Silent House

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

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.

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

I had been anticipating this one when it came out, and since then sort of forgot about it. I finally saw it with some hesitation, and... I liked it enough. The concept of appearing as a single-take is used for all it's worth. The cinematography is pretty brilliant, and really does make the film scary. There are some really great horror scenes here, scenes that amount to undeniable levels of terror. The other reason why the film is as unnerving as it is sometimes is because of Olsen. I haven't seen a performance this unbelievably scared as sh*t in a very long time, and Olsen squeezes the film's potential for all it's worth. Many times the reason you jump is because of Olsen's screams and terror. Not a very three-dimensional character, but a big reason the film works is because of how she delivers.

I was hoping I wouldn't hate the ending, but yeah, I kinda did. I got the big "twist" early on, as it's kinda obvious with how certain characters "communicate" with each other. Once the lead started seeing certain people and figures, I knew what had happened. That wasn't as much the problem as it was how they executed it. Very laughably idiotic, not to mention the dialogue was horrible and on-the-nose.

Very flawed ending and weak characters/dialogue, but otherwise a well- directed and impeccably photographed horror film with a brilliant central performance. This is another reason to keep looking out for Elizabeth Olsen.

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.