Silent House (2011) Reviews

• People are far too critical of this film

  laurencecarpenter902012-10-19

  This is a good film. People have complained heavily about the lack of character explanation, which I do realise is conventionally the basis to any decent story, BUT I feel this film is due credit for its unconventional approach in editing, filming and character placement. I watch a lot of horrors, searching for anything that doesn't hit upon cliché after cliché and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It wasn't a typical 'in your face' horror, but was tense, creepy and unpredictable until the twist. Despite not being completely original in overall plot, I can easily imagine its approach to film making leaving a legacy for future filmmakers. The camera work was clever, the acting good and overall experience was enjoyable. It was a complete mind f*ck of a film until the twist. That's how I like my films. So thumbs up all round. Definitely would recommend this to anyone that can appreciate the fact that a film can be scary without ridiculous amount of blood, gore and stereotypical characters. Anyway, Enjoy fellow film lovers!

  More

• very nice indeed

  cashman-211-9744352013-06-07

  The is only my second review on IMDb but I feel it's important to offset the unduly negative reviews here. I read the reviews beforehand and was put off watching but was actually amazed at how good the film actually is. The film is superior in every way to Open Water, which is also a very good film. I feel a bit for the directors, having made such an obviously great horror film, only to not have it recognised as such. The main actor is extremely good at her job. I have seen virtually every 'woman in peril' movie but the fear experienced by her character is utterly palpable and convincing. The fear of having killer strangers in your house is done better in this film than ANY OTHER film I have watched. Far from the 'real time' aspect not working, it actually works brilliantly and is done extremely well. PS. and no, I'm nothing to do with cast or makers of this film!! I just like watching good horror films and this is without a doubt a very good horror film.

  More

• Good one

  TopekaLass2012-03-30

  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.

  More

• Hush now child, and don't you cry.

  Spikeopath2012-11-18

  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

  More

• Could have been great...

  jt19992012-03-04

  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 real-time, single-shot film... but this story and screenplay was unfortunately not it. Sorry, Chris! I certainly don't mean to be unkind -- and I would happily give your film ten stars if filmmaking was about all creative, hand-held camera-work and precise focus-pulling. But last time I checked, it wasn't. That said, you are without question a talented and ambitious filmmaker, and I consider "Open Water" one of the most frightening and bold exercises in low-budget filmmaking EVER. I wish you continued success, and eagerly anticipate your next cinematic endeavor.

  More