Film Fests
[REVIEW] ‘Silent House’ (2011) Could Have Made More Noise
Silent House (2011) is beyond frustrating and limits itself in every aspect by forcing itself into a corner. With bad acting, abysmal lighting, an unfortunate script, and a gimmick that has no payoff, Silent House should have stayed quiet forever.
Horror is no stranger to gimmicks. From the use of 3-D to make it look like an eye is plopping out of the screen into your lap, the “tingler” gimmick from William Castle’s The Tingler (among many of his gimmicks), to the lesser-used gimmick: the one-shot. Out of all the gimmicks used to make a film stand out, the one-shot/one-take hasn’t been utilized as much as it could have been. One of the best examples is the opening shot from 2017’s One Shot of the Dead. Besides Rope, one-take horror films don’t really exist. That was until the 2010 Uruguayan film La Casa Muda, was remade as Silent House. Was this film spectacular? No. Was it actually shot in one take? Definitely no. Was it fresh and interesting? Without a doubt.
La Casa Muda Becomes Silent House
With a timeframe turnaround that can only be compared to the Speak No Evil remake, La Casa Muda would be remade one year later by the team from 2005’s pulse-pounding Open Water. In typical American remake fashion, nearly everything that worked for La Casa Muda would be reworked and retooled.
Silent House follows Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) and her father John (Adam Trese) as they arrive at their family lake house to repair it and pack it up for a future sale. Sarah’s uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens) is at the house doing some repairs. The windows are boarded up from people breaking in, and the house lacks power, so the three must exist within the home by lamplight. It soon becomes clear that things are far from what they seem when a supernatural intruder locks itself in with them. “Based on a true story,” Silent House tells its tale in a “single 86-minute shot.”
Silent House Fails Its One-Shot Gimmick
It’s important to rip the bandaid off fast. Silent House is not a good film. From the very first time Uncle Peter holds the door open for the camera, to Elizabeth Olson’s final breathy performance, Silent House becomes frustrating at the fault of its gimmick. Anyone with a modicum understanding of editing could see the awful cuts in this film. Turning the camera incredibly fast to hide a cut or filling the frame with nothing but black is amateurish and frankly embarrassing. One of the best aspects of La Casa Muda is how they hide their cuts, and even though it’s done in similar ways, it’s done better.
For some reason, Silent House decided to switch up the story a little. Rather than a story that lends ambiguity until a pivotal moment, a la La Casa Muda, Silent House decides to throw so many clues your way that you’ve guessed the ending by about 20 minutes in. The performances don’t help this film at all, either. Sophia’s (Julia Chan) entrance is supposed to be ambiguous, but still ominous. Instead, Chan hams up a performance as if she was supposed to be the film’s lead. On top of that, Elizabeth Olson seems to think her performance hinges on how heavily she can breathe for 86 minutes.
Lighting and Cinematography Missteps
La Casa Muda is lit similarly, with a lamplight, but it’s impressive how using a different bulb can make such a difference in the lighting and image quality. In Silent House, Elizabeth uses a warm-toned orange bulb, which doesn’t mesh with how it’s filmed. Conversely, La Casa Muda uses a harsh white bulb that adds a blue tinge to the image and, most importantly, LETS YOU SEE WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING.
Silent House was the first film I bought in my first semester of college when my major was initially supposed to be film. When I was thinking of what haunted house movies to talk about for October, this was one of the first that came to mind. The pretentious film bro Brendan hated this movie. At that point, I thought the gimmick was cheap and lazy, but I was also experiencing films like Chinatown and The Godfather. Current me was sure I had misremembered this film and hoped I was just being too film-bro-y when I first watched it. All I can say is, that 2012 me was right.
Silent House Should Have Stayed Silent
Silent House (2011) is beyond frustrating and limits itself in every aspect by forcing itself into a corner. With bad acting, abysmal lighting, an unfortunate script, and a gimmick that has no payoff, Silent House should have stayed quiet forever.
It’s very interesting when critics cover Part # of a franchise without having seen the previous entries. I’ve personally seen critics who flat-out say that Part 2 or 3 doesn’t make sense without having seen the previous film. And therein lies the problem: film critics who refuse to admit they haven’t seen EVERYTHING. But does the hard work rely solely on the film critic (or the general viewer)? Should a sequel (or third in a trilogy) drop in heavy context clues for someone who is just now tuning in? I think the answer falls somewhere between those points. Of the many reasons, that is one of the main reasons I was able to enjoy The Barn Part III so much. Let’s dig into it.
Some time ago, Pastor Josh Harper (Courtney Gains) assumed he had rid the world of evil. He was dead wrong. Well, hopefully just wrong. His nephew Kyle (Tristan Olsen) and friend Megan (Amanda Byrne) accidentally re-unleash the evil; Josh must attempt to vanquish it. Again. There’s just one big problem…the Fall Festival is going on, and damn near the entire town will be in attendance. What can go wrong?
Can You Review PT. 3 Without Seeing PTS. 1&2?
Before we really get into it, I think we should jump back to the point I was making in the intro. I have seen tons of posts, screenshots, and scenes from The Barn franchise over the years. For some reason, I’ve never gotten around to seeing the films. So there was a sort of internal struggle when deciding whether or not to cover The Barn Part III. Would I watch it just for fun? What if I didn’t like it? Sure, I could review the film on its own merits, disregarding moments that don’t make sense to a first-time viewer. But that felt disingenuous. After writing a weighty pros and cons list, I figured, what the hell. Let’s give it a watch! It turns out that was the right decision.
Co-writers Justin M. Seamen and Zane Hershberger do an excellent job of balancing fan service and, surprisingly, first-time viewers. There are definitely moments where I felt a bit lost, though I was able to put the pieces together based on context clues after sitting with the film for a few hours. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I saw enough (as a first time viewing of the franchise) to understand how we got to this point in the franchise. Moreover, it made me more motivated than ever to go back and watch the first two films. If The Barn Part III is this gory, then I can only assume there’s a similar level of gore to the first two.
Strong Script, Stronger Kills
Hershberger and Seamen tell a tale that’s not overwhelmingly original; evil is raised and must be stopped by the good people. It’s a race against the clock, fast-paced creature feature/slasher. It’s hard to really reinvent the wheel there. And somehow, Herhshberger and Seamen manage to make you feel like you haven’t really seen anything like it before. Even during moments of slightly cheesy dialogue, the script’s tone stays beyond consistent that it just all feels right. To me, that feels very rare in this subgenre of film. Rather than being nothing but conduits for buckets of blood, the characters in The Barn Part III exist within their story purpose while still feeling fully fleshed out.
Much of The Barn Part III’s enjoyment comes from the delightful performances of the film’s lead cast. Courtney Gains takes the reins from Will Stout as Josh Harper, and Gains is wonderfully charming. Much of his screen time is shared with Night of the Comet’s Kelli Maroney, who is still an absolute blast to watch on the screen. But it’s one of The Barn Part III’s co-leads, Amanda Byrne, who steals the show. It’s hard to believe this film is Byrne’s debut feature acting role. She really gives it her all, and you can feel it through the screen.
The Barn Part III Is a Practical Effect Gorefest
Enough edging. Let’s get into the actual meat and potatoes of The Barn Part III: the kills. Simply put, Justin M. Seamen and Zane Hershberger struck gold. I’ve seen way too many slasher films/creature features, so this isn’t hyperbolic…The Barn Part III has some of the most insane, captivating, and bloody kills I’ve seen. Especially for an indie film. Whatever the budget was, the film looks like it was more expensive than that.
I have a feeling that there is a heavy crossover between fans of this franchise and Joe Bob Briggs, so let me put it to you this way. The Barn Part III has it all: bisections, dissections, full-body degloving, mini killer pumpkins, pitchfork-fu, shotgun-fu, vine-fu…and that’s just scratching the surface. Besides transporting me to a time and place that I hold dear to my heart, the late 90s and early aughts, this film just checked every single box for me. I can only hope the first two do the same.
The Barn Part III is a violent, practical effects-filled rollercoaster that doesn’t let off the brakes from the jump. To me, this feels like the proper send-off to a franchise I’m new to, and it’s giving me severe FOMO. Full of insane kills and a charming main cast, The Barn Part III is neck and neck for best of the fest for me. Do yourself a favor, gas up your tractor and get to The Barn as soon as possible.
I frequently start my reviews about horror comedies along the lines of, “I typically don’t enjoy horror comedies…” and I noticed something: I’ve been saying that a lot. Has there been such a shift in horror comedies over the past few years? Or have I finally started looking in the right places? I started saying that line in my festival review coverage around the time I saw Sean Nichols Lynch’s Red Snow, and here I am five years later saying the same exact thing. Have I changed? Probably. All of that is to say, the first film I screened for GenreBlast X was Demonitize, and it restored my faith in the make-fun-of-influencers subgenre of horror.
What Is Demonitize About?
Martin Robinson (Sean Carrigan), host of Ghost Pros, and his cameraman/sidekick Terrence (Matty Cardarople) plan to bring the Ratliff House into the internet age. After Martin calls out Paul Corey (Cherdleys) on Jackie London’s (Kimia Behpoornia!!) podcast, Paul and a host of other online influencers, including Jane Lincoln (Janine Hogan), descend onto the Ratliff House to see if it’s as haunted as everyone says it is. But little does everyone know what deadly plans the ghosts have in store for the ill-fated influencers.
There Is NO AI in Demonitize!
First off, whoever’s idea it was to have “fuck AI” at the end of the credits deserves a standing ovation. Co-writers Janine Hogan and Alexander Boyd Watson took a chance with Demonitize, battling the influx of influencer-based horror. Very few seem to really nail the cohesion of creating characters who are just annoying enough without pissing off the filmgoer and crafting the right characters to make you feel something for. Moreover, the way Hogan and Watson craft an ensemble piece that gives everyone a moment to shine (like a diamond or a turd) helps glue the emotional threads from tip to tail.
Impressive Script About Annoying People
It’s hard not to be impressed by the writing prowess of this duo, but what’s even harder not to be impressed by is the restraint it took to not make Demonitize a found footage film. And that’s coming from someone who would consider found footage to be their favorite subgenre. There are a handful of times when you can see/feel the budget, which could have been easily obfuscated through found footage means. But instead, Demonitize is presented traditionally–warts and all– and you can feel the charm and craft behind it.
Much of the humor from Demonitize comes from Paul Corey and Martin Robinson. Cherdlys and Sean Carrigan, respectively, bring enough charm to their characters while maintaining the line of good and bad taste. Director Alexander Boyd Watson could have easily let Cherdlys take the Shawn Ruddy a la Deadstream route, but that route never works. Rather, Watson’s direction is more gauchely soft. We constantly get that influencer-like humor and annoyance, but there’s a beautiful balance that keeps everything entertaining.
The Horror of It All
While the humor lands and feels purposeful, Demonitize exists in this eerily frightening atmosphere. Once the house takes control, the humor slowly fades, leading to some memorable and creepy moments. The horror-y side of Demonitize won’t keep you up at night, nor will it make you rush to your bedroom after shutting off the hallway lights, but it’s different enough to stand out from the majority of influencer-based horror flicks.
There are some moments where the filmmakers rely a bit too heavily on CGI that doesn’t look too great. And honestly, it’s a relief to know their stance on AI. Too many times I have caught a film at a festival, and it’s full of AI, and no one seems to care. So it’s refreshing to see some CGI that maybe doesn’t look the greatest, but at least it’s not AI!
Overall, Demonitize is a fresh flick in an oversaturated subgenre. It delivers on laughs, some solid scares, and a cast of social media-obsessed people who you actually don’t hate. And that’s rare. Demonitize is a great horror film to throw on your rotation for our upcoming 31 for 31 (or 61 Days to Halloween). And extra points because this is now the second horror film I’ve seen with a Dropout.TV cast member!
