User Reviews

-First let me be clear with this, "La Casa Muda" was not made in one single shot as it's publicized to be... The ending alone which takes place the next day after the events just eliminated that possibility without taken into account all the times the camera goes to black to hide the cuts. Also the film was shot in 5 days so that also rules out that possibility.

• Second, this was not based on real events. The only part about the film that is based on real events is the fact that two people were found murdered on a house in Uruguay. As much this could be called "Inspired" by real events but what work of art is not, at some extent, inspired by things happening to the writer or something the writer took from reality... Is Silence of the Lambs a film BASED on real events just because the character of Buffalo Bill was inspired by Ed Gain?

• Besides this two points, I needed to be clear on; the film is not very good. It lacks an interesting story, the script is terrible, the actors performs some of the most stupid dialogs I have heard on any film (Example: Would you like to go to Granma's house? she has a canoe that is like a small boat. Do you know what a canoe is?.... YOU JUST FREAKING EXPLAINED WHAT THE FREAKING CANOE IS! Really that like pisses me off so much. Another example: - Where is your dad? - I don't know... YES YOU KNOW, HE IS DEAD, YOU JUST SAY YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO GO BACK TO THE BLOODY HOUSE!)

• The argument is stretched mindlessly just to make this possibly acceptable short film story into a long feature film (resulting in like half an hour of a woman walking through a house whining)

• There are stupid jump scares like the scene in which, for no good reason, the woman goes to investigate what is over the fridge and some birds came flying out from behind some cans into her face (a variation on the Scary Jumping Cat scene we all know and hate by know)

• Another thing that bothered me was the unnecessary shaky camera. This is not a camera point of view film, is not like we need to understand a character is holding a camera like in REC or Blair Witch Project. Here the camera is not supposed to exist, but the endless movement makes it impossible not to notice the camera. The camera is always present and that took me away from the story all the running time.

• The actress did a moderately good job but was not good enough to hold the film by herself and she is almost alone all the time.

• There are also some conceptual problems that bothered me a lot. In the film one of the main points is the fact that these two old men take young women to have sex into the house and took pictures of those women... Now, when you see the pictures of these women... none of them are naked, the most you would see is women in their bras. Now tell me why this couple of perverted old dirty men would not take pictures of these young women naked... And is not like they show you just a couple of this photos from a distance so you can think "well, this is just a sample" they show you a lot of pictures in great detail and none of this women takes their bras off. Not suggesting a film to be good need to show tits, but is just so off the character of how you are portraying the characters.

Good points about the film:

• Very good camera choreography, besides the shaky aspects of the camera I found all the placements and composition of the shots to be very good and the most interesting part of the film.

• A well though and complete soundtrack.

• Great looking image. It is dark and monotone but it looks pristine. The photographic camera used in this film really marks a great point for independent films with low budget. Other production companies should follow this lead.

• Some effective scenes worked really well, a good example of this was the scene when the woman first gets out of the house and runs into the forest, very good scene in an otherwise mediocre film.

For all of this I give the film 4 points out of 10

This horror film is remarkable for a few reasons. Firstly it's from Uruguay, a nation not known for it's film industry. Secondly, it's filmed (allegedly) in one single take, giving it a real time effect. Thirdly, despite it's apparent low budget, it is for the most part an effective horror/thriller.

A father and daughter arrive at a remote house which they are set to clean up the following day. As they settle in for some sleep, the daughter Laura hears some strange noises coming from upstairs. Eventually she persuades her father to take a look only for something to attack and kill him. From then on Laura, creeps from room to room, not knowing what or who is with her. With all the outside doors locked she finds a key giving her an escape to the outside world, where she encounters the house owner, who on seeing Laura covered in blood, goes inside to investigate and on return he persuades her to reenter the house. At first they find nothing, including the body of her father and then the the attacker strikes again, knocking down but not killing the owner, Nestor.

From here the plot turns, it appears that Laura and Nestor had a child who is no longer alive and Laura is exacting her revenge. She kills Nestor and the camera fades to black, before we are then presented with a serious of Polaroid photos that suggest an untoward relationship between Laura, her father and Nestor.

The film is for the first two parts very effective, once you get past the in and out of focus camera work outside of the house. Once inside, with the house boarded up, the only light is via two halogen lamps and a few candles. Once the noises start, the darkness becomes unsettling, we the viewer constantly scan the to look for clues of what is or isn't there. Much of the camera work stays very close to Laura and the use of mirrors helps give some sense of perspective as she moves from darkened room to darkened room. The strange sounds that fill the darkness add a sense of terror to the proceedings. The are some genuinely unnerving moments during this part of the film and there is some relief as she manages to get outside. The return of the owner Nestor and their return into the house reignites the sense of fear and we get glimpses of what may be the cause and there is a clever use of the flash from the Polaroid camera which literally illuminates an otherwise blacked out space.

Then the plot seems to twist and suggests that it is Laura who has killed her father and Nestor, the revenge she has taken for the fact her child is dead. It's this plot twist changed my enjoyment of the film. At first I didn't get it, but on further thinking it does sort of make sense, albeit in a quite clever way that there is the suggestion of untoward events and yet it is merely Laura taking revenge and the sounds are perhaps manifestations of her mind. Yet it still doesn't quite add up, how did she manage to get the body into the chair when the camera suggests otherwise? It's details like those that don't make sense. Also the outcome and reason behind her actions are not obviously explained, which further confuses me, I mean maybe I'm stupid or maybe I missed a vital plot point, or maybe in this instance what you see is literally not what you get.

The film for some may be riddled with clichés, nursery rhyme music, the use of mirrors or the don't go upstairs warning and Laura's constant snuffling for some reason reminded me of the dog Muttley from Wacky Races when he laughs. It is however a great accomplishment for reasons stated at the top and for the most part it plays as an effective and tidy piece of horror/thriller.

More of my reviews at iheartfilms.weebly.com

Now this film had very good points and very bad points, which makes it difficult to decide whether it is a good film or not as a whole. Like every scary film, this film could be divided into two halves: The 'what's going on' part (which builds up tension and suspense) and the 'resolution' (in which the plot is explained and wraps up). This film has a very effective first part, but it's in the second half's explanation that everything good collapses. Good points and bad points for the first half:

• Camera work - Good: I usually detest 'shaky-cam' movies, but this one was quite effective (for the most part), because it wasn't too shaky, so that I didn't get motion sickness from it. Also, it makes it so that the audience can't see much of what's going on, which adds to the suspense. Bad: It gives the feel that there's someone else in the room (the cameraman), which detracts from the main character's plight.

• Main Female Character - Good: I think the actress did a good job portraying the fear of the situation.(SPOILER ALERT)Bad: Although the actress did a good job, the character itself quickly becomes annoying. I know this film is set in the 40s (so the character can't be expected to know what to do in a scary situation like we do from watching so many scary movies), but there is a fine line between 'being scared stiff' and 'common sense'. I mean, you're in a weird abandoned house, you hear creepy noises coming from upstairs, your father gets murdered, and you decide to wander the house to find out what happened?

• Soundtrack - Good: mysterious and haunting. Bad: clichéd, with the 'nursery-type' music depicting the clash of horror and innocence. It's been done in every film!

• Dialogue - Bad!: the dialogue is hard to hear, and extremely and annoyingly repetitive, only serving to highlight the character's 'dimwittedness'. I mean, how many times does she say 'I don't know'?!

Now for the massive spoilers: the second half twist ending - it comes out of nowhere, and it makes no sense. Now, I don't want to give too much away, but the main problem is that there is no logic to this twist. If the two men had been bringing girls into this house to have sex (including the main character), why would they return with her to the scene of the crime, and why is the house in such a state of disrepair? Why would they pretend? When her 'father gets killed', why does she pretend she doesn't know what's going on, when apparently it was her? If the ghost is her daughter, who is that other 'male' ghost? What was the significance of the faceless paintings? If her daughter was killed (I assume as a baby, from what she says), why does she appear as a little girl? And the most important plot-hole, again, Why does she act through out the first half like she doesn't know what's going on?! There's no one to pretend to except the audience! It makes no sense!

So, final thoughts: The first half was, except for a few silly clichés, acceptably and effectively scary. But the second half just left me saying 'what what what', during the last 20 minutes or so. It wasn't scary, it wasn't 'righteous vengeance', it wasn't creepy or even sweet, it was confusing and absurd. So, I'd give the first half a 7 or 8 out of 10, and the conclusion (which is in my opinion the most important part of any film) a 2 out of 10, for being strange and so completely out of context.

Extended Final Thoughts: Why is the film called 'The Silent House' (or the literal Spanish translation 'The Mute House')? The house (and ghosts) make a lot of noise throughout the film. That was in fact what started everything. What does that have to do with 2 creepy men taking pictures of half-naked girls? They weren't killed, they weren't gagged or 'silenced'. What's the significance?

A Uruguayan film which claims to be filmed all in one shot and in real time! I was intrigued to see whether the claims were true. As film making has progressed, what is to stop anyone from making a film in one long continuous shot? Well here's an attempt from debut film maker Gustavo Hernandez.

The plot is based on a true story of an event which happened in the 1940s in Uruguay. A father and daughter are called to a cottage/farmhouse to house sit until it's eventually sale. It doesn't take long to find things are not as quiet and serene as they seem. The daughter Laura, (the main focal point in the film) starts to hear some noise coming from the rooms above. She wakes her father who goes reluctantly to investigate and that's when the film kicks into gear. After a few minutes and the non re-appearance of her father, Laura decides to find out what has happened to her father.

What happens next is a series of what I would call "boo" moments, as the film makers try to catch the viewer off guard by springing up flashes of images and dark shadows in the background to instill so scares. As a veteran horror fan it wasn't too successful. What the film does succeed on though is giving the sense of claustrophobia. Having only one view point can be really unsettling, as the camera follows our protagonist from behind and slowly switching views to being in front and occasionally becoming the POV shot, there is no cut away or a secondary view point. The film makers have really tried to make the film flow like an uncut one long continuous shot.

But is the film really filmed with no cuts? Unforutnately no, those of you with an eagle eye will probably be able to spot the seamless cuts between the passing through objects or anything dark. That isn't to say that there isn't a lot of technical achievement on show but the claims of the film are clearly not 100% accurate. There is a lot to say about only having one view point as it can seem really restrictive but in turn it can boost the overall atmosphere and tension. The lack of film score also adds to the sense of dread as every little sound is magnified.

The only thing criticism I would level at the film is it's last reveal or final revelation. When you find out what is really happening there's an enormous sense of let down. For all the films technical flair, the film is severely hampered but it's silly turn in events. If you have seen the French film Haute Tension then you will understand what I am talking about. It should have kept on going as a haunted house story instead of what it turns out to be.

An interesting idea, clever uses of light and dark and the generation of tension is admirable. Clearly influences by other low budget horrors like Blair Witch and the video game Silent Hill. A girl walking around a house with only a torch to light the way only conjours up memories of playing the old survivor horror game. Alas, I feel I would have more fun playing the game than watching this film. A flawed experiment.

I would like to begin by addressing the main problems that other users have voiced concerning this movie. There will be spoilers, if you want to avoid them.

To those who do not understand the name: it is called "Silent House" because the main character, Laura, kills both her father and her "lover" (who raped her) in order to silence the loud noises that she imagined in the house with her. The small child that was in the house with her was not a spirit, it was her daughter, who is dead (aborted). The house owner had previously raped her, as he and her father were prone to doing to young girls that they lured into the house. You can also take the film's title as a reference to her cutting out the tongue of her father and the house's owner when she kills them (as seen when she drags him away at the end of the movie).

Secondly, the movie never claimed to be filmed in one shot. It is PRESENTED as a one-shot film, much like Alfred Hitchcock's similarly structured movies. It is only supposed to have the appearance of a one-shot film in order to draw the audience into a real time encounter during the events of what happens in the house. The scene of the next day is not a part of this one-shot because it no longer applies to the night of the two unsolved murders.

As for the dialog, I'm a little surprised so many people disregarded it as contrived and foolish. Unless you're fluent in the spoken language of the film, of course the subtitles will seem a little awkward to you. They were translated directly to English from Spanish, and it is clearly not a translation into conversational English.

Okay, now that I've talked about those three points, on to the movie itself. It is definitely worth seeing, and I highly recommend it. The acting is realistic and draws you into the events that are happening on screen in real time. It is a brilliant psycho-thriller that deserves some positive feedback for its chilling story, beautifully orchestrated twist ending, and thematic integrity. Anyone who enjoys the paranormal, or the psychotic, should give this film a view.

what i was expecting hearing a movie from uruquay, after a lot of great Spanish horror movies was good enough, that Americans made a remake of it.

so i sat down watching the movie and tried to get what this movie wanted to deliver. but just after starting the movie i felt kind of awkward about the girl's weird behaviour, the endless long shooting of film when there is nothing happening and a terrible shaky camera. sure here some people would now say, that this is the beauty of that movie . but if there is no story, no depth, no activity at all in a movie and you do all that, then you just created the most boring movie you can imagine.. when the girl in the movie heard voices, saw her father being murdered, saw her father's position changed, saw the killer or meets her affair her reaction is completely unnatural and failed to deliver any authentic feeling to the viewer. AH of course now is a good time to say that i am just too stupid to get the ending and that she actually killed everyone. you people are so easy to manipulate if that is so... i don't know how many movies i've watched with the same twist to clean up a bad movie and make you think that you are the idiot and not the people who created the movie. even she killed them her emotions would look a lot different.

well back to the movie:

-girl walking around in the house in slow motion, having an incredible interest in looking at every piece of equipment. -girl's father died and his body is changing rooms many times in the movie. -girl walking around in the house in slow motion, having an incredible interest in looking at every piece of equipment. -girl happily found the key to get outside -girl running outside and sees a creepy girl -girl happily meets her friend (later you know her affair) -girl can not answer the question of "where is your father?" and says "i don't know", later to be revealed to be the "brilliant" twist of this unworthy movie. -girl doesn't want to go back to the house but the guy is eager and doesn't care about the blood on her dress -then inside the house the girl is happy to be back in the house and starts to space up looking at house equipment. -girl's affair suddenly disappeared -girl finds her affair and he pretends to be dead -girl is actually starting to talk and we are all happy knowing that the whole thing we saw is just pure fiction of the girl's mind ....

...end

acting: just a really stupid idea to give a amateur actress a role where she has to act out her emotions non-stop through a whole movie, where she completely failed.

screenplay: in general just a guy holding a camera and walking behind the girl the whole movie.

dialogue: senseless and stupid even if you are happy with the great twist.

atmosphere: sometimes good then again just boring

sound: actually pretty nice and mild use of music and sounds

For my money, the modern horror genre (and into whichever sub genres you choose to divide it) can be viewed as belonging to one of two different camps. The first of which opts for bloody spectacle over suspense, favouring the formulaic over the original and is quick to push out (largely inferior) sequels and spin offs. The second, far smaller, camp consists of unique, intelligent work that champions subtlety and economy over conventional means, often within tight budgetary constraints.

As to where current loyalties can be found, a quick glance at the average box office demographic would indicate a rather depressing trend for all things repeatable and by the numbers.

It is with relief then that "The Silent House" is a film which sits firmly in the latter group, (so expect the inevitable Hollywood remake soon) and for this fact alone it should be celebrated, which isn't to say it isn't without its flaws - the impact of its "scares" hinge solely on a single device, which can frequently test the endurance of the viewer.

Much has been made of this, a single rolling take in which the film is shot - a gambit that for the most part pays off. For a generation of horror fans grown accustomed to the "jump cut" and the rapid fire edit accompanying generic slaughter, the use of the single, detached, POV employed here reminds us of just how much control and security we've been used to.

Whilst the premise of the old dark house has been worn thin over centuries in horror literature and film, its creaky interiors and dreaded staircases lend themselves perfectly to the single take gimmick.

While you may find yourself tiring a little of the protagonist's rather turgid wondering about the house, as she goes from room to room with lamp aloft, laboriously recording each artefact and item, the jolt that comes after such a protracted period is sublime, setting the standard for further atmospheric scares to come.

Essentially, if you're willing to buy into the idea, which, much like "The Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity" ask from their viewer a little patience and imagination, you will certainly reap the rewards on offer here. If the film loses its way in the final act, bringing in an unnecessary cross generic "twist", then we can be consoled by the fact that this is for the most part an effective and at times chilling, piece of micro budget horror.

In a remote patch in rural Uruguay, a middle aged man and his young daughter are hired by a landlord to repair a decrepit house. As they stayed the night in the house, increasingly mysterious and disturbing things will happen. At the end (SPOILERS AHEAD), it is hinted that there was some sort of previous relationship between the daughter and the landlord, and this is supposed to be the surprise twist of the movie that explains everything that went on before. Unfortunately, what has happened is never fully explained and is the main reason this movie ends in a very unsatisfying note. Filmed in hand-held camera and with very long takes (whether all the film is one long take I can't say) this is done in a way that doesn't call too much attention to itself, and is thus less bothersome than in other movies. Promoted as an innovative horror film made with an almost zero budget, it is indeed reasonably well directed. The main problem lies in the very weak script. As a twenty minute student short it would be sort of OK, but as a commercially released almost one hour and a half movie it is far less compelling. Also, the sound is pretty poor, at many instances I couldn't pick up what the characters were saying, especially when they were whispering (if you see it with subtitles, I guess you won't have that problem).

The movie doesn't fit any particular pattern which cause typical viewers to think it is stupid or un-proper horror. I think they should firstly review their own tastes (maybe go back watch some more ppl crying on their legs being eaten with the blood all over) and not comment the film that is above their level of understanding.

The plot is easy but seems not to be straight because the logic in it is disturbed in some parts (which makes for the biggest minus). Beside that, the film is shot with a hand of a master, with no more than few takes glued the way you won't notice. Camera goes with main character in almost every (close) detail and is truly presented in her's (chars) point of view rolling live. Jaws go down on how the surroundings are being animated offstage to follow the action with no stumbles.

Music and sounds are well-matched and the're mostly responsible for building the thrill (as in any proper movies; and the proper match isn't that common happening after all, so it definitely goes for the plus).

The ending is astonishing when finally she gets mad in deep, killing her ex and departing to no-place with either her imagined daughter or the ghost which caused all this to happen. Bit confusing, but as said the plot structure isn't perfect.

I give it 7/10 like in most decent movies I've seen. In this case the holes in plot can be forgiven and after all the overall story isn't that bad. The technical finishing gives it a big booster. The movie won't make you sh** your pants, but will fulfill the time to enjoy.

For a $6000 budget, filmed in the country of Uruguay, and allegedly filmed in a single shot in the course of 4 days, The silent house seemed like quite the contender for the horror films of 2010 .

To begin with the camera effects seem to have the 'marmite' affect on most people, you love it or you hate it, and in my case I love them, you see the shaky camera effects make you feel as if you are there amongst the horror of the mysterious murders/ circumstances. Although the camera offers us a 3rd person view of the main protagonist through out, until the very end, this somehow tells us the story in her eyes, which I think was done pretty well.

Otherwise the real downer of this film is the story line, this wasn't based on a true story, it was based on the fact that 2 people were found dead, this is merely a way to make films slightly more scary, For example do you really think there was a monster in Europe, and it's master called Frankenstein? No... This is one of the weapons in story tellers arsenal, it helps keeps you on the edge of your seat, and keeps you wondering at night, but I digress the story is cheap and cliché, though the film can split into 2 parts, The first part that keeps us on edge after the suspicious death of Laura's father after that comes the second part which is a downwards spiral of despair, and definitely kept me wondering of why I was watching the film, but something kept me glued to it and perhaps that was the fact that I wanted to see how it ended, to see if this was a cheap copy of Paranormal activity or just an alternative to Shrooms without the 'Shrooms. The story isn't explained very well at all, and I had to come here to find out what hell was going on.

To conclude if you want to watch a cheap cliché horror, this should waste an hour or so...

I have read many different reviews for this excellent film, but I am yet disappointed for one and only reason: No one got this film actually. I had to watch the movie twice, just to realize one thing. The movie begins with the end and ends with the beginning (when I am referring to "the end", I mean of course the scenes after the credits).

For all of you that have already seen the movie, let me point you out some of the evidence of what I am saying.

First of all, at the start of the movie, when Laura is lying in the chair opposite to her father, she notices a book under the table and opens it. The book is an album, with three Polaroid photos. If you look closely you can see that the first and last one, is her father and Nestor lying dead in the chair were she put them after killing them. That means, that when she was lying there, she had already committed the murders and all the other things at this point, (e.g. the fact she sees her father alive), are just in her imagination. The clothes she is wearing when she is committing the murders, are different from those that she is wearing in the end of the movie. In my opinion, the end is an event that takes place chronically before she arrives at the house, with her father, because she is wearing the same clothes with those in the first scene of the movie. During the whole movie you can watch scenes that go back and forth, such as the scene when she enters the kitchen exploring and she finds a can dropped down and in the very next scene the can is found on a shelf above the fridge. When she finds for the first time Nestor, lying down hurt, she goes out and Nestor opens his eyes and Laura comes in the room again. I also believe for that part that the scenes are kind of mixed up, with the second scene to come chronically first and the first one to come second. Some other points throughout the whole film, make it seem that way, and I do not know if I am right or wrong.

That is my point of view, and I discussed it with my friends who have also seen the movie and we quite agree with each other.

In conclusion, that is the reason I found that film excellent and a very clever one. Worth watching it!!!

I picked this up with the impression that it was a ghost movie, and hoping that it would be nothing like "Paranormal Activity". Having seen "The Silent House" ("La Casa Muda") now, I must say that I am genuinely impressed, despite it not actually being a ghost movie as per se.

The story in "The Silent House" does lay out the mood for a great ghost story and it is good at building up suspense and having a spooky atmosphere. And it is filmed in a dark, rather rundown and disarrayed house, which only adds to the spooky atmosphere. The story is about Laura and her father who have been hired to fix up the facade of an old, rundown house and having to spend the night in the old, empty house, but the house has a dark secret...

What was really impressive about this movie was that it was shot in one long take, without cuts and editing, that really impressed me. Especially because it must have had added a lot of pressure on the actors (well actress in particular) as there was no room for mistakes and do-overs. But they pulled it off so nicely, it was really a treat to watch this movie.

Also, "The Silent House" sent me through a couple of impressions of the movie, starting out with interest and a hope to be scared, but then when you find out about the photos in the attic and who it was that did the strange things in the house, i started to think the storyline was so implausible and sort of stupid, because what they had shown prior up to that made no sense. But then as the credits started rolling and you see all the photos, the truth about the story and what happened in the house dawns on you, shedding a whole new light on the entire movie, and that totally turned me around in my opinion again, turning to awe and amazement. And the ending where Laura walked through the forest and out onto the field, well that was really a good ending.

This Uruguayan thriller was really a surprise of a movie, and I am really glad that I bought it and added it to my DVD collection. If you like movies that leave you with a lasting impression and something to think about, then you should definitely watch "The Silent House".

It's one thing to deceive the viewer in order to throw him off the track, to give him false leads, in order to present him with the end-twists that he couldn't/shouldn't anticipate. It's something entirely else to lie and cheat the viewer, such as is the case in this muda casa. Lying to the viewer is a cop-out, a desperate ploy that takes place when the writer and the director cannot think of an intelligent/logical way to set us up for the plot-twist.

And yet, only half-way through the movie, I had strong suspicions that Laura herself is the killer. How did I reach this conclusion, given the writer's lies and the director's pathetic manipulation? Simple logic: the movie had both apparitions AND a real-life murderer, something that isn't quite possible, i.e. the muda casa at first offers us a genre-meshing, almost paradoxical situation. A ghost and a real killer? I consider these two to be mutually exclusive in a horror film. (Though it undoubtedly could work in a ZAZ comedy.) This ghost/killer contradiction helped me reach the only explanation that was left, that the damn muda casa must have neither: no ghosts and no hidden killer. Hence: homely Laura must be the murderer.

So in spite of the lies and the shoddily set-up story, I still managed to predict the ending – and way before we were given the first hints that something odd is going on. (I am patting myself on the back as I write.) Perhaps remembering "Shrooms" helped. It's not as if this movie has a terribly original plot-twist.

We are cheated/lied to in the most blatant way possible: Laura is shown as the victim, while totally erroneous/fallacious scenes that could not possibly implicate her in the murders fill the screen. The only way this moronic premise could have worked, without being stupid, would have been to show ALL the early events from Laura's perspective i.e. literally from her viewpoint, as if she were holding a camcorder. This approach would have meant that we almost never get to see her (except when she looks in a mirror), which would have been an added bonus since the actress playing Laura is so damn unattractive. So everyone wins.

Alas, the film-makers had decided to treat the viewers as utter cretins instead, hence the swindle. They hoped that the crucial revelation that Laura is insane would somehow explain and justify their own cheating/lying, and all of the BS scenes early on; scenes that, with hindsight, mean absolutely nothing. Well, they failed.

The main premise/set-up is not the only source of rubbish in LCM. We also have a series of stupid things going on once Laura "escapes" (ha ha) from the not-so-silent house. She just happens to run into Nestor, her former lover, who calmly decides to inspect the house in spite of seeing her covered in blood and in utter panic. So calling the police first was not an option? OK, you could argue that he didn't want to call the cops because of the photos that are in there. Fine; then how about at least going up to the cellar with some sort of weapon? Nestor finds his ex covered with blood, in hysterics, sobbing about an attack, and yet Nestor goes up there, with no weapons, never even considering calling someone for help, and very predictably gets attacked. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is the scene when he leaves Laura in the car in order to briefly inspect the house - "BRIEFLY" being the key word here. He returns after just 18 seconds (!) with the following words: "there is nobody inside the house". That must have been one helluva lightning-fast house-inspection. 18 seconds for a house that big? I would think that an entire football team would need at least a few minutes to check the house completely for any potential intruders.

More nonsense. When Nestor goes up to the cellar, he finds neither a body nor any blood. He even makes a comment that the cellar hadn't been visited in a while. This implies that Laura must have killed her Dad downstairs – and yet where is the blood? Where is the body? Nestor should have seen either the body or some blood (or both) downstairs. Laura had no time to clean up the mess. Or did she? Of course, I forget that the writers and the director are LIARS and CHEATS, so perhaps Laura did clean up the living-room before Nestor's arrival in some ulterior universe in which the ACTUAL plot was going on – while we (the suckered viewers) were watching the FAKE VERSION of events, the stuff that never happened, the moronic-universe version of events, such as Laura sobbing, running away from a hairy arm going for her neck, the ghosts, and that crucially phony scene in which her father appears to be murdered upstairs in the cellar while Laura was downstairs.

To make matters worse, the movie has such an ugly – modern – look: it is an almost uni-colour film with nothing but shades of putrid green. (Horror) movies used to look beautiful/natural once upon a time in the 70s/early-80s, but nowadays most horror films are shoved through filters, made to look incredibly unappealing as if this ugliness somehow magnifies the horror. It doesn't; it simply makes the movie look ugly.

It's never even hinted why her two victims killed her daughter, nor is it even entirely clear whether they did! (Remember: she's nuts.) This renders the story even more pointless.

Furthermore, this damn boring casa drags on. The intro alone lasts an entire 17 minutes (an eternity in the horror genre), during which absolutely nothing happens. All we have in those 17 minutes is a crappy-looking actress and a movie that looks like a bird poo-pooed on it. I can find an ugly woman and bird-droppings myself, I don't need a movie for that.