Considering what I had to sit through in order to be able to write this review, I feel like you, as a reader, deserve better. So, I’m going to cut right to the quick and let you know that “Return to Silent Hill” is a bad movie. What’s worse is that it’s not even a movie that’s so bad it’s good. This isn’t a “War of the Worlds” type of awful film where you wonder what everyone involved was thinking or doing. Instead, we have a movie that has every intention of trying to be something interesting and finds multiple avenues to get in its own way and stumble around like a video game with a bad control scheme.
How we got to this film being made is an interesting progression of influences and interpretations. The original “Silent Hill” video game was largely inspired by the works of David Lynch, Stephen King, and the 1990 horror classic “Jacob’s Ladder.” It was also Konami’s answer to Capcom’s zombie horror title “Resident Evil.” “Silent Hill” had to differentiate itself in some way and did so by being more psychological and supernatural in its horror while also benefitting from trying to filter Americana through a Japanese lens. What this means is that a lot of influences had to come together to make an interactive horror experience and that distinct flavor was going to be very hard to replicate.
Still, that attempt was made with the 2006 film adaptation “Silent Hill,” directed by Christophe Gans. And to his credit, Gans actually did an admirable yet imperfect job of bringing the game to the big screen. But still, one could argue that watching “Jacob’s Ladder” or most David Lynch projects was a truer Silent Hill experience. Gans is back for “Return to Silent Hill” which aims to give the game, Silent Hill 2 a film treatment and completely misses the mark as a solid adaptation and as a standalone film.
Jeremy Irvine is our protagonist James with Hannah Emily Anderson as his girlfriend, Mary. If you’ve already played “Silent Hill 2” or heard the story of it, this film does throw a few curveballs at you regarding the story of these two, but there’s a lot of carry over between the plots of the two projects. James is mourning the loss of Mary, both of whom regarded the idyllic town of Silent Hill as their special place. Oddly, some time after Mary’s death, James finds a letter from her telling him to meet her there. So, he heads back there only for the city to look like Pompei with the ashes of raging forest fires coating the entire town in ash and driving out the population.
What follows in James’ quest for answers is a mishmash of bad acting, painful dialogue, intense visuals, and a surprising lack of urgency and tension. I say there’s bad acting but it’s hard to know if the fault lies on the actors, the direction, or the writing; there’s probably enough blame to go around for everyone. What’s definite is that every time a character opens their mouth to talk, the film dips in quality. There are numerous times where the film violates the principles of “show, don’t tell.” Why should we have a hackneyed inner monologue where James describes how much Mary means to him when you could just show us that?
“Return to Silent Hill” actually would have been better as a silent film. The music from Akira Yamaoka (composer for the games as well) is great when it gets the opportunity to stand out, it just isn’t given the chance to shine enough. Use that music properly with the right imagery and you could actually create a sense of dread and tension; that doesn’t happen anywhere in here. The film utterly fails at creating any sense of buildup and release. It doesn’t keep you on the edge of your seat, wondering what’s going to happen next. Part of that is because of Irvine’s performance as he doesn’t play James as relatable or like an actual human being with real emotions. He doesn’t react reasonably to anything, he doesn’t ask the right questions at the right time, he seems far too willing to accept the most ridiculous scenarios, and he fails to bring us into his plight.
Even if this was a silent film though, there would still be issues with the pacing and imagery. When you’re dealing with horror and surrealism there are times where a director can be weird for the sake of being weird, too heavy handed with the imagery, or find that sweet spot where the weirdness compels you to make sense of it without it being drummed into you. The aforementioned David Lynch was very good about knowing where that sweet spot is. Gans does not find it anywhere in this picture. And if you do know the story of the game, you know how important that is to the experience. “Silent Hill 2” works so well as a psychological horror game because it rode that line of weirdness and metaphor incredibly well. The film tries to copy that, falls off hard, and never gets back on it.
The best spots of the film are buoyed by some interesting body horror and fever dream elements. Those moments do not happen often enough to redeem the movie in any way. No one should feel bored when delving through a surreal landscape but “Return to Silent Hill” finds a way to make it dull. Even though it does succeed at capturing the spirit of certain locations and scenes from the game it does nothing to make those things impactful or meaningful.
It’s funny that this film is premiering in the midst of a weekend where a massive winter storm is going to be impacting a large chunk of the United States with intense ice, snow, and cold. It’s almost as if mother nature is trying to tell you not to watch this movie. Listen to her.
Rating: 1 Star (out of 5)
