‘Return to Silent Hill’ Review: Video Game Adaptations Sink to a Mesmerizing New Low

Konami’s “Silent Hill 2” is an exceptional, even historic work of horror media — but you wouldn’t know it judging by the game’s baffling new adaptation from Cineverse and Iconic Events. A nasty, claustrophobic display that’s packed with incomplete ideas, “Return to Silent Hill“ squanders the rare opportunity to translate one of PlayStation’s most psychologically sophisticated worlds into box office fuel. 

Directed by Christophe Gans, this ill-conceived reboot marks the French filmmaker’s return to the franchise two decades after adapting the original “Silent Hill” game with mixed results in 2006. Trapped in the same artistic era as he was then, and chasing even worse market instincts now, the result is a deeper failure that reflects industry regression on several levels. Gans and his distributors demonstrate little understanding of what made the source material endure (“Silent Hill 2” was popular enough to inspire a critically acclaimed remake that hit consoles in 2024), while simultaneously failing to speak the basic language of cinema that cmoviegoers who don’t know IP.

Collapsing under the weight of its own confusion, “Return to Silent Hill” is perversely fascinating to watch in moments. Gans’ long-gestating comeback manifests as a relic that’s less an artifact of the Konami franchise itself than it is pointless debris ripped from a time when Hollywood mistook aesthetic fidelity and toxic self-importance for understanding the stories that truly compel genre gamers. Here, the director (who has not directed a feature of any kind since 2014) eagerly embraces the foggy surreality that once made “Silent Hill” feel immersive but discards the psychological and spatial logic that gave meaning to the players’ eerie disorientation. What remains is a hollow exercise in subculture recognition — a melodramatic maze that swaps exposition for resonance and familiar iconography for fear. 

Where the games allowed audiences to drift uneasily between layers of reality and delusion, “Return to Silent Hill” aggressively literalizes the tumultuous inner world of protagonist James Sunderland (Jeremy Irvine). The film opens not with a grieving widower wandering with uncertainty into an abandoned town that feels like a long memory — but with jarring flashbacks that introduce the late Mary Crane (Hannah Emily Anderson) in awkward beats that feel like gameplay cutscenes you could watch on YouTube.

“Return to Silent Hill”Courtesy Everett Collection

Visually fragmented and dramatically superfluous, those interstitials over-explain the tragic couple’s origin and demise, often in the same breath. Rather than trusting the audience to sit inside the ambiguity that made the games addictive to play in the first place, Gans constructs a clumsy heist movie that feels like a half-baked apology. Snapping backward and forward in time, outlining muddy lore and shaky logistics instead of establishing firm stakes, the result is a story that’s paradoxically overconfident and underdeveloped, lacking both mystery and momentum.

That flattening extends to Silent Hill as a recognizable place. In the video games, the ghost town operates as an ever-mutating mindspace — responsive, symbolic, and deeply personal for the unlucky souls stranded there. Instead, “Return to Silent Hill” presents a sometimes fixed environment that’s governed by vague supernatural rules and loud, overly complex mythology. Essential puzzle pieces become thoughtless set ornaments, and the occult elements that made the moral unease of “Silent Hill” a worthwhile meditation on consoles gets reduced to an incoherent gestures for theaters. 

Plot holes abound not because the narrative is opaque, but because consequences barely exist in this flummoxing, lawless script (co-written by Gans, Sandra Vo-Anh, and Will Schneider). Violence occurs when violence is expected, and monsters arrive because they have to. But struggling to maintain the spiritual pulse Gans had a better handle on in 2006, “Return to Silent Hill” loses the passion that made the director and his earlier characters worthy of empathy. 

“Return to Silent Hill” Courtesy Everett Collection

Rather than beginning as an ordinary man whose traumatic repression curdles into lived horror, the sequel introduces James as cartoonishly detached. He’s the walking outline of a washed-up, featureless  background character, delivering a performance that’s a far cry from what you’d expect of the actor once hand-picked by Steven Spielberg for “War House.” James moves through Silent Hill not as a man unraveling but as a vaguely irritated participant in a series of disjointed trials. His repeated cries, screaming Mary’s name throughout the desolate landscape, land like an inhuman malfunction further distorting this universe’s alien-like abstraction of grief. 

The iconography fares no better. Pyramid Head, a leather-wearing torturer and the franchise’s most popular image, is inexplicably stripped of tension through congested staging that makes the villain appear strangely insecure. Rather than allowing the gigantic character to register as an oppressive, scene-stealing presence, Gans forces Pyramid Head into crowded frames with other monsters who, even at their best designed, frequently detract from the terror and register as awkward visual noise. Even the legendary “Silent Hill” nurses suffer that fate, rushed through in a swarm that resembles the digital insects plastering the rest of the film. 

“Return to Silent Hill” Courtesy Everett Collection

Afraid to stew in his own cross-medium nightmare, Gans can’t conjure dread from disconnected details. Some filmmakers could get by using less emotion and greater loyalty to the original material. But fan-favorite character Maria (also Hannah Emily Anderson) further underscores the tonal disarray that makes “Return to Silent Hill” feel like zombified art. Rocking a dated, hot-pink skirt and a painfully bad butterfly tattoo, the definitive “Silent Hill” cool girl is presented as not just an early-aughts pop culture mystery but damning evidence that this entire series lacks taste. 

Visibly out-of-place against an otherwise muted color palette, Maria’s original character design from 2001 was subtly recontextualized for the video game remake two years ago. But here, she arrives as a total anachronism — seemingly freed from the confines of the same anime-forward hellscape where Netflix found its live-action “Cowboy Bebop” remake and Blumhouse had the bright idea for the Terminator-inspired “M3GAN 2.0.” Maria’s scenes provoke laughter, not discomfort, and her arc immediately devolves into accidental parody. 

Gans’ handling of ambience, once an obvious strength, has eroded, too. “Return to Silent Hill” is full of needless digital debris and the impact of all that CGI is as empty as any brainless superhero movie. Practical effects are scarce, and the game’s original array of Cronenberg-like antagonists have been mostly drained of their trademark physicality. Too often, set pieces that should be crushing look like clutter, and even the sound design betrays a core misunderstanding of how horror movies work. Akira Yamaoka’s iconic score returns in fragments, but it’s deprived of the purposeful repetition that made it a mental anchor in the games. Silence, which could salvage entire sequences, is rarely allowed to exist. 

“Return to Silent Hill” Courtesy Everett Collection

This failure of craft from Gans feels predictable looking at his limited track record, but it feeds into a larger failure for video games adaptations across film and TV. “Return to Silent Hill” seems unsure whether it’s a clever, trauma-focused, prestige horror movie — or an otherworldly theater experience that’s intentionally illegible. What remains is a passive emotional ride that feels eerily algorithmic, and the release’s timing at the start of 2026 only sharpens the disappointment. Horror thrives when filmmakers commit to clarity of purpose, whether through originality (“Weapons”) or confident reinvention (“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple”). Even crowd-pleasing adaptations like “Five Nights at Freddy’s” succeed in the ways they need to by understanding their audience and leaning into a specific tone. “Return to Silent Hill” does neither and ends up like slop. 

Cineverse’s decision to quietly release the reboot with severely restricted fanfare suggests an awareness but also a failure of stewardship. This was a chance to sell horror gamers tickets celebrating a genuinely adult property. Theoretically, the miscalculations that resulted in a project we’re now better off forgetting were avoidable. Gans appears to have made the same sort of film he would have 20 years ago, doggedly preserving the shape of “Silent Hill” before brutally stripping the film versions of relevance. 

In the long view, “Return to Silent Hill” is unlikely to earn the same generous reconsideration as Gans’ 2006 film. Instead, it might be misremembered as a direct-to-video curio — or rediscovered as a bad cult object sure to cause some idiot cinephile eventual alcohol poisoning. (If you’re eventually streaming this at home or in film school, take a drink every time James says, “What?” or “WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?!“) For now, it’s a cautionary tale: chilling proof that borrowing legendary video game iconography without comparable artistic skill remains the surest way to alienate an audience, on or off a console.

Grade: D-

From Cineverse and Iconic Events, “Return to Silent Hill” is now in theaters.

Want to stay up to date on IndieWire’s film reviews and critical thoughts? Subscribe here to our newly launched newsletter, In Review by David Ehrlich, in which our Chief Film Critic and Head Reviews Editor rounds up the best new reviews and streaming picks along with some exclusive musings — all only available to subscribers.