Audio Reviews - Silent House - Audio Review

Tags:  movie review, audio, spill, spill.com, silent house, elizabeth olsen

• 
  

  March 21, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Salty the Beast said ...

  My reviuu: http://saltythebeastblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/movie-review-silent-house.html

• March 18, 2012 at 7:23 AM, said ...

  I spent a majority of that movie looking at Elizabeth Olsen's amazing....umm  talents  when watching this.  There were some great angles

  

  
  
• 
  

  March 13, 2012 at 9:11 PM, said ...

• March 13, 2012 at 4:50 AM, said ...

  This movie...was wierd.

  
  
• 
  

  March 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM, said ...

  I'm surprised you guys didn't make more of the fact this is a remake from the start.  Nevertheless, I saw the original and whilst it had moments of inspiration, it was still equally as dull

• March 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM, said ...

  I love how she lived in the house longer than the killers but they know the house better than here

  
  
• 
  

  March 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM, said ...

  Why do Americans always have to remake foreign language movies ?

  This is a remake to 'The Silent House' made in 2010 . Come on Hollywood - new ideas !!

• March 11, 2012 at 12:19 AM, said ...

  Elizabeth Olsen is hot in this movie but the movie sucks ass!

  
  
• 
  

  March 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM, darth geekboy said ...

  NOTHING I HATE MORE THAN SPAMMERS.

• March 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM, said ...

  I just watched Silent House at filmswoop.com. It's free and in pretty good quality. Check it out!

  
  
• 
  

  March 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, said ...

  "Wondered what the Olsen Twins would look like if they ate?"

  More Funny comments from Silent House http://bit.ly/xsCJ6R

• March 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM, said ...

  First few seconds of review, trailer intro....WELL OF COOURRRSEEE THEIR TERRIFYING INCIDENT LASTED JUST OVER THEATRICAL RUNNING TIME!!!! please...continue, spill crew :)

  
  
• 
  

  March 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM, said ...

  Really? I usually agree with the Spill Crew's reviews, but it almost feels like you guys were reviewing a different movie than the one I saw, because the one I saw was a tedious, unscary mess that made The Devil Inside look like a masterpiece. I was honestly shocked that this movie didn't get an across-the-board F*** You, or at least a Some Ol' BS. There were more than a few comments from other people at the theater that the movie had been a complete waste of money.

  To me, the majority of this movie felt like looking at extreme close-ups of people's shoulders where this girl is freaking out for no real reason at all until you finally get a glimpse of what she's going so crazy about. I didn't feel like there was even a remotely realistic sense of urgency to her reactions that there is someone else in the house with her. Sure, she runs to the doors to try to open them, but once she finds them locked, she's just kind of like "ok". There's constantly this sense that the intruders know she's there, but after grabbing her leg or something to freak her out they just kind of forget that she's there. She never carries the idea that they would still be right behind her. Looking at it knowing the ending, I suppose you could explain it away, but it takes you out of the movie while you're watching it.

  When the movie isn't showing you extreme close-ups solely to keep you from seeing anything that is actually happening - because what is happening isn't scary - everything is pitch black. Only in the last 10-15 minutes do things even start to pick up, but the twist - if you can call it that - is completely predictable but somehow out of nowhere at the same time - the obviously suspicious behavior of some characters doesn't really count as build-up. My girlfriend even asked why one of the characters was in the movie at all.

  I can usually get into scary movies, but I was constantly aware of watching a movie on this one, and I would sincerely warn people away from this even more strongly than I would The Devil Inside.

• March 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Puerto-Greecan said ...

  Theres a Russian movie called Russian Ark that is kind of a time travelling movie that's shot like it's one shot.  It actually uses two or three shots for a 2 hour movie.  The shooting lasted for 1 or 2 days.  There are elaborate dance sequences.  

  "The film displays 33 rooms of the museum, which are filled with a cast of over 2,000 actors and 3 orchestras. Russian Ark was recorded in uncompressed high definition video using a Sony HDW-F900. The information was not recorded compressed to tape as usual, but uncompressed onto a hard disk which could hold 100 minutes which was carried behind the cameraman as he traveled from room to room, scene to scene. Three attempts were made to complete the shot; the first two had to be interrupted owing to technical faults, but the third (and final chance to complete the shot owing to time constraints) was completed successfully. The shot was executed by Tilman Büttner, the Director of Photography/Steadicam Operator, on 23 December 2001.

  In a 2002 interview, Büttner noted that film sound was recorded separately. "Every time I did the take, or someone else made a mistake, I would curse, and that would have gotten in, so we did the sound later."^[3] Lighting Directors of Photography on the film were Bernd Fischer and Anatoli Radionov.^[4] The director later drew a distinction between the whole project and the achievements of Büttner by 'rejecting', by letter,^[5] Büttner's nomination for a European Film Academy award, believing that only the whole film should gain an award."

  
  
• 
  

  March 09, 2012 at 11:57 PM, said ...

  They already did an 88 minute film with Al Pacino, didn't they?

• March 09, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mark Hazleton Jr. said ...

  Saw this a few hours ago...I wanted to listen to this review so bad but wanted to save it until after I watched it..bout to listen now. I did think it was shot (mostly) well...but I love how it was one shot for the entire film...they made it feel like it was well paced even with that. And Olsen's acting was great but overall it wasnt scary at all. It was impressive at times, but really not scary or even creepy at all. The vibe of it was pretty good though.

  So the directing and Olsen's acting alone was probably a high matinee...the movie all together though (since I was REALLY hoping to be freaked out) gets a high rental.

  
  
• 
  

  March 09, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Dante Webb said ...

  Hey Spill Crew,

  I like when you guys do a review when all of you havent seen the movie, you get the other guys in as well...it adds something cool to the review. Keep doing that!!

• March 09, 2012 at 8:23 PM, said ...

  All of those "house" references in the beginning and not one Full House reference? For shame!

  
  
• 
  

  March 09, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Señor Chaken said ...

  The trailer a lone pissed me the fuck off. Its a siloette of a guy in the rear view mirror, WHO... THE HELL... CARES?!?

• March 09, 2012 at 7:05 PM, said ...

  I'm still going to check it out though. at least im going in with knowing what to expect lol

  
  
• 
  

  March 09, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jon said ...

  I feel bad for ya Korey

  I hope they dont do that to every theater

  this movie does look creepy, and Elizabeth is doing wonders for herself so far

• March 09, 2012 at 4:37 PM, matty said ...

  The song at the end sounds like Radiohead.

  
  
• 
  

  March 09, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Matthew Dowling said ...

  Okay so the dad was gone for the entire movie.... mmmmm.... I am going to go with the Dad in the front room with a crowbar

• March 09, 2012 at 12:44 PM, said ...

  The original is not set in 40s, but both this and that movie are based on true events that happened in the 40s. But there's no word that can authenticate the claims. 

  
  
• 
  

  March 09, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Robert Michel said ...

  This ought to freak Cyrus out:

Post Comment