Make no mistake about it, Silent House (2011) is a one-woman show – a movie that slowly unfolds from the perspective of Sarah played by Elizabeth Olsen. Like Hitchcock’s Rope, this movie is carefully edited to give the appearance that the camera tracks Olsen’s every move with one continuous shot, meaning she is literally onscreen for 99% of the movie. Given that amount of screen time, you would think that the success of this movie would ride solely on the shoulders of the youngest Olsen sister, but unfortunately there are other mechanisms in this film that ultimately spoil what is a solid piece of acting.
Brought to you by the directing duo that brought you Open Water, Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, Silent House is based on La Casa Muda – a Uruguayan film released in 2010 that was in turn based upon a real occurrence from the 1940’s. The plot of this movie finds Olsen’s Sarah going to her family’s old summer home with her father and uncle to prepare it to be sold. What follows is an uninterrupted eighty-five minutes of terror as Olsen’s Sarah finds herself locked in the home with an unknown figure lurking in the shadows.
Unfortunately, the film morphs into two movies and not in a good way. The first half plays like a nuts-and-bolts horror film, nicely slow playing the tension in the vein of Spielberg’s Jaws. Had the creative team stayed this course, the film would have been a win. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie morphs into a psychological thriller - from a horror film to a whodunit, which would not have been the worst thing in the world had the directors not tipped their hands too early. And as much as this movie was marketed for the long tracking shots, that gimmick ultimately turns into a detriment as the edits become easier to spot and this breaks the reality that was nicely established earlier in the film.
None of the film's failures however has anything to do with Olsen. She turns in a strong performance, especially considering that many of these takes lasted well over ten minutes. With her background in live theater undoubtedly aiding her greatly in this role, there are two things that she absolutely nails in this performance. First, she expresses sheer terror expertly through facial expressions with the kind of excellence not seen since the original scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis owned Halloween. Second, she crafts a protagonist that is both likable and sympathetic.
As for the rest of the cast, in their best moments they are merely adequate but for most of the film Adam Trese (as John), Eric Stevens (Peter) and Julia Taylor Ross (Sophia) show that they are not up to the task of keeping up with Olsen. Collectively, they bring the quality of the film down a few notches as each delivers performances that are wrought with both overacting and underselling at precisely the wrong moments. If the unsteady camera and poor lighting are not enough to give this a b or c-level movie feel, then the supporting cast makes sure that this is no longer up for debate.
What this all adds up to is a movie that is flawed, disturbing, and not as clever as Kentis and Lau thought it was when they plotted this remake. If you love horror movies, then you will enjoy about 50% of this film and that may make it worth a rental. If you are anything less than a huge fan of these types of movies, then this is probably a pass. It is just not executed well enough to tolerate a twist that is incredibly disturbing and highly telegraphed. In a genre where little is expected or demanded, there are just too many other titles to settle for this kind of mediocrity.
Standout Performance: Elizabeth Olsen – clearly the best actress in the Olsen family. She dominates the film for long stretches and manages to rise above the mediocrity that surrounds her.
It's a horror flick that's definitely a lot better than what you would expect in today's day and age, much ado to the technical side of it, but for some reason, the ending seems like a bit of a let-down. At least Olsen is easy on the eyes. Good review Tony.
ReplyDelete