All posts by Josef Rodriguez

Hey, I'm Joey and I'm a (usually) film and pop culture blogger, but I'll write about pretty much anything.

5 Reasons LOCKOUT Might Suck, & 3 Why It Won’t – Plus, Several Clips…

In retrospect, it’s a little bit embarrassing to think that Lockout was on my most anticipated films of the year list. But I mean, how can you blame me? The film’s first preview was engaging enough, and for God’s sake, the movie had Guy Pearce in it. For those not familiar with the powerhouse of legendary action that is Guy Pearce, he’s the actor to beat all actors. I’ve only recently become a Guy Pearce fan, but after seeing some of the films in his resume, I can safely say that the guy is one of the most eclectic and talented guys working in film today.

So why would he accept a role as amateur as this? To be honest, I don’t know, but here are five reasons that lead me to believe that Lockout will not live up to its potential. I’ll also include three reasons why the inner action film fan in me is going to love this movie.

5. Lockout is rated PG-13.

Yes, yes. The dreaded PG-13 rating. Very few films have been able to truly push their PG-13 to its full potential (The Dark Knight and Titanic specifically), and I highly doubt that Lockout will be the film to break new ground with this MPAA certificate of approval. Had the film been rated R, it probably could have had the appeal of graphic violence in its favor. But alas, money is everything in Hollywood, and the more asses you can get into the seats, the happier the execs are.

Personally, I don’t think this film will work as a PG-13 film. The premise and central villain seem to be too gritty for a PG-13 movie. Then again, screenwriter Luc Besson kind of made Taken work as a PG-13 action movie, but just barely. I’m also definitely not expecting the Christopher Nolan level of genius that came with The Dark Knight.

4. The film’s writers/directors, James Mather and Stephen St. Leger have never made a feature film before. They’ve barely even made one short.

This reasoning can be considered invalid by a lot of readers, and I completely understand that. But look at this from my perspective. If your first film seems to be a witless, joyless, and ultimately brainless action film that happens to star a great actor, what can we expect from you in the future? I agree with the whole “where would we be as filmgoers if we never gave first time directors a chance?” mentality. But what I don’t agree with is letting what are pretty much two amateurs make a film like this. Granted, Lockout has a fairly modest budget of $30 million dollars (compare that to the $250 million dollar price tag on The Dark Knight Rises), but I’d like to see a feature film debut more along the lines of the ingenious Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil.

The last time we let a first time director make a big budget Guy Pearce movie, the result was the god-awful Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, and much like Lockout, it was vouched for by a very popular filmmaker (Guillermo Del Toro). I theorize that the only reason Lockout had a chance of being produced was because of Luc Besson who came up with the original idea and co-wrote the screenplay for the film. He also serves as executive producer on the picture. In other words, he really wanted to see this movie hit the big screen.

3. Luc Besson hasn’t written a truly good action movie in years.

This is one that I hate to have to bring up, but it’s true. It really is. Sure the guy has made a couple cool looking movies over the past few years with some great martial arts and some admittedly great gunplay, but have things really been great since The Professional? No, they haven’t. Sure, From Paris With Love and The Transporter trilogy had some moments of greatness, but overall, they were just pretty good. Really good even, but not great.

I respect Luc Besson, I really do. But at the end of the day, he’s great at one thing. Mindless action films. He rehashes his ideas and uses fast paced and slickly edited action sequences to get things moving. Like my mother always said, you can polish a turd but at the end of the day it’s still a piece of shit. (Had to throw in a Jody Hill reference to keep things moving!)

2. From Lockout‘s previews, it seems like the film has only so-so special effects. 

Earlier this year, a little $17 million dollar film called Chronicle was released and it completely turned the superhero genre on its head. I’m not sure if you guys remember, but the CGI in that film was pretty freaking fantastic. Now, after reading some advance reviews and rewatching the previews for Lockout, I can honestly say that without seeing the movie, the effects in this movie border on…pathetic.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the preview again, and when Guy Pearce is riding the futuristic looking motorcycle, tell me with a straight face that those CG graphics don’t look like something straight out of a video game. Which leads me to my final point…

1. The previews just suck…a lot.

Upon a first viewing of the preview for Lockout, I was intrigued and ultimately began to really anticipate this film. Now, I look at the preview and I just laugh. The cheesy one-liners, the crappy CG effects, the awful dialogue, and the borderline plagiarism that occurs in the story line (Escape from L.A. meets Die Hard, anyone?) On top of that, the cast is full of B and C list actors, not including Guy Pearce, that look flat out embarrassed to be on camera.

Now that I’ve basically shit on this movie before it’s even come out, here are three reasons why Lockout might not be as bad as we think…

3. Guy Pearce. 

Need I say more? The man is a god in his arena. He can do anything from a western to a sci-fi to a horror to a family drama, and he can do it damn well, too. I’ve never really seen him take on a role that he couldn’t handle. If anything else, Lockout will benefit from a committed performance by Pearce himself.

2. The premise is interesting enough, even if it’s been done before.

I’ll just be the asshole that goes ahead and says that even though this premise has been done to death, it still looks interesting in the context of this film. By essentially stealing from every other great breakout sci-fi action film of the 80s and 90s, Lockout mashes them all together into one big super movie and expects the audience to not know the difference. And while this is true for some to most regular movie-goers, film buffs are rather outraged by the film’s shameless borrowing tactics. I for one am open to the idea of derivative and mindless. It gives me a reason to waste 95 minutes of my life and for a decent enough reason at that. Action movies are fun, and the ones that aren’t fun can just go end up in the $5 dollar bin at WalMart.

1. Come on, people. That villain with the Scottish accent is pretty awesome.

Joseph Gilgun. A name not familiar to many, but to fans of “Misfits” and This Is England, you probably just jumped for joy at the sight of his name. For those who need to catch up, Joseph Gilgun is, for all intents and purposes, a bad ass. With an intensity similar to that of Tom Hardy in the 2008 film Bronson, Gilgun is able to channel what can be characterized as a slight bout of aggression, into some pretty phenomenal roles. I, for one, am thrilled to see him as Lockout‘s predominant villain. I have a feeling that after Pearce, Gilgun is definitely going to steal the show.

Here you have it folks. My reasoning behind why Lockout might suck, and why it might not. Feel free to comment and agree or disagree.

Original Lockout trailer:

Also, you can watch the first five minutes of the film, as well as a couple of other clips:

Will Ferrell Announces…Yes…A Sequel To Anchorman!

What seemed literally impossible a mere two weeks ago is now a green-lit reality. After making an outlandish appearance on “Conan”, Will Ferrell, in his Ron Burgundy persona, announced the confirmation of Anchorman 2. Personally, I find this announcement a little bit abrupt and unexpected only because just a couple of weeks ago, Will Ferrell was talking about how the project was “pretty much dead”. I’m interested as to whether he intentionally lied about the certainty of the project, or was he as surprised as his fans to be able to negotiate the deal with Paramount.

Continue reading Will Ferrell Announces…Yes…A Sequel To Anchorman!

A Look at Teen Culture and Our Thoughts on THE HUNGER GAMES

Being a high schooler in 2012 is possibly one of the most tiring things a human being can do. And when I say tiring, I don’t mean because of the work, because the homework is never as difficult as they say. It’s tiring because every damn week there’s a new trend that everyone is pressured into keeping up with. As the months proceed, I feel more and more behind the times because I can’t get into things until they’re not popular anymore. Call me what you want, but I seriously have no desire to flock to a line at 5 PM and wait for 7 hours to see a movie that I may or may not like.

Planking, coning, memes, Harry Potter, Glee, The Hunger Games, hipsters, auto-correct fails, Tumblr, Twitter, StumbleUpon, rage face, GIFs, Temple Run, StarKid, One Direction, remakes, 80s revival, skinny jeans, Urban Outfitters, frameless sunglasses, wayfarers, iPads, suspenders, bowties, Skype, screenshots, cats and cocaine in the same picture, dubstep, owling, swag, Odd Future, parkour, genre bending, cute Asian babies, being a liberal, tea, independent coffee shops, mustaches, general facial hair, European lifestyles, being a fake vegan, Words with Friends, Google, trolling, Ryan Gosling, Spotify, being clever, being sarcastic, being an asshole, messy hair, high waisted pants, desert boots, headbands, rain, rainbows, photobombing, henna, links, black people, Kony, hand jewelry, henna tattoos, coconut water, being first, Lana Del Rey, Adele, Dev, small venues, “Tosh.O”, homelessness, irony, sleeve tattoos, hair, vintage anything, thrifting, Goodwill, sweaters, Jason Segel, braids, bikes, lipstick, pixie cuts, Neil Patrick Harris, “How I Met Your Mother”, “New Girl”, “Portlandia”, “Game of Thrones”, puns, bad jokes, anti-jokes, dimples, being cute, puppies, kitties, “Tosh.O”, “Awkward”, “Workaholics”, Paul Rudd, “Key and Peele”, Netflix, Hulu, anything but YouTube, viral videos, CGI, 3D, velvet, skirts, leggings, jeggings,  and yes, even Pokemon, are a few of the many, many things that the kids are doing these days. In fact, by the time I post this, a few of these things might even be irrelevant.

See, I’m not necessarily opposed to all of these popular things, because to be honest I’m a fan of most of these things. I just fear the children of our generation and how easily they can flee from one item of popular culture. I remember just two years ago when “die-hard” Twilight fans would literally get into fist fights about Jacob vs. Edward. Now, they couldn’t care less about what the hell Taylor Lautner is up to. But for aspiring actors and artists and musicians, isn’t that terrifying? Aren’t you scared that unless you’re able to stay as relevant as the youth is demanding, you’ll be cast away in the sea of other former Grammy winners and franchise stars? I mean for God’s sake, anytime I mention Justin Bieber to somebody, they say, “Justin Bieber? You’re joking right? It’s about One Direction, now.” I remember a time when anytime I said something remotely negative about the Biebs, I would get smacked in the freaking face.

As a teenager, I respect the fact that teens are looking for a new piece of entertainment to hold on to. We get bored quickly, I get it. But as an aspiring filmmaker and musician, I’m terrified that if I ever create something remotely popular, a mere three months after I’ll be referred to as “the guy who made that one good song” or “the guy who made that one good movie”. And I’m not trying to be dramatic or anything like that, but if you’re a teenager and reading this, think about it. Do you still love Twilight like you may have when it first came out?

I blame this on the rapidly shrinking attention spans of teens. When I was around 5, I remember patiently waiting twenty minutes for a video or a computer game to load, and I got super excited when it was finally loaded. Now, unless a webpage loads in like 12 seconds, I start freaking out about how slow the internet is. So yes, I admit that I have adopted the impatience as the rest of my generation, but what can be expected of a world where things as enticing as text messages, instant messages, micro blogging, and video sharing are just a click and scroll away!

Even my parents have become completely consumed with all the new technological appliances surrounding them. I’m the only person left in my family who doesn’t have an iPhone, and whether for work purposes or not, the thing I hear most in my house now is “Hey, Joey, can I use your iPad?” I find myself sending more texts and emails for them while they’re driving than I do for myself. Not a complaint, just an observation. Sorry to put you on the spot, mom.

All I’m saying is, I think we need to slow down just a little bit. We’re ingesting all this information, and we don’t know what to do with all of it. It’s a reality that becomes truer and more prevalent with every iOS update. My advice? If you’re going to fry your mind staring at a computer screen for eight to ten hours a day, at least do what I do and go outside while you’re doing it. Because if you don’t, you’ll probably just end up overusing technology and your life will become eerily similar to that of the characters in Up. Or, they could go the exact opposite way, and we could have a second holocaust, much like what happens in The Hunger Games. It’s really up for debate at this point.

The Hunger Games, based on the bestselling series by Suzanne Collins, follows Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a skilled hunter and matriarchal figure to her younger sister, Primrose (Willow Shields). In this futuristic dystopia, food is given to those who enter their name into a contest called “The Hunger Games”. Every year, there’s a Reaping Day where two names, one boy and one girl, from each of the twelve districts is handpicked by Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), one of the faces of the Hunger Games. The twelve districts are named as such due to class, and district twelve, the poorest of them all, is home to the Everdeen family.

During the Reaping, against all odds, Primrose is selected, despite her name only being in the bowl once. Out of fear, Katniss volunteers herself as tribute, or, as a contestant in the games. Both delighted and surprised, Trinket proceeds to pick a boy, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a farmer boy who’s had a crush on Katniss for years. The two are then taken to the Capitol, who now controls the twelve districts after they waged war about a century earlier.

Their mentor, Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) guides them as they train for the games, while they are dolled up for national television on a program hosted by Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), who looks strangely like the evil Inspector Gadget from the Matthew Broderick version. All of this is in preparation for the big day. For the Hunger Games.

When I first saw the trailers for The Hunger Games, I groaned in displeasure as I saw what looked to be the next Twilight. After seeing the film, a part of me is right, and another part of me is wrong. On a scale of Eragon to Harry PotterThe Hunger Games places a little bit above The Twilight Saga: Eclipse but lower than Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. In human being language, that basically means that it’s pretty good, but not great. With a great performance by Woody Harrelson, and a decent one by Jennifer Lawrence, as well as some fantastic set pieces that don’t suffer from too much CGI, The Hunger Games definitely isn’t the worst movie you could see this weekend.

In fact, it’s definitely the most exciting, but a lot more could have been done to create quality entertainment. For one, hire a new director for God’s sake. Not since Catherine Hardwicke’s clunky directing in the first Twilight film have I seen such unnecessarily shaky and displeasing camerawork. I swear, watching Katniss walk through a forest was the equivalent of a three year old child who happened to get hold of a camcorder. It truly was awful, and in attempt to be edgy, it just ends up looking stupid. I hoped and prayed that once the action started, that crap would stop. But no, it didn’t, it got worse. Even my friend who I saw the movie with said to me, “Dude is your head starting hurt from all the shakiness or is it just me?”

Another thing that might have enhanced the whole movie was to appeal to people who aren’t familiar with the source material. As a big budget blockbuster, you have to appeal to mass audiences, emphasis on the mass. Not everyone who’s going to see this movie has read the original books, so it’s important that as a filmmaker you introduce these new terms and characters and plot points at a comfortable pace for everybody. It’s the same thing that my teachers always say, “Pretend like you’re writing this essay for somebody who has no idea what you’re writing about.” It just gives the audience more of a reason to care about what’s going on in the movie.

My final complaint is the PG-13 rating. I get it, you wanted to make a lot of money. You wanted to start a franchise. You wanted everyone to go and see this movie. But with the shaky cam, and the beautifully designed sets, why not just slash the budget in half, cut the caterers, and take the R-Rating. It would have enhanced the film’s second half, and it probably would have made everything even more intense. Not that the action doesn’t already push the envelope, because it really does, but I came to this movie to see people getting cut up and sliced open. And if I don’t get that, what stops me and thousands of other people from just going and re-watching Battle Royale, since it’s essentially the exact same premise.

As far as the positives, there are plenty as well. Once the games actually start, the intensity level rises to a million and it doesn’t let go for the entire 90 minutes that we’re following the characters through the games. At 144 minutes, The Hunger Games sure as hell doesn’t feel like it. What it does feel like, though, is a prelude to something bigger. Something even more exciting and even more dramatic than this first installment in what is sure to be the biggest franchise since the Boy Who Lived hit the silver screen.

I know, I know, I’m being a little tough on this movie. But that’s only because I want this franchise to be successful. I really do. There were a lot of redeeming qualities that I wished had been used to their fullest extent. Instead, I feel like we’re only getting a half-assed product. With that being said, half assing something this epic is still better than all the crappy horror flicks released this year combined. The Hunger Games is really just a film meant to be seen with a group, in IMAX, in a big theater, with your friends. It’s an experience that really only takes full effect with a giant screen and two of your funniest friends cracking jokes at all the unintentional hilarity that occurs. And while this is all fun and dandy now, when it comes time to look back on this franchise, will it be seen as one that really changed the way we look at films, and the way we look at big budget flicks? Probably not.

If you ask me, the whole movie is just a metaphor for the holocaust. The way they line them up, make them dress up in plainclothes, the way they glamorize everything, the propaganda. It all makes sense if you look at it from a historical perspective. The thing that really got me going on that was the scene in the very beginning where they show a short PSA from the Capitol on how important the Hunger Games were to the survival of the economy and their people. Basically, spewing all this crap in a failed attempt to get people to not panic so much. But author Suzanne Collins says the whole thing is based on Greek Mythology, so I guess I’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Still, go see the movie. Love it, enjoy it, revel in all of its glory. I admit that there’s a little kid in me that got excited when things got tense, but as a critic I have a duty to tell you what the film really boils down to. A series of missed opportunities that still amounts to a halfway decent action flick. So, have a happy Hunger Games, and may the odds be ever in your favor.

3/5 Bears

Teaser For Cronenberg’s New Thriller ‘Cosmopolis’

David Cronenberg is one of those directors who’s really never made a bad film, yet he’s never even been nominated for an Oscar. Why? Because the Oscars are bullshit, but what else is new? Cronenberg, much like other extremely cerebral directors like William Friedkin and Harmony Korine, has a way of tapping into the human psyche in a way that seems comfortably strange. Relatable in some ways, completely unheard of in others.

Last year, Cronenberg directed the critically acclaimed and surprisingly mainstream erotic-drama-thriller, A Dangerous Method. This year, he seems to be going back to his surrealist routes with CosmopolisStarring Robert Pattinson, the film follows Eric Packer, a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager whose day devolves into an odyssey with a cast of characters that start to tear his world apart. Based on the novel by Don DeLillo, Cronenberg will write and direct this film, set to be released sometime in 2012.

For those of you doubting the strength of Robert Pattinson as an actor, just shut up. Seriously, just shut up already. The guy did the nearly impossible – He escaped the Twilight persona. Robert Pattinson is an extremely talented young actor with an already eclectic resume and disgustingly bright future ahead of him. And I’m not just saying this because I love Twilight, which I don’t. I’m saying it because the difference between him and Taylor Lautner is that Pattinson actually understands the meaning of emotion and facial expression.

If you’re still skeptical, check out the teaser trailer below. Cosmopolis also stars Paul Giamatti, Samantha Morton, Jay Baruchel, Kevin Durand, and Juliette Binoche, AKA, the best cast I’ve seen this year thus far.

Grizzly Review: Casa de mi Padre

Will Ferrell is possibly the most creative man working in comedy today. There you go, I said it. Allow me to convince you further. Will Ferrell has starred in some extremely funny movies about newscasters, race car drivers, step brothers, the NYPD, figure skating, minor league basketball, used car salesmen, male models, human elves, and coaching kids’ soccer. He’s also co-founder of the legendary comedy sketch site, Funny or Die. This year, he’s also starring in The Campaign, a film about two North Carolina senators with presidential aspirations that end up childishly competing for the top spot.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that Will Ferrell is a God in his arena, and has earned his fans through a lot of hard work. But as funny as he is, it was never imagined that he would make a film that could be considered “revolutionary” or “important”. The crazy part, though, is that he did, and it’s called Casa de mi Padre. What makes this film so important isn’t necessarily its screenplay, its cast, its director, or even really the film itself. It’s important because it’s one of the few, if not first, times that an American actor has tackled a completely different language for an entire movie, and spoken the language well.

Following rancher Armando Alvarez (Will Ferrell), Casa de mi Padre follows Armando as he tries to prove to his father, Miguel Ernesto (Pedro Armendariz Jr.) and his drug dealing brother, Raul (Diego Luna), that he is able to take on the rights and responsibilities of a respected man. After a long time away from home, Raul returns with his fiancee, Sonia (Genesis Rodriguez), a beautiful woman who isn’t actually in love with Raul, but with Armando. Raul’s return home is met with some bad news by his father. The Alvarez Ranch is deep in debt, and has no way of coming up with the money. Raul promises he will take care of everything, but Armando soon learns that Raul’s business isn’t exactly legal.

After learning of Sonia’s whereabouts and plans to marry Raul, The Onza (Gael Garcia Bernal), Mexico’s other richest and most ruthless drug dealer, devises a plan to kill Raul and get his woman back into his arms where she belongs. Now, it’s up to Armando save the day and get the respect from his family that he knows he deserves.

Casa de mi Padre is a sporadically hilarious and ultimately brilliant experiment for Will Ferrell, who has really taken a risk with this film. Stating that the film will actually have a bigger release in Mexico than in the United States, after seeing the film, I’ve almost realized why. The film really caters toward the Hispanic community. Many of the jokes will be lost on American audiences, and unless you speak or understand Spanish, much of the banter between best friends and long-time collaborators Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal will really just fly over your head.

As for Will Ferrell, he’s such a dedicated actor that he really does make the Spanish work. It’s evident through his other films that he’s always had an interest in Latin culture, but up until now he’s never been able to flesh out the ideas as much as he’s always wanted. Through Andrew Steele’s script and Matt Piedmont’s hilarious direction, Ferrell and the rest of the cast are able to really create a culturally astute and politically necessary film that suggests a step forward in the bond between the United States and Mexico. With all of the atrocities going on due to the cartel, it’s refreshing to see that two nations with such seemingly opposite ways of life are able to do something so unified.

Granted, not everything in the film works, with its script about half as funny as the ever-present physical comedy that Ferrell’s movies are known for, but the lack of laughs in the film’s first half is not only made up for in its second half, but can be overlooked due to the sheer brilliance of the premise and goal of Casa de mi Padre. At 84 minutes, the whole thing flies by with ease, but when I was walking out, I felt like I had just been a part of a life changing social experiment that would forever change the way I look at movies.

There are critics who are deeming the film racist towards Mexicans, racist towards Americans, and just all around racist. Allow me to retort. As a Mexican-American, I can honestly say, on both accounts, that Casa de mi Padre is not racist. In fact, it’s anything but. By poking fun at both Mexican and American cultures without being mean-spirited and obvious, the film finds a wonderful balance between culture and hilarity, offering a good dose of both that kept me involved and engaged.

The fresh gags and inspired performances from the entire cast puts Casa de mi Padre in the same league as other ingenious spoofs (or homages depending on how you look at it) like Black Dynamite, Machete, and Grindhouse. What really gets me about the accusations of racism is the fact that two years ago, when Machete was released, nobody claimed it was racist because it was made by a Mexican filmmaker, even though the jokes were just as concerned with Hispanic culture as they are in Casa de mi Padre. But now that white filmmakers are doing the joking, it’s considered racism.

It’s unfortunate that a film like this doesn’t get the recognition that it deserves. There really is a lot to love about Casa de mi Padre, but it seems like a lot of American critics just don’t fully understand all of the jokes, or the entire message portrayed in the film. If there was one line to really sum up what Casa de mi Padre is all about, it’d be an exchange between Armando and an FBI agent towards the end of the film. The agent tells Armando, “Not all Americans are bad,” which Armando responds to with, “Not all Mexicans are drug dealers.” Indeed, Will Ferrell. Indeed.

3.5/5 Bears

Grizzly Review: Silent House

THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS REGARDING THE CONCLUSION OF SILENT HOUSE

Memories and dreams have a fascinating way of surfacing themselves through what’s known as a “trigger”. For instance, it’s been proven that a person who has a panic attack is susceptible to have another one if put in the exact same geographical location of where the first one occurred, regardless of the emotions currently expressed in that place. I, myself, have had some experience with this, and it’s very odd to be in a place where something unpleasant has happened to you. Even though you’re no longer in any danger, you almost get the feeling that the place itself is going to attack you.

Silent House takes this premise, and essentially capitalizes on the fear that comes with remembrance. Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen), a beautiful girl in her early twenties, is moving out of her childhood home. With help from her father, John (Adam Trese), and her uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens), they plan to be out of the house as soon as possible. John and Peter take some pictures of a hole in the wall chewed out by rats, and after arguing with each other, Peter storms out angry.

After a few minutes, an old friend, Sophia (Julia Taylor Ross) comes by and catches up with Sarah who doesn’t even remember her. Her and Sophia make plans to hang out before she leaves, with Sarah agreeing. Before she creepily rides off, Sarah assures Sophia that she remembers her. Sophia simply says, “I know you do. How could you not?” and rides off. When she goes back in the house, she hears a loud bang, and her and her father go up to investigate. This, my good people, is where the madness begins.

If you’ve heard of Silent House, you’ve probably heard of the method they used to shoot it. One take. The whole movie is one take. Supposedly. Elizabeth Olsen herself has said that there are thirteen hidden edits in the film. I’m not sure if that means added visual effects in post, or what, but considering some of the lens changes in certain scenes, I doubt it was actually all filmed in one take. Still, Silent House succeeds due to its deliberate plotting, excellent tension, and incredible ending.

The whole film is, in fact, a metaphor for rape. This is where the spoilers come. The end of the film reveals that both Sarah’s father and uncle molested her as a child, taking pictures with a Polaroid camera. The reason I mentioned the use of the camera before was for this exact reason. During that scene, Sarah’s face is subtly uncomfortable. It’s not the most obvious thing in the world, but it’s there. In fact, every step, every shot, every turn, look, jump, and scream has a purpose.

I’ve been listening about how great Elizabeth Olsen is for almost an entire year, now, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen her in a movie. She completely exceeded my expectations and totally blew me away. If that girl doesn’t win an Oscar by the end of the 2010s, I might just lose my mind. Her portrayal of a mental breakdown through recollection is one of the best performances I’ve seen recently, and the amount of terror that is evident in her entire body makes up for the lack of any real scares in the actual film.

Silent House is more of a psychological thriller-mystery as opposed to just plain horror, which I actually appreciate. It’s more concerned with telling a story than actually scaring you. That’s not to say that it isn’t creepy, because it is. It really is, but screenwriter Laura Lau was much more fascinated with the psyche of a rape victim almost twenty years after the abuse. The character of Sarah could just as well have been the stereotypical dumb girl trapped in the house. Usually in these films, there’s an easy way out, but the protagonist is just too stupid to see it. This is not the case, because Sarah’s fear is not only genuine, but it’s also helpless enough for us to see that there really is no way out. She’s as stuck in the house as she’s going to get, raising the stakes as well as our heart rate.

But if there’s any other “character” in the film that brings almost as much emotion as Sarah, it’s cinematographer Igor Martinovic. The stunning and frankly breathtaking visuals of Silent House serve as a character on its own. The particular sequence that really got me was when Sarah escapes the house about halfway through the film, and she’s just sprinting for dear life from the place. I’ve never seen anything like that before and it really just blew me away.

There are many interpretations one can make from the film, but one of the more divided opinions is that of Sophia. Some say she was real, others claim she wasn’t. Personally, I think that Sophia serves as an alter-ego of sorts to Sarah who entered her mind when her father and uncle raped her, but I guess I can’t be sure. I’m almost tempted to go back and watch Silent House again to see if I can catch some of the little subtleties I may have missed.

The negative reviews are expected for an art-house flick with such a heavy subject, but in all honesty, I loved that Silent House worked strictly as metaphor. Nothing more, nothing less. Silent House is truly unlike any horror film I’ve seen recently, and for that, I’m very appreciative.  The obviously misleading ads are going to get the asses in the seats, but getting them to stay there will be quite difficult, which is disappointing considering how much American audiences crave something new. As a loose remake of the 2010 Spanish-language film The Silent House, this remake changes the premise up a little bit, and adds an art-house twist that makes it all the more inviting. But this is one front door you don’t want to walk in to.

4/5 Bears