Silent House (2011) User Reviews (207)

Once it gets to it's routine plot twist it goes seriously downhill!

[Hellmant · 5/10 · 15 May 2012]

'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

Good idea but not scary enough

[tgooderson · 5/10 · 14 May 2012]

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

Silence isn't always golden

[facebook-124-955845 · 4/10 · 7 March 2012]

Silent House, directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, the pair behind the thrilling film Open Water, is a remake of the 2010 Uruguayan film La Casa Muda. The story centers on a young woman, her father and her uncle working together cleaning out and repairing an old lakeside family cabin; in the process ending up stalked, while "trapped" inside.

Elizabeth Olsen, having received high praise for her performance in Martha Marcy May Marlene, gives a solid performance as the young Sarah. If her first two feature films are a sign of things to come, then Ashley and Mary-Kate's younger sister is well on her way to establishing herself as an extremely talented actress on her way to a very successful film career. Sadly, the same can't be said for Adam Trese, who plays Sarah's father John, and Eric Sheffer Stevens, who plays John's brother and Sarah's creepy uncle, Peter. Neither of the two men is capable of holding their own when sharing screen time with Elizabeth; whether it's in delivering the dialogue or just acting out a scene.

The most impressive thing about Silent House is that the movie appears to have been filmed in one continuous take; running the entire 88 minute length of the film. The problem with shooting the film in this fashion is that not every scene works. In one sequence, we follow Sarah as she runs throughout the house trying to hide, and then escape. The scene is well done, and is at times reasonably suspenseful. In other scenes, however, the camera does more harm than good; such as poorly focused shots on the appearances of ghostly figures and the jostling of the camera as we run along with Sarah as she attempts to get away from the house.

As someone who sees many movies, there's nothing that bothers me more than when a director, writer, producer and/or studio thinks the audience is easy to get over on. The biggest issue with Silent House is that it was marketed incorrectly. The movie is not a horror film; it is a psychological thriller. If the film had been marketed as such, and wasn't done in the single shot format, I think the potential was there for a decent movie. If the film had been made as a horror movie and followed through on that, I think it could have been better. As it is, Silent House is a major disappointment that never meets its potential on any level.

Grade: C-

visit our site at www.twodudereview.com

Could have been great...

[jt1999 · 2/10 · 4 March 2012]

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.

People are far too critical of this film

[laurencecarpenter90 · 7/10 · 19 October 2012]

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!

This was mostly a down the blouse movie for 90 minutes

[TakeUpReel · 2/10 · 17 May 2020]

This is a half step up from most "found footage" movies.

The plot was boring. There was no proper tension built up.

The acting, especially from the male actors, was horrible. It seemed like all the dialogue was (poorly) improvised on the spot.

The camera work was amateurish...and that's disrespecting a lot of amateurs out there.

The lightning was dismal. The video quality in low light scenes made a lot of the film look like a home movie.

I get that the creators of this movie was trying to achieve a specific style. Unfortunately, the style that we saw was on par with a grade school A/V project.

Not to be rude, but the constant cleavage shots were the most interesting parts of this movie.

I find that reviews with a rating of 1 or 10 are generally bogus, so I refrain from assigning those grades, but my two stars is a generous rating.

Avoid!

Please do not pay attention to the ratings

[JonDoe00 · 7/10 · 20 July 2012]

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.

So Bad

[dar0417 · 3/10 · 31 January 2020]

Bad. One word sums up the whole movie. What a waste of talent

Good one

[TopekaLass · 7/10 · 30 March 2012]

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.

Old Houses Make Noises

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 23 November 2012]

Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen), her father John (Adam Trese) and her uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens) comes to the countryside to fix their decayed Victorian house that was invaded by trespassers since John intends to sell it. Sarah opens the door to her childhood friend Sophia (Julia Taylor Ross) but she does not recall her. When Sarah returns, she hears noises on the attic and John checks and tells that old houses make noises.

Soon her father vanishes and Sarah sees an intruder in the house, stalking her and a little girl. Sarah finds that is trapped in the house and seeks out her father; soon she finds him wounded, unconscious on the floor. She finds a way out of the house and stumbles with her uncle Peter driving his car. Peter asks Sarah to stay in the car while he searches for his brother, but Sarah goes to the house. The lights go out and when power returns, Peter is also missing. Out of the blue, Sophia comes into the house and gives a key and the Pandora box to Sarah to solve the mystery.

"Silent House" could have been a good short; however, it is a boring feature with a terrible hand-held camera work. The plot is predictable and repetitive, and after twenty minutes it becomes tedious and never scary. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Casa Silenciosa" ("The Silent House")

very nice indeed

[cashman-211-974435 · 9/10 · 7 June 2013]

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.

Hush now child, and don't you cry.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 18 November 2012]

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

Silent House

[jboothmillard · 3/10 · 22 November 2012]

I heard about this scary movie during the time of its release, and I may have seen a few short trailers for it, I had assumed that it was a film made by just one single camera shot, possibly using a similar aspect to The Blair Witch Project or something, so I wanted to try it, despite low critical ratings. Basically young woman Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen, Mary-Kate and Ashley's sister) is fixing up the slowly decaying Victorian house in the countryside with her father John (Adam Trese) and her uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens), especially the moulding, so that they can sell it. Her uncle and father have a petty argument and Peter leaves to get some tools, and while John continues working upstairs Sarah answers the door to Sophia (Julia Taylor Ross) who claims to be a childhood friend, she does not remember her but she agrees to meet again later. Soon strange banging and thumping noises come from upstairs, her father checks and finds nothing, but when she calms down she next hears her father fall down the stairs, and trying to run out for help all the exits are blocked with locks and boards, and an unknown perpetrator is looking for her while she hides. Sarah searches for her father and finds him unconscious with a head wound on the floor, so to try and get help she goes to the basement hoping to find another exit cellar door, she does find evidence that there may have been squatters, and after avoiding an unseen figure she makes it out. Running outside she meets her uncle driving back to the house, and he insists that if someone is after her and hurting her father they should go back and confront them, and when they go to where her father was his body is gone, and searching the near pool room the lights go out, and only a camera flash can help them see. Eventually the power returns and Peter is missing as well, and hiding again she sees his body dragged across the floor by the unknown wrongdoer, and showing signs of paranoia and psychosis she tries to get over her hallucinations of childhood, there is a point she sees a bed stain with blood and a toilet spewing with blood, these visions frighten her and she runs downstairs. Going back up she is confronted by Sophia, and sees her father wrapped in plastic, and Sophia shows her paedophilia photographs of her as a child, so her father must her sexually abused her as a child when he took the photos, but then Sarah finds out she dragged Peter herself. Sophia vanishes, and she knows that some things have been happening in her mind, John gets her to untie him, but then he grabs a belt and whips her on the back, but Peter gains consciousness and tries to stop him, his brother mocking his pleas. In the end Sarah ends it all by grabbing a sledgehammer and bludgeoning her father's head, and her uncle begs her to spare him as he tried to stop the rape and abuse that he knew was happening, she just leaves him and walks out of the house into the dark. Olsen is pretty alright as the exhausted and panicky victim walking slowly through the house mostly in the dark, the problem is that the haunted house premise uses too many clichés that don't make you feel tense or scared, and the twist with a schizophrenic personality or whatever is complete rubbish, the ten filmed sequences pieced together to make it look like a single shot, just like Hitchcock's Rope, is okay, but doesn't stop it from being a rather disappointing horror. Adequate!

Bad from start to finish

[perhaps-imdb · 1/10 · 23 March 2012]

I wish critics would stop reviewing this movie based on its supposed technical merits or their desire to see Elizabeth Olsen succeed and rate it as a cinematic experience. Wow, great, the movie might largely give the impression that it was done in one take. Elizabeth Olsen may have some talent. That doesn't mean -this movie- has any redeeming value whatsoever. The movie just flat-out stinks.

From obvious contradictions to tedious attempts to build suspense to irritating camera techniques, there is nothing good going on here. The main character makes a big production out of locking the front door with a key hanging on a hook to show us that it's not that easy to get out of the house once the door is locked, but then another character leaves the house five seconds later and the door opens and shuts in two seconds off-screen.

You spend most of the movie watching shaky close-up shots of people's shoulders or the girl's face, to the point that for almost the first half of the movie it feels like the girl is running away from her own shadow. She goes into 100% panic mode from the first creepy noise that she hears in the house, and once it becomes clear to the audience that there even really is someone else there there isn't anywhere for her to go emotionally. From there, the exercise becomes repetitive and boring.

She runs through this house that isn't really that big, looking for doors and windows to open, and when she finds none there's no sense of "I better find some place to hide and quick!". She just kind of gives up, and it doesn't matter because the movie doesn't give the sense that any intruders or supernatural presence or whatever in the house is even paying attention to her. Sure, it grabs her leg or shuts a door near her once in a while, but it isn't actually out to get her, or it would have pursued her when she ran to find the doors. This kills any sense of tension the movie might have had a chance of building.

You've probably heard that the ending is bad and ruins this movie. That's half true. The ending is bad, and the "twist" is predictable and stupid. It also renders one character who really did nothing at all in the movie completely pointless. But the ending didn't ruin this movie. In order for the ending to ruin the movie, the movie leading up to the ending would have needed to be worth something. For example, the ending is what ruined The Devil Inside. The Devil Inside wasn't a great movie, but what really destroyed it was the fact that it stopped 75% of the way through with basically a "come back and see The Devil Inside 2 to get the other 25% of this movie".

But this movie never worked, not even for a moment. It's a bunch of cheap scare gimmicks strung together without any real tension behind them. The wobbly camera is more irritating than it is skillful craftsmanship. And when the movie isn't showing extreme close-ups, the screen is just black so you can't see anything. It takes more than not showing anything to be legitimately scary or tension-building. There has to be a threat of something that you can't see, and this movie fails on this count by cranking up the main character's freak-out factor to 110% from the outset before there's even anybody in the house.

Yes, you can explain her ridiculous behavior once you get to the end, but the point is that the first part of the movie doesn't take you along for the ride, because it's impossible to really relate to this girl. You'd expect the air conditioner clicking on to send her into one of those fits of trying to control a scream, and the movie doesn't add to this in the parts I already mentioned where nobody ever actually follows her anywhere.

Bottom line: this movie is a worthless piece of junk. The ending didn't ruin it, because the movie had nothing of quality in it to start with.

Fairly effective chiller ; Olsen embodies to a finely tuned pitch of believable angst and genuine terror.

[george.schmidt · 7/10 · 24 February 2012]

SILENT HOUSE (2012) ** Elizabeth Olsen, Adam Trese, Eric Sheffer Stevens, Julia Taylor Ross, Haley Murphy. Fairly effective chiller with Olsen as a young woman in a sort of homecoming who is helping her father get a piece of real estate ready for an impending sale and finds herself trapped when a home invasion occurs (or does it?) The real-time one-take gimmick employed by intrepid married filmmakers Chris Kentis and Laura Lau (who adapted from a film by Gustavo Hernandez) is rather smoothly transferred with impeccable camera-work by Igor Martinvoic yet the premise taxes the nerves (and not in the way it should i.e. gooseflesh/hair-on-end spookiness) by the story's (anti)climax that upends psychological horror instead of its ghost-story approach of things-that-bump-in-the-night in spite of its leading lady's full-on embodiment to a finely tuned pitch of believable angst and genuine terror.

What's behind door number 33?

[ferguson-6 · 5/10 · 10 March 2012]

Greetings again from the darkness. On my never ending trek to find quality horror movies, this one had a couple of interesting things going for it. First, it stars Elizabeth Olsen (sister of the twins) who was so impressive in last year's Martha Marcy May Marlene. Secondly, the film was reported to have been shot in one continuous take/shot. From a technical aspect, this is one of the more curious claims and brazen filmmaking attempts one can imagine.

Let's start with the fantastic Ms. Olsen. With very few lines of dialogue and being on screen for 95% of the frames, she doesn't disappoint. The camera loves her face ... even when that camera is mere inches away and the lighting is provided by a kerosene lamp or flashlight. She proves very expressive in fear and isn't afraid of quiet, and more rare these days, she isn't afraid to look less than glamorous. Ms. Olsen's future is much brighter than the lighting in this bleak house.

The basic story has Sarah (Olsen), her dad (Adam Trese) and her uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) returning to the family lake house for some simple rehab and packing, with the goal of putting the place up for sale. Next thing you know, strange noises, a lost key, and dad is bloodied on the floor. The house itself is a maze of doors, floors and staircases, and because the windows are boarded up and the electricity is dead, the limited lighting will have you straining your eyes to make out location and shapes.

Directed by the husband and wife team of Chris Kentis and Laura Lau (Open Water), the first 30 minutes of this movie captured my interest and had me on edge. Unfortunately, it kind of unravels and ultimately ends with a disappointing and rather cheap explanation. It's a remake of a 2010 Uruguay film, which was based on a true story from the 1940's. I am not sure if the ending to this one follows the "true" ending. As for the single take, I call BS. There were changes to the blood spatters on Olsen, not to mention numerous times where a "blackout" proved convenient to shift camera gear. Still, the real time feel is a nice touch, as is the minimal use of music ... a rarity in a genre known for blasting crescendos to cue our screams.

Well done thriller; An even more well done performance by Elizabeth Olsen

[jay10536 · 7/10 · 17 March 2012]

Wow. I saw this movie twice, once last Friday (opening day) and another time last night. I must say, the first half of this film is brilliantly crafted into a realistic thriller about a girl who is trapped in her family's summer cottage and is being tormented by a psychotic stranger. It was not too dissimilar to movies such as 2008's The Strangers or Funny Games (both versions). When we get to part two of the film, that's where the realism begins to fade, and this movie becomes sort of an experiment in the art house genre. The second half isn't bad at all, but I preferred the first half, just because I am a fan of the home invasion genre. Well done! Finally, a good independent movie put out into theaters across the country!

this is by far one of the worst horror films

[msjanaynicole · 1/10 · 16 March 2012]

after seeing the preview for Silent House I was excited to go see it. unfortunately this is probably one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. the plot was confusing and idiotic. The acting was sub-par and the relationships were awkward and unrealistic.i would have liked to give the film a zero but I am unable to. the one is for the lighting. the darkness added to the suspense and made me feel very much on edge. the camera work was sometimes all over the place and unfocused but it did make it seem a bit more real. also there were a few scary moments that made me jump. other than that it was a complete waste of time and money. I left the theater feeling very lost and angry. save your money.

Elizabeth Olsen is Utterly Brilliant

[sir1398 · 7/10 · 29 July 2012]

Silent House is about Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) who is trapped in her family's secluded lake house while searching for a way out and discovering terrifying things. The plot seems somewhat empty, as we don't know where Sarah's mother or other family members are--but it is shown that it is the family's lakeside retreat so it left me wondering, "Well is this what they consider their family?" The only "family" characters are Sarah, her uncle Peter, and her father/his brother John. They all look as if they could be siblings though. Sophia is also a character in the film who claims to be one of Sarah's closest childhood friends, but Sarah feels bad about not remembering.

The film was mimicked to create a one-shot, real-time film. Since that idea seems ridiculously impossible, I discovered it was shot in merely 10-minute segments and the cutting was hidden by obviously very smart editing. I was very impressed by that idea but I wondered throughout the film, "Why?" Why couldn't the film have been made with the usual cutting system? Why did the filmmakers decide to go through (what I assume to be) extreme agony in making it this way? It's impressive, by I find it to be somehow distracting. When the camera was chasing Sarah and how the whole movie was a perspective point, rather than Hollywood's normal filming strategy, yeah, did make it a bit scarier. And I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but it was distracting and seemingly unnecessary. My guess is that the filmmakers used this technique to impress the audience more and pull theirs attentions away from the flat script or bad acting.

Now I know I just referred to a flat script or bad acting, but I just used it as a reference. I think the acting was fair if you ask me. And that reason is because Elizabeth Olsen shined brighter than the sun while the other actors were, in fact, not very good at all. I wish I had known Olsen was the younger sibling of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen so I would have been even more impressed by her acting; knowing that the Olsen twins were never such remarkable actresses (to say the least). I am also simply not a script-judger. I do not know how to judge screen writing for a movie is a movie and it isn't to take seriously--especially this one. I did find though how utterly predictable everything was. Once characters were hiding pictures from Sarah suspiciously and what not, I knew exactly what was going on. I knew exactly what was happening and what was going to happen at that point. Unfortunately, "that point" was too early in the film to begin knowing how the movie ends. So I was disappointed because I knew how the film ended somewhere around twenty minutes into it.

One other problem I had with Silent House is that there were way too many scenes of hiding in a closet and then having something jump out. There were way too many scenes of hiding under a table and then realizing someone/something else is under the table. There were way too many hiding behind something and having another thing jump out. I wanted more factors of a smart thriller. Scenes like that don't help create a smart thriller--they make crappy teen slashers. I was disappointed in that. However, they were very good crappy teen slasher scenes (lol). They were suspenseful and exciting, but after about three I was upset with how many of them there were. Literally, once the movie picked up and got scary (which was not too late into the film) those scenes appeared every ten minutes.

Despite the predictability of Silent House, the film was overall extremely well-made and I enjoyed it a lot. And to despite the predictability is HUGE. Seriously, this was very predictable. I honestly don't know why people gave this film such poor reviews. It was a really good idea and overall well-executed. Maybe it's just me and Elizabeth Olsen's acting was the only honest reason why people like it (seriously, I'm obsessed). I don't know. Maybe it's because people are so impressed that it was mimicked to look like one long shot of a movie and that's the only reason some people like it. Maybe the only reason I liked it was because I read so many awful reviews on it and finally went into it with such low expectations and came out without having wasted my time. I liked Silent House, and I give it a 7 out of 10.

Pure Crap

[willyboy-3 · 1/10 · 29 September 2012]

Totally worthless, cheap and just bad. Employs that cheap hand-held camera technique. Bad acting, trite subject. It is derivative and boring. Seriously, how many more times do viewers have to be subjected to horrid cinematography disguised as "deep art"? It is old and it has been over worked in the extreme. To top it all off it has no ending whatsoever. Shame on the director and producer for inflicting this crap on the public. It's not as if the style and subject have not been run into the ground often enough already; this monstrosity drags in through the mud. I really am sick of cheap and cheesy being presented as artistic and meaningful. My only consolation is I paid nothing to see this dreck. I pity anyone who actually payed money for it. In short, pure crap and it should be relegated to the dung heap of cinematic trash.

A bit more provocative than you'd expect, both in themes and aesthetics

[drownsoda90 · 8/10 · 9 April 2012]

Based on the 2010 Uruguayan film of the same name, "Silent House" focuses on Sarah (Elizabeth Olson), a young woman (presumably in her very early 20s) who is helping her father and uncle clean up an old Victorian summer house owned by her family. The house is in disrepair, with no working electricity, a severe mold problem, and every window boarded up due to vandalism. Not a fun place to spend your time, unless you're a member of the Addams Family. One afternoon, while the three are cleaning and doing repairs, Sarah hears noises coming from upstairs. She and her father go to investigate. The subsequent 75 minutes are spent with Sarah hiding from and fighting off an unknown assailant with malicious intent.

I have to start off by saying that, as a seasoned horror fan, I'm appalled by the ridiculous number of one-star reviews for this film on here. I've seen A LOT of horror movies— I know the genre extremely well, I'll leave it at that. And while "Silent House" may not be the greatest film of all time, I can't help but feel that the majority of negative responses to it are from teenagers and others who went in expecting one thing from this film and got something much different. While this is somewhat understandable due to advertising (the trailers for this film almost make it look like a rip-off of the 2008 home-invasion thriller "The Strangers"), I think the bandwagon backlash to this film has been unnecessarily harsh. The fact of the matter is this is an extremely difficult film to properly market, and it appears that the distributors decided to go about it by forcing it into the parameters of typical horror film advertising; and although the trailers and promotional material for the movie were alluring to genre fans, they don't do a good job of representing the film for what it actually is.

Let's face it; conceptually speaking, this film is "been there, done that" in just about every way. The twists and turns of this story have been treaded on before in lots of other films. We know the formula. So, in order for this film to work, the execution is what really matters— the finer details. Fortunately, as far as I'm concerned, the filmmakers hit all the right notes in this department and that is this film's saving grace.

First off, we have the "real time" gimmick. The movie was purportedly filmed in one continuous take, but I spied a couple moments that were a bit too conveniently dark or conveniently erratic, where a cut in the film would be completely unnoticeable to an audience. Regardless, the film was very obviously shot with hand-held cameras and the takes are in fact extremely long (we're talking some at least 10-15 minutes, maybe more).

The camera follows Elizabeth Olsen throughout the entire film, never leaving her once, and the feat this must have been for her and the other actors is impressive to say the least (Olsen blew me away me in last year's "Martha Marcy May Marlene", and she doesn't fail to impress here). Not only does this unique manner of presentation give the actors a platform to prove themselves, but it also involves the audience in a way that most films don't— we see the entire thing unfold right there alongside the character, and that makes the film's scare tactics all the more effective. This mode of storytelling is also impressive on a mere technical level due to the scrupulous orchestration and timing that it demands of both the cast and the crew.

Now, about those other "finer details"— for one, the film's "spooky house" setting is exacerbated by the boarded up windows and interior darkness, leaving potential threats looming in every nook and cranny. This leaves the protagonist (and thus, we, the audience) disoriented in a darkened maze of doors, hallways, staircases, and tons of antique furniture. Can a setting for a horror film get any better than that?

Visually speaking, I was also impressed with this film for its stylistic pursuits. It may be a horror movie, but there are some definite art house moments here that you don't find in big-budget horror films. Hallucinatory sequences in the film— namely a bathroom scene which includes a young girl bathing in a tub full of bloody water and beer bottles, and a toilet hanging from the wall spewing blood— are reminiscent of "The Shining", and are as visually startling as they are relevant to the nasty core of the plot.

Which brings me to another interesting dynamic at work here, which lies in the end reveal. As I said, the formula has been done to death, but the focal point of this film's twist ending is so abhorrent and disturbing that it can't help but stand out like a sore thumb. It's a risky subject matter that we're ultimately dealing with, and the filmmakers and actors handled it extremely well. If that weren't enough for the horror crowd (as it is truly horrific in every sense of the word), the film's climax is complete with sledgehammer action, a psychotic rambling evocative of Mrs. Voorhees, and a good old fashioned taste of feminist vengeance— not necessarily in that order.

Overall, "Silent House" is a winner in my book. The "continuous take" stratagem is involving, Olsen's performance is stellar, and the film's bleakness is reminiscent of 1970s grindhouse films, but is wrapped up with the mentality of a modern-day psychothriller. Throw in a little bit of art house in there, too, for taste. In my opinion, one of the best horror efforts in a long while, and one of the most hyper-criticized films so far this year. 8/10.

Just my opinion. Tell me what you guys think.

[leemer14 · 7/10 · 10 March 2012]

The movie was all and all an okay film. As a lot of other reviews I have read said, it gets kind of weird when the uncle, Peter, says to Sarah, "Man, you've really grown up." That right there is just awkward and not something someone in your family would say. Then we hear creepy sounds and weird noises, and then of course the electricity is out despite all of that. Some questions I had asked myself during the movie were, who killed her father? Sarah was in the same room as him. Also,as she's hiding she tries escaping and EVERYTHING is locked...And what's with that room that has a bed in it and a dresser. Who lived there? But, of course uncle Peter saves the day by returning to the house, and although Sarah has blood on her, and is crying her butt off, they still go back. That's unrealistic, but I know...it's just a movie. Then towards the end, when she is hiding and the little girl is sitting and they say "Come on. Don't be shy?" You ever notice the one guys like practically blind. Why does he have a cane? Anyways, the movie was written with a lot of questions, but the actors/actresses did their job, which was to follow the script.

First Three Quarters Good, Last Quarter Falls Apart

[sandro-santoli · 5/10 · 12 March 2012]

The beginning of the movie is about a home invasion. It's been done before, some good and some bad. I thought this part of the movie was good. For the first three quarters of the movie I was stressed out...but in a good way. I didn't understand what was happening, who was in the house and why, but I knew my main character was in trouble and I wanted her to escape. The images were dark, cluttered. Where is she? Is someone behind her? Can they see her? Is she hiding well enough? How can she get out? Is she going to make it? Are those friends or foes? Can we trust them?

Then just when I couldn't take anymore stress...the movie instantly got stupid. The entire ending fell apart and my good simple but scary movie went limp. My coping mechanisms kicked in, not because the stress had resolved, but rather because they would be useless where the movie brought me. And it's not like we haven't seen this sort of ending before so I'm not sure why the writers even went there.

Was this trying to be soft core porn?

[jimmerw · 1/10 · 14 November 2012]

I don't know where to start. Twenty minutes in and I have been scratching my head. We have seen outside several times and it is daylight. Why is it pitch black in the house? It is daylight in my home right now, I have the drapes open and it is blazing bright in here. Why are they walking around with lanterns? I know why, the director needs to find cheap ways to build suspense and thinks the viewer is a moron. Open the drapes.

Now to the porn question. We have seen more of the female star's cleavage than her face. Don't get me wrong, I did like what I saw, but it was so gratuitous that it left me thinking again, the director has no idea how to captivate an audience, so go for cheap tricks. Keep it dark and show a lot of cleavage.

Don't get me started on the calibre of acting. I am Canadian and my country produces copious amounts of video garbage. This movie made me think it was Canadian.

OPEN THE DAMN DRAPES!! I CAN'T SEE WHAT'S GOING ON!!

A potentially superb thriller that stumbles calamitously at the last hurdle

[darkness_visible · 23 August 2012]

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! The first 80 minutes of this film were terrific - technically brilliant, gripping and creepy. But then the denouement was so feeble and pathetic that it wiped out any goodwill there might have been for the film as a whole. And the thing is that the directors and producers had already seen the ending from the Uruguayan original, but they decided against changing the disappointing premise - which makes me think they don't really know what a good story is.

But however much of a let down the film might be overall, I really think Elizabeth Olsen deserves an Oscar for her performance. Of course the Academy never gets it right - no Oscar for Viola Davis, no *nomination* for Albert Brooks's career best performance in Drive! So they'll probably dismiss her role as just being adequate for a mere "genre" film.

Anyway, I'd say 8/10 overall - 2 points deducted for the dreary conclusion.