. While the cast doesn’t act quite the same way they do in the game, Return combines elements of some characters in ways that those who have played the game wouldn’t have considered and takes the psychological elements in a bold direction. Some of the existing symbolism is intact or recontextualized to fit this new direction, which includes combining certain bosses together and expanding on the moths often seen throughout. Then there’s the ending, which I won’t spoil here, but it does take a bold approach that I could appreciate on an artistic level, as it also aligned surprisingly well with James’ character development in the new vision of the narrative. Taking something familiar like SH2 and transforming it into something new is, on its own, not a bad idea and could have made for a more artistic, but memorable vision that could easily resonate with audiences with time as they dissect it and find something new to talk about. Honestly, very Silent Hill.

Maria (right) isn't quite herself, but serves a similar purpose.

Unfortunately, interesting ideas aren’t enough to make a good movie and for every good or interesting choice, Return does something to squander its potential. One of these was placing its most famous plot twist closer to the middle instead of near the end, as I understand that while SH2 follows the kishotenketsu story structure in Japanese media while Return follows the more traditional 3-Act structure that’s prevalent in western media (though many western horror films like Scream do put the biggest twist near the end). Having ash cover the town also wasn’t an issue, as it felt consistent with the first film. Rather, the quality of some of the decisions left something to be desired. Eddie (Pearse Egan) shows up when fans would expect, complete with a shot of his butt crack, but after only a few minutes, he leaves the story and never returns, wasting his potential as a character to the point that you could cut him with no loss of clarity. Mary has an overhauled backstory that fit some of the symbolism introduced in the film, but required ham-fisting a cult into a story known for not having one. Related, an encounter with a certain boss could have worked in the new context (they even recreate the room James fought it in), but it’s so rushed and anticlimactic that the story moves on before you can process what just happened. Other iconic moments from the game are recreated, but not in a way that feels satisfying or earned.

I would single out the depiction of Pyramid Head as an issue, though it’s really part of a larger issue with the film removing much of the ambiguity that made SH2’s psychological elements so effective. After revealing the recontextualized version of the game’s most famous twist, the film makes sure to tell you at least a couple more times as though you didn’t already know (perhaps itself a symptom of Netflix-style writing brought on by a belief that audiences are only half-paying attention to the media they consume, so you need to repeatedly reiterate the plot). Something similar occurs with another famous twist, except it beats you over the head with it even more by visually telling you twice back-to-back. It’s okay to explain something once in a while, mind you, but in this case it didn’t feel warranted. I also questioned the idea of Pyramid Head not only grunting, but also that Eddie could see him as well when Pyramid Head’s appearances in the game mostly occurred when James was alone.

That’s not to say the rest of the production was bad. Once again, Gans managed to nail down the vibe pretty well, even if he arguably did a better job with his first outing. The acting was actually not too bad overall, including from Jeremy Irvine, and it was neat to see Evie Templeton play a different take on Laura, whom she previously portrayed in the remake of SH2. For the most part, the film also had good special effects, especially the practical effects, and Akira Yamaoka continued his streak of quality compositions.

There are some visually striking moments.

Fans and casual audiences may enjoy themselves a little more if they leave their expectations at the door and try to at least engage with Christophe Gans’ vision, whether they end up liking it or not. However, it’s disappointing that Return to Silent Hill also returns to the painfully average film adaptations of old in a time where we have such films as Sonic the Hedgehog 3 or The Super Mario Brothers Movie. Either way, you’re better off just playing either version of Silent Hill 2 instead.