Watching “Return to Silent Hill,” the film adaptation of the acclaimed psychological survival horror game Silent Hill 2, is like watching the latter through a broken mirror. All the original elements are there, but what’s reflected back is disjointed, a tableau that’s familiar but not. The effect has “Return” feeling more like a retelling than an adaptation — one that’s frustrating and compelling in equal measure.

For those who haven’t played the video game (please, go play it), Silent Hill 2 is a gutting examination of grief that follows James Sunderland as he battles monsters, figurative and literal, in his quest to find his wife amid the haunting grotesqueries of the lakeside town of Silent Hill. “Return to Silent Hill,” directed by Christophe Gans (who also helmed “Silent Hill,” the enjoyable if slightly schlocky 2006 film adaptation of the first Silent Hill game), follows the same basic premise — until it doesn’t.

James (Jeremy Irving) is still searching for Mary (Hannah Emily Anderson) after receiving a letter from her telling him to return to their special place. Silent Hill is still a place full of despair and its deadly, physical manifestations. But where Silent Hill 2 turns inward into damning introspection, “Return” chooses to lean into external threats, including new ones that were never present in the game.

“Return” oftentimes feels like a continuation of the first game, in which a cult plays a major role. The problem is, these aren’t direct sequels; Silent Hill 2, while set in the same town, is its own contained story, almost completely divorced from the first game. So for Gans and co-writers Sandra Vo-Anh and Will Schneider to add those elements here feels jarring to the point of distraction. (“That didn’t happen!” was a constant refrain of mine.)

But then something interesting happens late in the film: The discordant elements begin to form into something cohesive and intriguing, if not nearly as memorable as the source material. The film’s best moments — James’ reflection in a filthy mirror, a heartbreaking conversation with a dying woman — are still the ones pulled directly from the game (the fan service is real here), but the film manages to leave its own mark.

Speaking of what works, Akira Yamaoka’s beautifully despairing music is a highlight here. (Yamaoka composed the music for Silent Hill 2.) It often adds a much-needed layer of emotional depth to what’s happening on screen and helps distract from the film’s generally unimpressive cinematography and stunningly awful visual effects. (The idea that it was OK to add sunny blue skies to any scene in this movie, something nearly anathema to Silent Hill in general, is baffling to me.)

I want to say I like “Return to Silent Hill,” but I think I’m simply fascinated by it. It shouldn’t work, and it doesn’t a lot of the time, but there’s something compelling in how it all wraps up, how decisions that floundered in the moment feel a little more justified once the credits roll (which are awesomely stylish for some reason). It doesn’t hold a candle to the game, but there’s enough here to warrant another visit to this tragic little town.

———

'RETURN TO SILENT HILL'

2 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: R (for bloody violent content, language and brief drug use)

Running time: 1:46

How to watch: In theaters Jan. 23

———

© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.