MovieChat Forums > Silent House (2012) Discussion > I Asked For A Refund

I Asked For A Refund

posted 13 years ago by LMScully
144 replies | jump to latest

I have been an avid movie goer for nearly 30 years and today was the first time in my life that I felt so ripped off I actually asked for my ticket to be refunded. I tried to get past the nauseating shaky camera and blurry actors. The only scenes that were in focus were the never ending cleavage shots of Elizabeth Olsen. I guess the gratuitous shots of her perky assets were intended to distract the audience from what a steaming pile they were watching. I feel bad for Elizabeth because she deserves better than this film.

I'm not certain how the comparison started with this film and the 'Paranormal Activity' films. While these movies certainly weren't great, they were Merchant Ivory quality compared to this. I've read some of the comments here and several posts nailed it. If you think you are going to see a haunted house, ghost, or scary movie, you have been trolled. 'Silent House' received an F from CinemaScore for a reason.

This movie is...

'High Tension' + 'An American Haunting' + scenes from 'The Butterfly Effect'. There aren't any ghosts, demons or scary neighbor folk. There is a psychotic young woman, mild gore and heavy-handed child sexual abuse scenes and imagery. Sex acts with her father while her uncle watched and photographed. A continuous scene where you see a bed filling up with blood, a naked girl sitting in a bathtub full of beer bottles, the water red with her virgin blood, the reflection of a toilet in the bathroom mirror with a constant stream of blood coming out of it that starts gushing. I went in to see a horror movie, not kiddie porn.

[–] residentLeon 13 years ago

i went and saw battlefield earth years ago when it was in theater.i have to admit one of the worest movies i ever saw and it was over 2 hours long. i sat through the whole movie anyway.i want to get what i paid for.i will never ask for a refund nor get up and leave a movie i paid to see.
as for this movie i bought it and actually i find it`s scary at time.and really got my mind running around trying to figure it out.i have to say all in all i like this movie. actually for the record this movie not the worst movie i ever saw battlefield earth top the list in my book.

[–] r_zarco92 13 years ago

Though the movie isnt a horror masterpiece, it is a good thriller, and there is no heavy-handed child sexual abuse scenes and imagery, most of it is implied (though very obviously) the sexual imagery isnt graphic at all (there are laws, it's imposible to release a movie with heavy-handed child sexual abuse imagery) and if you think this movie is really graphic, you clearly havent seen Joseph Gordon Levitt's Mysterious Skin, the movie was ballsy, and yes the trailers were misleading but if the trailers werent as misleading they would've spoiled the movie because the twist becomes really obvious

[–] Taxpanda66 13 years ago

Ugh!!! Thank goodness a friend rented this at Blockbuster and then gave it to me to watch for free. If I could rate it a Zero I would. Horrible!!!!!!!

[–] cmcasper 13 years ago

Yep!

[–] cmcasper 13 years ago

OK, I stopped reading at about page 5. For those of you defending the original poster here because "the theaters do not make their money on the box office, they make it on concessions" is a worthless argument. Sure, more money comes from concessions than box office, but the last I checked, it's still at least $8 for a single ticket, which is a good haul if you are the movie theater. But, like I said, that is beside the point. Unless the movie theater is stupid enough to have a "if you don't love the movie, get a full refund" promotion, asking for a refund is nothing other than cheap! And if you bought $50 in concessions, and asked for a ticket refund, why not just ask for your concession money back, too? Heck, if you got a refund for your ticket, you shouldn't be forced to lose money on anything else, either, right? What about the money you spent on gas to get to and from the theater? You should probably get your money back for that, too.

And for the holier than thou piece of garbage who says that we should talk to people on these boards as if we were talking to them face to face? I guarantee you that I would say the exact same thing if you were standing right in front of me.

Ignorance is bliss? B.S. Ignorance is stupid!

[–] bing-57 12 years ago

> Sure, more money comes from concessions than box office, but the last I checked, it's still at least $8 for a single ticket, which is a good haul if you are the movie theater.

The thing is that if you ask for and get a refund, the theater does not pay the movie distributor anything for that seat. The movie theater breaks even, just the same as if you had read how horrible the movie was and didn't go and give him $8 two hours earlier.

The difference between a movie and a steak dinner is that movies sometimes have surprise endings and so on, so the only way to really know if a movie was good is to watch the whole thing. You only need a few bites out of a steak to know that it is bad and is not going to get any better.

> Heck, if you got a refund for your ticket, you shouldn't be forced to lose money on anything else, either, right? What about the money you spent on gas to get to and from the theater?

Nobody actually asks for that money back. If the popcorn was tasty, then all is good.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] Asia82 13 years ago

I have to admit, if I go to the movies and I have a feeling it may not be all that great, but I'm interested I'll sneak in after seeing a movie I actually paid for. I know it sounds horrible, but movies are expensive these days. The last fess movies I did that with was Snow White and the Huntsman (awful movie) and Savages. If I had paid to see that crap I probably would've asked for a refund too.

[–] mulholland_empire 12 years ago

this is one of the worst movies ever made. so, so terrible, not one scary moment, lame as can be "plot twist" and the cheesiest story any screenwriter can ever come up with. (yes is know its a remake and that it was based on a semi-true story) but please, i cant imagine a worse horror movie to come out this year. how can you go from open water to this turd. AWFUL, just AWFUL! the director and writer should be ashamed to come up with such a piece of crap. so far elizebeth olsen has made two of the worst movies ive ever seen. dnt think ill be watching anything else with her in it for a long time, or maybe ever.

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 12 years ago

I don't think it was that bad

mulder it's me
http://www.alienware.com

[–] jaddison383 12 years ago

I can understand being disappointed in a movie, but asking for a refund is ridiculous and childish. You paid for a product that has no guarantee. It wasn't falsely advertised, and it is a built-in stipulation of going to the movies that you may not like what you watch. It's not the theater's fault. Why should they have to pay you back?

Father. Mother. Always you wrestle inside me. Always you will.

[–] Gbolling1984 12 years ago

i think it's interesting because it seems like the main complaint is "it wasn't what I expected". I just watched this at home and while the twist is by no means innovative or profoundly original, i still thought it was pretty effective throughout. I actually didn't like the "one continuous shot" angle at all. It distracted me and made me aware i was watching a movie and it almost took me out of it at times. but the fact that the film didn't go down the typical haunted house route is something I appreciated as well. I probably would've enjoyed it but would've just added it to a long list of typical haunted house movies.

now about asking for a refund...i think it's silly. the theater does not guarantee you will like a film. you go in at your own free will and hope for the best. did the movie misrepresent itself? I guess in some ways it did but how could they market it without giving away the twist? the trailer essentially used the first hour or so to establish what it COULD be about. every movie has a level of mystery that can't be alluded to or revealed in a tv spot. there is a reason why movies with these themes don't go over well here in America. again not saying the film breaks a ton of new ground but i have heard a lot of people being disgusted by the reveal and while the actions in the reveal are vile, it was how the film was written and kudos for them to be brave enough to go there. i know this a remake and honestly i'm not sure why they thought this would go over well in the states but they tried. just looks like many people didn't like the outcome

[–] SWLinPHX-2 12 years ago

I really liked it too!! THANK GOD it was NOT one of those stupid man-with-knife-running-around-chasing-and-killing-everyone films (yawn!). And get a clue people. It was NOT advertised as a "horror" movie. It was advertised as suspense/thriller, which it surely was, and quite effectively at that! I loved "Open Water", "Open Water 2" and I like this too. Single-scene/shot films that can keep you glued are very effective and far too rare. You experience it all with the protagonist(s) real time (again as with the two "Open Water" films). "Silent House" itself is the house of secrets, where the dad and uncle could go to molest the girl with no one knowing, telling or being within reach of them (silent) -- get it??

Unfortunately there's lots of dumbed down film-goers out there who need their stupid slasher films and claim something's "boring" if there isn't a cheap jump scare every 5 minutes (which is what ruined "Woman In Black" for me). To me cheap stuff like that IS the definition of tired, lame and boring.

BTW, you people who asked for a refund are cheap dumbasses. No one GUARANTEES you'll like any movie. It was advertised as a thriller/suspense film, not "horror". Show me one place it is publicly advertised as "horror". Maybe they should charge you double for your juvenile tastes and your ability to relate only to the typical mass-movie-market pablum out there.

twitter.com/swlinphx

[–] Blackace 12 years ago

I just watched it with the wife. She thought it was ok, but I didn't really care for it. A lot of tension buildup with no delivery. I got annoyed with Olsen about 1/2 way through the film. The house was a confusing mess. Must have had like 40 different rooms. Seemed like they used 3 different homes to film this. Mazes and mazes of room. After awhile, I totally forgot what floors she was one and where the bodies were left. Throw in all the mi, nd-numbing images and you're ready for a straight-jacket yourself. The script was pretty simple, but seemed to be stretched out just to make the film longer. This could have been told in a 1 hour film with some real scares. Anyway, the 5/10 score on the front page is about right for this film.

[–] zharth 12 years ago

I didn't like the ending but not because "it wasn't what I expected". I didn't like it because it butchered the one thing the movie had going for it - a terrifying atmosphere. Once it became clear that the character whose fear we had been sympathizing with all along was the psychotic killer, it stopped being scary. All it had left was its story, and that was a jumbled mess.

I know, the twist makes it clever and 'original', but I think it would have been more effective if it remained a haunted house movie. In that case, many people (perhaps yourself included?) would be complaining that "it was exactly what I expected, no twist, just a typical haunted house movie." And I would have been standing here saying - to parallel your comment - I thought it was interesting but not because it took the typical route. I would have said it's just the way the story needed to go.

And for me, it would have stood out (far out) from the "long list of typical haunted house movies" because, unlike most of them, this one actually (even with the psychological ending) managed to scare me, thanks to its effective usage of the Paranormal Activity-style scares.

But then, that's the difference between different people's tastes.