Website and all contents thereof property of Maren Wasser
Contact me - marensdasein@gmail.com
It feels like every time a Silent Hill anything is released, the question must be asked again: What exactly is Silent Hill? Is it a series of survival horror videogames about an esoteric pseudo Christian cult's attempts to incarnate their god? Is it a cross media psychological horror anthology series with a flexible canon? Is it a specific mood and aesthetic that can be leveraged to fit a veriety of projects? It seems the creative leads behind the franchise, since its very inception in 1999, have oscillated between all of these possibilites and more. I think this makes it very difficult for a Silent Hill project to be generally well recieved (outside of reverant recreation as evidenced by the success of the Silent Hill 2 remake). Following this pattern, Return to Silent Hill seems almost universally reviled by fans and critics alike. Fans get very attached to what they think the series should be, and critics seem generally baffled by what the series is even trying to be or say under the weight of all its videogame iconography.
If you're reading this though on my website it's because you want to know what I think. It was really good! More than really good honestly. It's a rewrite or two away from being a genuine masterpiece. It's unfortunate that Return to Silent Hill was pitched and marketed as a movie adaptation of the second game, because it's not. While the narrative similarites of a man named James Sunderland receiving a letter from Mary, an estranged significant other, and going to Silent Hill in order to find her are very apparent, many details, and the underlying themes the stories deal with, couldn't be more different. Details like Mary being James's ex-girlfriend and not his dead wife, her illness having a definite cause, and the presence of a cult are the most obvious differences (and massive points of contention for most fans), but I think people overlook these changes being in service of the different thematic focus. Both the game and the movie are about grief,denial, and guilt, but Return to Silent Hill is also interested in exploring religious abuse, and the effects of trauma on relationships. It's a text that tries to bring new ideas to a well trod story. In order to make its new additions work, it must therefore reduce focus on the themes and ideas already established in its source game.
Admittedly, it does this perhaps flounderingly and inelegantly. The result comes off as an attempt to make a psychological thriller in the vein of Silent Hill 2's inspirations, particularly Lost Highway and Jacob's Ladder, but unfortunately Christophe Gans and his creative team weren't quite up to that task. It has a chaotic structure, some iffy effects work in places, and leans too heavily on spoken exposition. I think where it drops the ball the hardest is how it handles the ambiguity of its reality. Return questions if the supernatural stuff is actually real or all a grand delusion from James's fractured mental state. This is a great idea and support for a veriety of perspectives on what is actually happening in the film are intelligently woven throughout. I can identify at least three possible explanations that all draw different conclusions as to what is actually happening. However, where it stumbles is that it actively points to that question as a mystery inviting the audience to solve it when there clearly isn't supposed to be a definitive solution. I think this is where some viewers get confused. When the audience is led to assume that a solution can be arrived at, they see the contradicting evidence as not inviting more discussion but rather as careless mistakes or arbitrary meaningless decisions to "be different".
Earlier, I said some effects are a bit iffy. I want to take a moment to stress that this is the exception rather than the rule. Make no mistake, the movie is cheap. It does not look as viscerally real as even prior Silent Hill movies, but it retains Christophe Gans signiture stylish presentation. The otherworld segments of the film where James's tortured psyche manifests itself and twists reality into a surreal nightmare are absoultely stunning in ways that, I feel, surpass even the games. Like Gans's prior movie from 2006 the monsters are portrayed predominantly by dancers in elaborate prosthetics which are then enhanced with CG alterations in order to appear less human. This technique continues to work well in Return and the monsters are a highlight of the movie. It's not just the effects and production design that look good either. Christophe Gans's entire career is due most definately not to his writing but to his visual storytelling. All of his movies have been varying degrees of visually stunning, and Return to Silent Hill is no exception. There were more than a few shots and editing choices I found nothing short of breathtaking, both in their beauty but also their intensity. Return to Silent Hill may be cheap, but it is stunning! Of course, to discuss a Silent Hill project without mentioning Akira Yamaoka's contribution would be a travesty. As always, Yamaoka's music and sound design is impeccable! The soundtrack is predominantly comprised of themes from the games freshly remixed to suit a theatrical film presentation. There are also some unaltered vocal tracks thrown in for fan service, including my favorite "I Want Love" from Silent Hill 3.
Two questions remain: what does this movie think Silent Hill is, and do I recommend it. Return to Silent Hill sees Silent Hill as an anthology of psychological horror/thriller stories with specific narrative and aesthetic elements that take place in and around the titular town. It's not interested in canon or retelling the story of the videogame franchise, but it is telling a Silent Hill story with a suitable Silent Hill style. I want to recommend it, desperately so, but, given that the vast majority of viewers seem to greatly dislike or even despise this film, I can't confidently tell anyone they would enjoy it. It seems for most viewers it's flaws cut too deep for the film to survive, and maybe I only like it because I'm overly tolerant of it's failings while imagining the better film that it should be. That being said, if my assessment has piqued your curiosity (and you can spare the cost in both time and money on a risk) don't let popular consensus stop you. Maybe you'll see in the film what I do and have a legitimately good or at least interesting time.