MovieChat Forums > Silent House (2012) Discussion > This movie made NO SENSE! :(

This movie made NO SENSE! :(


I had always wanted to see this movie in the theaters but never got around to it so I was pretty excited when it was out on Redbox.

Unfortunately, I was completely disappointed with the movie....

I didnt understand a few different things that have been answered within these discussion messages. BUT i still think that if so many people had so many questions about the movie, then the producers or whomever DID NOT do their job right!

Why was her cleavage such a large part of the movie??? That was so annoying to me!

As mentioned already, I too noticed some flirtatious relationship between the daughter and father and also daughter and Uncle. The way they were staring at her sometimes was quite uncomfortable and made me wonder what really was going on between them.

I didnt really understand the point of Sophia.. Who was she? Some reviewers say she was an alter-ego or an aborted child that Sarah had at some point- either way, it wasnt at all clear..

I also thought that the father's eye was completely blacked out when he had fell out of the closet earlier in the movie, but then later on he was completely healed enough (without a bloody eye) to still beat her with the belt.

Maybe I just am blind, but never did I notice from the interaction earlier that her father abused her. He never led me to believe that based on their interactions so it was shocking to me that he would hit her and beat her near the end of the movie.

What made Sarah forgetful? Why didn't she remember that they had abused her when she was young? Who left the polaroid pics out? Who was the scary guy that climbed into the car when she was there waiting for her Uncle?

All these questions i had unanswered when the movie ended. I didnt like it. It was pretty evident that something suspicious had went on with the father and uncle but I didnt expect her to be the killer because there was nothing that really led to that.

I wasnt impressed or annoyed too much with the single-shot concept of the movie. It didnt kinda make things more difficult to understand but at the same time, I think that wouldve happened regardless.

Sometimes that acting was a little unreal to me. I couldnt really relate to her character because she didnt seem to fight hard enough to make sure she didnt go back to the house.

Ummm....what else? There were so many issues with this movie that I didnt like. It left many open questions and once it ended, I immediately had to research it and read reviews to understand its purpose. The fact that there was such a large range of peoples opinions on what certain things in the movie stood for- that were completely opposite of what I got outta it- caused me to write this review.

*** Its NOT horror, at all! *** Deals more with child porn, an abused adult with a bad memory, split personality and eventually revenge. It could or SHOULD have been MUCH better.

reply

Nothing you said in your complains mean the movie makes no sense. Reasons you didn't care for it and problems with the film itself, yes, but no reasons why it made no sense. Everything is spelled out at the end.

Sophia was most likely a figment of her imagination. Even if she were real, the Sophie at the end is clearly not real. What's so hard to understand?

The father's eye would be a continuity error, not a reason that the movie "makes no sense."

I actually thought they had a weird relationship and I mentioned in another post that I thought his acting was bad when the movie was starting out, but am now leaning toward the fact that it was weird because of what we eventually learn at the end of the movie. Either way, not giving enough hints to the endgame again isn't a reason why a movie would make no sense.

You have honestly never seen anything about people being abused or having traumatic experiences, real or fictional? People push things into the back of their mind and subconsciously forget about them. People literally go insane due to things happening to them. People experience a wide variety of symptoms if they fall prey to PTSD after a traumatic experience. Clearly she was the one doing everything in the movie and clearly a lot of stuff that we/she saw was all in her head. Why is a random guy climbing into the back of the car any different from the random little "ghost" girl?

reply

Ok, when people suffer traumatic events, especially at a really young age, the brain sometimes tries to repress those memories; the brain stores them somewhere that can't be easily accessed and therefore can't be remembered. This does not mean that the person does not suffer from the traumatic evdnts. In some cases these repressed memories are brought out by the victim, but the victim doesn't realize it. This creates a split personality disorder. Sophia wasn't a figment of Sarah's imagination; Sophia was Sarah's memory of the trauma from her childhood. At the end when Sarah cuts Sophia and the cut appears on Sarahs hand is the moment that Sarah as herself finally remembers and comes to terms with the abuse.
You should read/watch Sybil. It's based on a true story and the book was actually written by the doctor herself. It's about a girl who developed a massive amount of different personalities (16 I think) due to sever child abuse (which is explicitly described in the book). The doctor uses hypnotherapy as a tool to help "Sybil" come to terms with her past and to get rid of the other personalities.

reply

Exactly, the movie was actually good and all the "cliche ending" comments are inaccurate, movies like Secret Window's twist is just plain, oh they were they ones who caused it, the typical Fight Club ending, yet this movie actually had some psychology to it. Her mind caused the "horror/ scare" factors because of the repressed memories. It had some substance to it at least and given the long takes and her acting the movie really deserves more than 5/10. BTW I'm not dissing Fight Club, the ending was awesome.

reply


I agree with what you said except about Sybil. I'm pretty sure that has already been debunked and that the doctor either manipulated or lied about her condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_%28book%29




Buster:I don’t want no part of your tired-ass country club, you freak bitch!

reply

You are right the poster above just gave a Hollywood definition of child abuse they clearly gathered from movies. Memories are not just repressed and there hasn't ever actually been a peer verified case of "split personality" or Disassociate Identity Disorder that's ever been reported.

reply

people having lots of questions or interpretations of what went on does not mean the film makers "didn't do their job right" some of the best movies end with unanswered questions that are up to the audience to think about and discuss or argue about. i get really sick of people who think they were ripped off or something because the ending of a movie is open for questions. if you feel that way, you should only go to "romantic comedies" and such, that way you know it's gonna be simple and shallow and, most importantly...the same as the last few movies you saw

reply

I'd call it more upfront bad historical sense. People are too used to stories that feature some kind of delusion going heavy on symbolism. Which can make a nice story but not everyone's delusions can be tied to an exact metaphor from their life or trauma. Each being an infliction of a brain that manifests in it's own way.

This movie's character clearly had a reaction and snapped. But there is no exact hand holding to be had of why it took the form it did. In this case with a third party actor to commit the violence, what appears to be a dual outer personality and a mix of memories with current reality. That's what it was and the story moves along.

Whether or not the story got close to any actual documented cases, that is another matter. And depends on exactly how many have ever been reported and got reports. You can only expect so much.

Communities left for being too closeminded: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum, Toonzone

reply

What made Sarah forgetful? Why didn't she remember that they had abused her when she was young


Because it was *beep* traumatic...

reply

OK I agree with the OP to some extent. Why was her father 'out to get her' from the start, and all of a sudden?!
Its like one minute they're packing up the house, the next he vanishes. Then did he attack her? Or did she only imagine they did, and she hit them both?
I kept waiting for the big twist, like they were "Gaslighting' her, or that she was completely crazy. But no real twist came, so he abused her?!
And the uncle knew? But everything was told in such a mishmash way that you never get to know or even care about the characters. The film spent way too much time following the lead character around doing nothing, and not nearly enough with CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. There's almost no development between father & daughter.

An atmospheric film with a lot of potential, but I didn't care for it at all.


"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

reply

She attacked him and her uncle but in her mind it was that tall guy.

reply

I agree with you that it seems to come out of nowhere but I think that the writers were probably relying too heavily on the "men are all rapists and child abusers" trope and just assumed that we would just accept that he was some kind of animal.

reply

I honestly thought it was a good movie. Good movies should leave you with questions for you to use your imagination to figure out. Its just a theory, but i think she might be hallucinating/ going crazy because of breathing in the mold they found from early on in the film. her father said he didnt want her breathing it in, then went off to find if the mold spread to any other part of the house. there was a scene toward the end where she was in a room with mold covering all the walls/ceiling too. That, plus remembering all the old memories she repressed caused her to flip out and start seeing things. just a theory, but that might be why the ending seemed so disjointed. i agree though that they didn't do a good job at making a lot of stuff at the ending very clear

reply

That's one of the points the movie is trying to make.

On the surface you see a happy father and daughter relationship, when in fact her father has been doing horrible things to her. After all, her father doesn't look like the stereotypical abuser: drunk, bellowing, and full of rage. He puts on a good facade of being a normal caring father, which is why he has gotten away with the abuse for so long.

And Sara's feelings are conflicted. As much as she hates him for doing those things to her, she loves him because he's her father, and she wants to be a good daughter. So she pretends along with him, because she loves him and she thinks she is partly to blame, that if she were a better daughter, none of it would be happening.

reply

You really need to try to pay attention to what you're watching. I'm guessing you were daydreaming about your new shoes while pretending to watch.

reply