A review of Silent House, much like an evaluation of any horror movie, comes down to two questions: Is the movie scary and is the gimmick worth it? To answer the first question, yes, Silent House delivers the scares. The answer to the second is a little trickier.
The defining aspect of Silent House is that the movie was allegedly shot in a single take. That means there are supposedly no cuts, no editing. The filmmakers claim the movie was shot in one 85-minute take.
This is the sole unique selling point of the movie. The generic, haunted house premise certainly isn’t special. Mix and match some crappy 1980s horror flicks, and you’ll probably get a similar script.
The movie isn’t noteworthy for being a genuinely good and evocative horror movie either. To be fair, directors Chris Kentis (Open Water) and Laura Lau, in her directorial debut, manage to make a scary film, though the first half of the movie is far more effective than the second.
Kentis and Lau slowly build a feeling of dread by subtly screwing with your mind through sound editing and clever camera tricks. Star Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene) does a good job at projecting authentic fear and uncertainty given a rather underwritten character.
Unfortunately, the longer the movie maintains the pretense of regular thieves/murderers being the culprits, the harder it becomes to take the movie seriously. At some point, you wonder why Olsen hasn’t clued into the supernatural/psychological aspect of the plot.
Those weird shadows on the wall are either the world’s most incompetent criminals or, more likely, some ultra-freaky-deaky shit.
All of this comes back to the central gimmick of the movie. Almost all modern horror movies have one, if only so that we can differentiate between a Halloween sequel and a Saw sequel. Does the only noteworthy aspect of Silent House help or hinder the movie?
There are a few moments where the longer-than-usual take allows Kentis and Lau some creative visual flourishes, and the single take thing is pretty neat. But, for the most part, I wish Silent House was shot more conventionally.
You see, moving a camera around in a cramped house means the camera rig can’t be that big. So, we get mostly handheld camerawork with some of the worst focusing since Birdemic. Undoubtedly, some of the blurs are artistic and intentional. Most of the blurry shots, though, come down to bad camerawork.
Silent House isn’t a bad horror movie. At the very least, it’s frightening. But the movie is far from being good, or even particularly memorable.
VERDICT: Silent House delivers the goods as a horror movie but fails to properly utilize its single take gimmick.
chzhang@umdbk.com
