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.
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.