PDA

View Full Version : The Silent House



Ian Jane
03-06-2012, 11:47 AM
OK, so the gimmick for this one, hitting theaters this week, is that it plays out in real time. That's kinda cool. I like that gimmick. The trailer doesn't give away too much but it did enough to catch my attention when I saw it on TV this week:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD88EFBFuos

Anybody else interested in seeing this?

I didn't realize until this morning that it's a remake.

http://www.blogomatic3000.com/2011/10/25/the-silent-house-remake-gets-a-release-date/

Has anyone seen the original? Thoughts?

Paul Casey
03-06-2012, 11:47 AM
WHAT?

Todd Jordan
03-06-2012, 12:06 PM
Raqd boobies in that shot above. Otherwise, never heard of it. Real time eh? What's the purpose of that? Real time is boring. Fake time is better.

Ian Jane
03-09-2012, 11:49 AM
Fango's review just went up (http://www.fangoria.com/index.php/reviews/movies/6715-silent-house-movie-review).

"Because of the handheld nature of its cinematography, there will likely be a temptation to lump SILENT HOUSE in with the found-footage gimmick that has been all the rage in horror (and has been venturing into other genres lately as well). Yet the aims of the format are different here: We’re not supposed to be watching a documentary (the marketing’s claims of “Inspired by True Events” notwithstanding) or sensing the presence of someone behind the camera. On the other hand, the outcome is the same: SILENT HOUSE takes a familiar scenario—the suburban haunted-house story—and knocks down the formalist walls to never leave its heroine’s side, which proves to be a pretty scary place to be."

I still kinda wanna see this.

Dom D
03-09-2012, 06:43 PM
I was assuming from the trailer that she had a friend filming her. It's a very strange conciet that there's this cameraman who's not part of the story following her around the whole time. Shame they didn't steadycam it. If you could find a camera dude who could hold the rig for 90 minutes that would be really cool. Though I write that and I realise there's no way this was actually shot in one take.

Todd Jordan
03-09-2012, 07:36 PM
I can honestly say this movie sounds like nothing I want to see. I don't want to watch real home movies, why would I want to watch a fake one?

Todd Jordan
03-09-2012, 07:36 PM
That's right. I'm Mr. Negortive.

Ian Jane
03-09-2012, 08:04 PM
You don't seem to go for the reality based horror movie stuff, Toidd. I'm a sucker for it when it's done well.

Todd Jordan
03-09-2012, 10:21 PM
Yeah I can't stand it to be honest. But hey, all the more for you. I'll stick with shitty movies from 3 decades ago instead.

Dom D
03-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Just learnt this is shot on the 5D MarkII and all of a sudden I have an interest in seeing this film. It's the same camera I'm using to shoot my film and it's the absolute last camera I would choose to shoot this sort of film. The 5D has a massively shallow depth of field and it's built for focusing still images not moving ones. I'd be very curious to how they pull focus on this. Cameraman must be a superhero. Also the 5D overheats if used for more than 12 minutes straight. Not usually an issue but would set an interesting challenge for a film shot in one take.

Ian Jane
03-13-2012, 12:17 PM
Also the 5D overheats if used for more than 12 minutes straight.

Yeah I can see how that would be an issue. Maybe they'll do a featurette or commentary on the eventual DVD/Blu release that takes on the technical side of things.

Ian Jane
07-11-2012, 09:28 AM
Watched this last night. Good at times, but not amazing. The 'single continuous shot' motif gets old at times and there are moments where even on a TV set it gets dizzying, far more than say Blair Witch or Cloverfield. That aspect doesn't really add much to the storyline or the storytelling for that matter, seems more like a gimmick.

It builds slowly but deliberately and features some good tension and a few fun jump scares. They try to give it all more meaning towards the end but only partially succeed. Some questions you're able to answer by thinking about things for 30 seconds, some you're kind of left wondering about. Elizabeth Olsen is pretty good in the lead. I felt she was convincing in the part at least.

Richard--W
10-20-2012, 03:06 AM
SPOILERS:


SILENT HOUSE started out promisingly, but it grows increasing frustrating during its short 84 minute length. My patience ran out at the 61 minute mark. I wanted to like this movie from the team who made OPEN WATER. It is cleverly conceived and reasonable well-executed, but it went out of focus too often, never has enough depth of field, and stopped sustaining itself when the generator was discovered and the lights came on. Blurred faces and indistinct bodies that should be clear when they're that close are a cheat. Going to black when the crucial events are happening are a cheat. The twists at the end are not supported by the first act, while the revelations of the third act undermine the plausibility of the second act. Plausibility matters only because of the third act. Perhaps SILENT HOUSE is more successful on its own terms than I give it credit for because I wanted to see a haunted house film. If I had known what it's really about I wouldn't have rented it. Still, it is a horror film, and one must give credit to Elizabeth Olson who is worth her weight in gold.

Koukol
10-20-2012, 02:37 PM
I've only seen the original foreign version.
I bought it blind after hearing all the rave reviews...mistake.


I like the first half until we discover what it's all about.