Open House

Posted In: Anna Paquin

Tobi Reisner says...

The main problem I have with DARKNESS is that it feels so incomplete, as though half of the story was left out. I love the blackened mood and overwhelming sense of doom and dread, it's just that it seems to lead up to a disappointing finalé. If more time had been spent on developing the history underlying the house, the cult, and their child victims, the strength and depth of the story would have carried the horror elements. Of course, the movie would have been longer by maybe 30-60 minutes, but it would have been a lot better for it. As it stands, DARKNESS is a half-baked film full of untapped potential that never quite terrifies. I wish people would stop trying to cram everything into 90 minutes, even when more time is absolutely necessary! AAAARGG!!...

Posted on October 30, 2010

Leo Rathke says...

I watched this movie for two reasons: We love True Blood and never miss an episode, and since Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer are featured on the cover, I was interested to see more of their acting. Secondly, because I work in Real Estate and thought the open house premise would be fun. Like an open house that doesn't just go bad, it goes slasher bad, awesome!



Sadly, it was a boring, run of the mill home invasion slasher/thriller. Anna Paquin was in the movie for 30 seconds, Stephen Moyer for about 5 minutes tops. After checking out the back and seeing Open House was directed by Andrew Paquin, both of those cameos now make sense. What better way to draw in all those True Blood fans then to have these two on the cover?



The movie just slowly progressed, the acting was fine but not impressive. The directing was typical, nothing wrong with it. The story has already been done time and again, and they missed the opportunity to explore some unique aspects of the characters. No scares, regular amount of spurting blood. I love scary movies, I'm not a big critic. I expect some entertainment, that's about it. Open House barely provided even that.

Posted on October 31, 2010

Andres Coppock says...

I thought this was going to be a good movie, there was no plot to it except to the sister brings men home and has sex with them and then has brother kill them, and also had a dinner party and couple went home the other couple stayed and did a 3 some and has the brother film it and kill them this movie was really really stupid and sick there twins and she the sister is evil but the brother has som passion for people but still kills them for his sister who they also sleep together sexaully (which made me sick to my stomach) horrible movie not worth what I paid for it.

Posted on October 31, 2010

Hassan Sito says...

I wondered why Anna Paquin was in this and how it was she got offed so early in the proceedings. Then at the end you see it was her brother who wrote and directed it and that fell into place. But that was about all that fell into place here.



The plot was actually a pretty good idea. A couple (brother and sister?) take over a house that's on the market and occupy it. To do so the man was supposed to off the female owner. The rub comes from the fact that he couldn't do so and, instead, has her bound in a storage place in the basement unbeknownst to his partner. Of course his captive wants to escape and strikes up a rudimentary relationship with him to try and do so. He wants to believe her and remove himself from this sick cycle he's in but doesn't know if he can trust her. The problem is that it doesn't get resolved in a clever enough fashion. As a matter of fact. there is no way to see the end coming and when it does it simply doesn't add up.



There are some things to like here. The play between the two leads is curious and creepy. You want to know what the story is between them. When, at a small dinner party, the female hints that they might be twin brother and sister it really piques your interest. Unfortunately, it's not resolved well enough to my liking. The music is a bit weird. What little I remembered was a rather foggy, indistinct, drugged out sounding L.A. punk or EMO.



This is a watchable enough movie. The performances are decent. It's shot well enough. It just loses it's way and finally falls apart.

Posted on November 1, 2010

Eulah Tota says...

Whoever approved this movie to be made should be fired immediately!! It was not suspenseful, creative, original, surprising, interesting, scary, or anything that would make a movie successful. It was just stupid and unimaginative and the ending had no thought put into it and was the exact same ending as countless movies. If you liked it (I see ONE person gave it 5 stars) I'd say you are a moron. LOL. No seriously.

Posted on November 1, 2010

Esta Henaire says...

This doesn't have quite the plot that the DVD jacket suggests. Just skimming the jacket blurb, you might think this movie will be about a maniac or two taking up residence in the basement of a house for sale, then creeping out at night after new occupants have taken up residence there. That sounded like a promising premise that plays into a glancing fear many of us might have when we consider buying a house. Did the realtor conscientiously check all the basement cubbyholes, all the closets before locking up after every Open House?



But no, that isn't quite what this movie is about. If anything, it's a reversal of that more predictable theme. In this case, the sociopaths blatantly occupy the body of the house, while the rightful owner gets imprisoned in the basement, left to haunt and perhaps ultimately challenge the intruders.



This is a movie of few words, at least on the part of the male sociopath. There is no burden of back-story here, no Psycho-like epilogue neatly explaining the psychopaths' behavior. This vicious duo dwells in existential space, isolated in their clean, white, new surroundings. The male is a silhouette as he sits on the couch, limned by the sunlight coming in through the window behind. These two drop in from their own universe, reminiscent of the evil that descends in the notable German film, "Funny Games." In this case though, one of the intruders has the redeeming capacity to feel some affection, some empathy.



But the film's overall silences are what make it more memorable than the average maniacs-amok film. It has a trance-like, fairy-tale quality that draws the viewer into its silent spaces, that invites the viewer to fill the vacuums.



"Open House" does include something of a twist. An additional turn of the screw in the already corkscrew psyches of the two home invaders is revealed. The acting in this film is good enough though that you might guess this twist from the beginning. It is always suggested, so it isn't dragged in like a bolt from the blue.



There's a Director/Actor commentary included in this DVD that doesn't add much to our sense of the characters' motivations, but that supplies some easy, supplemental listening. Well wait - not quite. It's not quite "easy listening." Brian Geraghty, the actor who plays the male psychopath in "Open House" occasionally punctuates the commentary with some shadings of dissatisfaction and even askew anger of his own that seem to be reflections, albeit pale reflections, of the attitude of his fictional character. Having come off his starring role in the acclaimed movie "The Hurt Locker," he seems to imply he didn't want to do this lesser film. He wasn't happy. He wouldn't have done it except... This element of undercutting blends in with the cutting and undercutting that goes on in the movie itself. Altogether, the quiet abberations on this DVD make this movie disquieting - and strangely fascinating.

Posted on November 3, 2010

Pia Bonamico says...

First of all, Anna Paquin isnt in the movie for the enitirety of its dribble of a thriller made by the famous X-man heriones' brother. Very boring, and not a scare found anywhere.

Posted on November 5, 2010

Syble Quigley says...

AS A FIRST leap into the thriller/horror medium, "Open House" opens a promising door. It's a foretaste of talent from first time writer/director Andrew Paquin that, if nurtured, should fester into something really savage. Kudos to Lions Gate for taking a chance here.



Paquin keeps standard horror shtick at bay and that's a nice surprise. The story deals with a mid-30s divorced couple. The wife, Alice (Rachel Blanchard) is selling their former dream home and, during an open house, someone enters but doesn't leave. Alice is captured and hidden away in a small locked room as unsavory activities commence. Two psychos are using the open house gambit to maintain their creepy killer lifestyle. People show up to look around but end up dead and dismembered in coolers in the garage.



The film is keen on claustrophobic atmosphere. This could be happening next door in today's overwhelmed real estate market. Paquin's killers supply genuine revulsion. When David (Brian Geraghty) reports that he's been checking the bodies in the garage, his co-hart asks whimsically, "Are they rotting?"



And would you like a top-off for your coffee?



Filmed on the super Red Hi-Def camera, the film maintains a cool blue edge. Detail is razor sharp, skin tones are natural and blacks are solid. A good wash of film grain keeps the look in cinema mode. Paquin tells much of his story in full bore sunlight, the kind that leaves you squinting for sunglasses. The house and the people look stylish and sharp, a pointed contrast to the activities within.



A 16-bit, six-channel DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack keeps dialogue and effects on an even level; surround effect is minimally used but it works into that reality experience Paquin strives for. At every step, viewers are in the moment.



Where the story fails is in discovery. We really don't learn enough about the killers, the focus of the film. David would like to break away from his partner. Alice presents an opportunity for a different life. (Well, yes, when pigs fly but we're willing to cede him dream-possibilities). As it is, "Open House" is a bit like watching one-third of a "Criminal Minds'" episode. The set up is there but the climax falls apart. Even if we don't get all the answers, we need something more to hang onto - something to make us care. Alice's plight isn't enough.



Commentary from Paquin (Anna's brother) and Geraghty doesn't offer much more than a look into a first time filming experience and standard making-of info. A few deleted scenes finish the "extra" experience. "True Blood" fans should note that, while Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer are prominently featured on the cover, their roles are little more than walk-ons.



I'd be interested in seeing what Mr. Paquin does next.

Posted on November 5, 2010

China Gavilanes says...

Pretty good movie. Super creepy and a little twisted, but over all I liked it. You never know whats going to happen next and keeps you guessing. Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer were only in it for a few minutes but their characters were great. The main male lead is super weird and creepy but you feel for him a little. And Stephen Moyer is pretty sexy.

Posted on November 5, 2010

Gustavo Lizotte says...

Brian Geraghty (`The Hurt Locker') and Tricia Helfer (`Battlestar Galactica') star as a couple looking for their perfect home. Unlike the rest of us, they don't use real estate agents or the classifieds. Instead, they find the home they want and murder anyone in their path to getting it. This time around, the unlucky homeowner is Alice (Rachel Blanchard of `Snakes on a Plane'). Things get complicated (well, more complicated than things usually are for a pair of roaming serial killers) when David (Geraghty) decides to spare the life of Alice, unbeknownst to his partner in crime & love, Lila (Helfer). As Lila spins further & further down the drain of insanity, David begins to regret his decisions and considers making a life change, hopefully with the companionship of his newfound obsession Alice. `True Blood' stars Anna Paquin (whose brother Andrew wrote/directed) and Stephen Moyer also co-star in small roles.



Marketing in the film industry is a fickle friend. It can make a film and it can destroy it. Look, for example, at a film like `Cloverfield' from a few years ago. What may have been just a small passing at the box office turned into a worldwide phenomenon, mostly thanks to some phenomenal viral marketing that truly sparked the interest the film needed. With `Open House,' however, it seems as if marketing is going to very much hurt the film. Why? Because they're setting the film up in a way that will only disappoint a great load of people. Those people are fans of the hit HBO series `True Blood.' Looking at the cover art for `Open House,' we are shown the main stars of `True Blood' Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer right up in the foreground with their names smack dab on the top for all to see. The problem with this, however, is both actors combined probably have under ten minutes of total screentime. While I wasn't bothered much by this since I didn't see the cover art prior to the film, I can see why many fans of the show will be annoyed when the two main reasons they sought out the film are gone before they even get the chance to fully settle into their sofa.



Moving past what is sure to be a disappointing part of the film, there are several elements that I quite enjoyed about this little thriller. The most alluring factor of `Open House' and one that was truly impressive would be the performances. I was impressed by just about every actor's work throughout the film, especially that of Rachel Blanchard and Brian Geraghty, who after `The Hurt Locker' deserves to be doing bigger & better films than this. Another strong technical aspect of this film was the cinematography. Joseph White, who made his mark with his photography on `Repo! The Genetic Opera,' did very well simultaneously capturing the beautiful architecture of the house along with the gloom of the basement `prison.'



One more talent associated with this film is the director, Andrew Paquin. I didn't cite his role as the writer with that compliment because I believe that is where he and the film failed most. As a director, he did a very fine job, especially for his rookie outing. The script, however, is what needed work. While the dialogue and plot were satisfactory enough, the real problem came from the constant wasted chances at real suspense. Rookie directors often run into problems when they direct their own work because they sometimes can't see the problems that another director or co-writer would see during pre-production or filming. A writer may read through his own script ten times, know it word for word, but not see a small flaw that a person may catch on their first run through. That is why another creative mind working on the script is almost always useful, especially in small productions like this.



Overall, `Open House' is not going to go on as one of the great thrillers of our time. It will, like many straight-to-video films before it, most likely be forgotten by this time next year. However, for a one-night stand with an entertaining rental, you can do a lot worse than Andrew Paquin's first attempt. I'd like to see more in his future.



Final Verdict: 6/10.



-AP3-

Posted on November 6, 2010