Silent House (2011)

Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) is helping her father (Adam Trese) and uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) to renovate the family's old lakeside house before selling it. It's a place they have rarely visited in years. Local kids have smashed all the windows and blown the electrics meaning that the boarded up windows let in no light. The only light available is that which comes from a torch or hand-held lamp. While in the semi darkness and after her uncle has left for the day, Sarah hears a noise which her father goes to check out. He never returns. Sarah is left alone in the house with someone or something out to get her and her family and no way out.

The whole film was shot in such a way as that it looks like one continuous shot. I noticed the odd cut here and there but overall the idea is very successful. It genuinely feels as though Elizabeth Olsen is in the house for 85 minutes, running, hiding from and fighting whatever is after her. Using just one camera, Olsen is on screen for about 84 of the 85 minutes and has to carry the entire film. She does so with great aplomb. The one shot idea isn't original and indeed the film itself is a remake of a 2010 Uruguayan film but it's a nice gimmick that is well used.

The house is brilliantly dressed to maximise the creepy feeling. It creaks and whistles and is filled with all manner of sinister fittings from old furniture and toys to large objects under sheets and unknown items half hidden in the shadows. It also feels a little maze like though you get to know your way around as the film progresses. Elizabeth Olsen is dressed in typical horror attire with a tight white vest which shows off her 'ample talents' as well as the blood and dirt she accumulates throughout the film. Her performance is also mind blowingly excellent. She was superb in Mary, Marcey, Marlene and if anything even better here. She starts off a bit slowly but after twenty minutes goes all the way up to eleven where she stays until the final few moments during which she is pushing twelve. She is even better at the end than she was during the rest of the film.

So far, so good then. Unfortunately there are two major problems. The first is that it is nowhere near scary enough. I get scared by everything and I didn't jump once. Don't get me wrong, it's scarier than Dark Shadows but so is my girlfriend in the morning. For a proper 'scary' horror, it didn't produce the scares it needed to. There was plenty of tension but it didn't go anywhere. My second problem is that I worked out part of the twist after about eight minutes and had unravelled everything by the mid point. The film still ended in a satisfying way but I felt where we were heading was fairly obvious. On the other hand, my girlfriend said she thought about it at the beginning but it didn't totally click with her until the end so maybe I'm in a minority.

Overall the film will be best remembered for its clever cinematography rather than for its scares. It's a nice idea but the plot has been done a thousand times. It creates plenty of tension and intrigue but doesn't deliver the final blow. Elizabeth Olsen continues to impress and I look forward to seeing her again soon.

www.attheback.blogspot.com

Fmovies: OK, obviously i had just finnished watching this movie. I came to IMDb to look up who the lead actress was. Upon finding the poor reviews on this movie i had to make an account. I have had enough of these movie "critics". Every time i come on here i see ratings that do not justify the movies. Time and time again all you read is some snob critic complaining about something and the sheep of mindless dummies nod and agree. Im not going to go into full details about this movie but rather give my two cents from a person who's life basically is stories on screens. My criteria for "good" movies/shows. 1.)is the lead actor good. 2.)Is it different. 3.)Was it entertaining 4.)Was it predictable 5.)How was the story telling. Do not listen to the mindless hordes of know it all, the lead actor was good, the story was not predictable and it was entertaining overall. watch this movie and judge for yourself. I mean seriously IMDb rating is crap.

If not for the filmmakers deliberately sacrificing content for supposed style, "Silent House" could have been an intelligent and disturbing horror film -- perhaps even a classic. All the elements were in place: creepy location, good actress, decent story with a few twists. But regrettably, "Open Water" directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau's decision to remake a low-budget 2010 Uruguayan film also includes its main gimmick: filming the entire movie in one (supposedly) unbroken, continuous take. And therein lies the problem.

This film, while ambitious on a technical level, demonstrates the importance of building up needed character and story elements no matter how innovative the camera work may be. In this picture, we know virtually nothing about the main character -- where she comes from, what she wants... how can we be expected to care or understand what happens to her? How are we expected to comprehend complex story revelations when half the time we can't even see the girl's face?

By emphasizing style over content, Kentis has sacrificed drama and effective storytelling. Hitchcock fared better back in 1948 with his experiment (some would say failed experiment) with extremely long takes, "Rope." Generally agreed to be one of his lesser efforts, Hitch's sole foray into real-time, single-location filmmaking worked to an extent because his characters were so well-defined and the story effectively constructed. Of course, he never made another film this way again, and for good reason: 1. audiences generally don't care how a film is made (filmmakers and critics do) and 2. the elimination of editing means stripping a film of one of its most important and creative components.

Editing is what separates movies from theater. It's an essential process that allows a filmmaker to creatively shape a story and actors' performances. Miracles can be worked in the cutting room. Scenes that don't work can be re-worked or removed. Performances can be strengthened and improved. Pacing can be improved. Suspense can be built. A director eliminating the editing phase of his film is like a sculptor hacking off one of his hands. So what at first might seem like a noble and innovative experiment in style is actually one of the most foolish and damaging things a film director can possibly do. He may believe he has achieved something significant and profound, but -- at least in this case -- the storytelling suffers greatly, and the audience pays the price: everything takes forever to happen. A slow, mundane conversation, which could have been sped up in the cutting room, now drones on forever. A walk to find a dead body, which should have happened in mere seconds, now takes minutes as characters plod about from room to room, being careful not to lose the cameraman following behind them.

Interestingly, "Silent House" fails in all the ways "Open Water" (which might have made a better one-take, real-time movie) succeeds. "Open Water" may have looked like a home movie shot with a camcorder, but it worked. It worked because we got to know the characters, we cared about them. We wanted to find out if they would survive... and how they would survive. With "Silent House," we don't know WHO the hell the girl is, WHERE the hell she's come from, and WHAT the hell she wants! So ultimately, we really don't give a damn. Why? The director was too busy worrying about his complicated camera moves.

There may be a place for a

Silent House fmovies. 'SILENT HOUSE': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

American remake of the 2010 Uruguayan film, of the same name, about a young woman attacked in her families' vacation house. It's said to be based on a true story from the 1940's. Chris Kentis and Laura Lau directed the film and Lau also wrote the screenplay. The same team also did the 2003 low budget horror hit 'OPEN WATER'. The film is somewhat effective and scary, at first, but once it gets to it's routine plot twist it goes seriously downhill.

Elizabeth Olsen stars in the film as Sarah, a young woman staying with her father (Adam Trese) and uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) at their vacation house in the country while they clean it up in order to sell it. When the uncle leaves to go into town an unseen assailant attacks Sarah's father and then chases Sarah throughout the house. Sarah tries to flee and run for help while avoiding the intruders. The entire thing is played out in real time.

The movie starts out pretty sow-paced but gets pretty creepy and intense as it goes on. The real time effect is one of the film's greatest assets while also being one of it's biggest weaknesses. It's pretty scary at times but also really boring. Once the movie gets to it's big twist (like I said) it loses any real thrills or viewer involvement it had going for it. A mediocre film at best.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKhLjf_1MKw

Silent House is directed by Chris Kentis and written by Laura Lau. It stars Elizabeth Olsen, Adam Trese and Eric Sheffer Stevens. Music is by Nathan Larson and cinematography by Igor Martinovic. A remake of Uruguayan film, La casa muda (The Silent House), story has Olsen as Sarah, a young woman who finds herself locked in the abandoned family home she was helping her father and uncle to clear out before it is sold. Soon Sarah finds herself pursued by an unseen assailant and she struggles to make sense of what is festering in the house.

Forget the gimmick that comes with the film, that of the use of "real time" to give off the effect of one continuous take, it doesn't impact on how you ultimately will feel about the film either way. It comes down to if you can buy into another haunted house movie whilst accepting the outcome as being worth your time. Horror fans are notoriously hard to please, even when something original happens along, such as the recent The Cabin in the Woods, a good portion of the horror faithful will remain displeased. Silent House is what it is, a hugely efficient haunted house creeper that admirably builds suspense and then shows its twisty hand. If you want fresh and exciting, and I keep seeing people write that "such and such" didn't bring nothing new to the table whilst themselves not offering up exactly what could be brought to said table, then it's very unlikely Silent House will fill your horror hungry bellies.

Coming from the makers of Open Water, it's evident that Silent House wants to have realism on its side, it's stripped back for impact, with a less is more approach to its garnering of chills. With Olsen terrific, and she is, we are asked to put ourselves in that house and be in her shoes to feel the terror. Not everyone can do that, obviously, but being able to do that considerably makes Silent House a far better movie than its lowly internet ratings suggest it is. The scares are not over done, the music score is suitably sparse as claustrophobia reigns supreme, the use of natural light impressive and the camera glides about as an ethereal observer, technically it is a very effectively constructed haunted house picture. It's also refreshing to find the makers are able to use credible reasons for characters to be in and out of the house, this isn't about the dumb decision making so often rife in this sub-genre of horror over the years.

Sadly the third act is weak as the scares, tech attributes and atmosphere subside, we land in familiar territory and the big reveals, whilst thematically potent and never to be scoffed at, lack the desired impact and the film closes down more on a whimper instead of the terrified scream the rest of the film deserved. A shame, because for the most part this is a very good genre offering for those who have a bent for such spooky/home invasion doings. 7.5/10

Directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau give us a story about a young woman, Sarah, who is sealed inside her family's secluded lake house. With no way out, events become terrifying. The direction was fine and all of the suspense points seem to be there, albeit a bit predictable. I'm not sure who to credit whenever there is two, sometimes three, directors on board.

The cast had fine actors involved including Adam Trese, Elizabeth Olsen, Eric Sheffer Stevens, Julia Taylor Ross. Elizabeth Olsen did a good job and it doesn't hurt that she is nice to look at.

Interesting camera work on this movie. There seems to be a lot of static shots, that work most of the time. I'm sure that these are choices that the director (s) made and I applaud them for making choices and sticking to them.

This is a story based on a concept that is not very original, but what is important is the execution.

Would I recommend it? I'm not sure if this is for everyone. Some may pick it apart just a little too much. For my, I enjoyed it for what it was.