At Granny's House

source: Granny's House

I don't even know where to start with At Granny's House. First, the good. There were some interesting shots of the sky and clouds that were quite beautiful. Bill Oberst Jr.'s character was all too brief because he was wonderful and interesting. Glenda Morgan Brown played her role well and was one of the more enjoyable characters. Rachel Alig had some great facial expressions that showed her emotions much better than the dialogue did. These things combined bumped it up a star to save it from being a one-star watch. The rest of the movie was ridiculous. The dialogue was stilted and unnatural. I would have to watch Ms. Alig in another movie to tell whether or not this is a good sample of her acting talent. The dialogue and scene direction in At Granny's House was so awkward and blah that I honestly can't tell. I think Glenda Morgan Brown did the best she could with what she was given and her scenes (when her character wasn't written strictly as a prop for Ms. Alig) were often very enjoyable. The pacing is fairly consistent throughout. It moves at a fairly brisk pace...until about the middle when it turns into a bit of gag-inducing soft-core *. I say gag-inducing because there's zero chemistry between the two leads and it looks uncomfortably like those scenes were added just to show (and grab) some boob. Since I'm never really thrilled with sex in horror (movies and books) when it's unnecessary this may be something that won't bother other people. If you're watching for the boobies, rest assured, you will see them. The sound design and soundtrack was just bad. For some reason they felt the need to enhance every single sound. Because by god we need to hear every time the couch squeaks, every foot step, every keyboard click. The soundtrack wasn't much better. The music wasn't outright terrible but it was unoriginal and overused. From the moment the character of Rebecca walks in she might as well have "I'm creepy!!" tattooed on her forehead because the music is not subtle about it. Even the blandest line is accentuated with music to make it sound fraught with meaning. I honestly don't know what to say about the plot. Everything is so glaringly obvious that I'm not sure what I'd be spoiling. The only two real mysteries that are presented are never explained. I'm not sure if they were even supposed to be mysteries or if the plot just overlooked them. The first is why Rebecca is killing people to begin with. She apparently hates people who are rude and ignore others while on their phone. However, in the movie it seems to act as an intense trigger for her. Even though they get a plethora of people she only kills those who are rude, especially in the phone usage area. So it seems like there would be a reason or something at least. Nope. Never explained. What is also never explained is why 'Granny', out of the blue, decides to help cover their crime. And, oddly enough, from the first. Even before she knows there has been an actual crime committed she's covering. I was hoping for a skeleton (literally or figuratively) in Granny's closet. But no, nothing. I did get the feeling there may have been a plot point in there somewhere that they decided not to use. It's a shame, really. Granny was one of the better characters and if she had an interesting story I may have forgiven a bit more. Between the wooden dialogue and nonsensical plot I cannot recommend this movie. Disclaimer: We received a review screener of At Granny's House from the publicist for review consideration. This is no way affects our review.

It's impressive that this was made outside the constrained studio system. This is not your ordinary thriller. It has a bit of a slow pace but it's deliberate; one doesn't realize they're being drawn into the film until midway through. Rachel Alig plays a perfect, unfeeling sociopath, with utterly emotionless dead eyes; even when her manipulative character "smiles," her eyes don't. "Granny's House" does become almost a very dark comedy of sorts in its third act, and while this feature may not be for everyone, it's worth a look or two.

So there is a big difference of opinion on this movie. I really think it boils down to the expectations of the reviewers. First, IMDb tends to have an audience that skews younger, and is more interested in explosions and gore than storytelling. This is NOT an explosions and gore kinda movie--it is a thoughtful, character driven thriller with a lot to say. To those who care to listen and think beyond the ordinary. Second, and i have seen this on other "peer review" sites, there are always people who just want to hate on a movie and have their voice heard. I doubt they have any clue about how films are made, and so have little understanding of the process. The guy who went on and on about the bad editing, for example--funny, i did not see those problems, nor did anyone else mention them. So my opinion is that this is an interestingly quirky thriller that really deserves people's attention- -not everyone will love it, but anyone who is being fair to the film will give it much higher than the one and two star ratings the younger set like to give. Bottom line--i have never rated any movie less than a 3, and i have seen some horrible movies! In other words, i suggest you throw out the highs and the lows, and look at the ratings that more in the middle, where this strong indie thriller belongs. Don't listen to the hate. There's too much of that out there as it is.

This is an interesting psychological indi horror, made outside of the whole studio scheme. It is exactly the thing I like, because instead of following the same all usual type of formula, it gives a different more abstract solution. I believe that similar as in painting or music, such an approach to the same'all usual filmmaking is in fact crucial, as it gives us something new. As a filmmaker and a painter my self, I appreciate when indi filmmakers have the courage to break some of the usual and overused formulas, that really haven't changed that much since the days of "Gone With the Wind" in 1939. In my opinion, the seventh art of film is only some 130 years old, and is still a large frontier to be explored, hence the element of impressionism and abstraction is in fact something that should be welcomed, rather then praising the same'all over used and over done formula. That really in the last couple of decades of the overused CGI, has really become nothing more, then old and bland. Cheers for the INDI film scene. Director, writer, actor Ivan Pavletic

The reason I am confused is that I can't see how this film got finance or distribution. First off, the production is full of technical gaffs - not least in editing. In several places the film has been edited so that the dialogue does not match (or flow in any way) from one shot to another. There are a few shots where it is obvious 'action' has been called as the actors suddenly go from their start positions into whatever interaction the shot calls for. In some shots the actor(s) is left in one position and in the next shot the actor is in a different position or pose, even though it is supposed to flow as one. The acting is strained at the beginning of the film - especially the actor who plays the son - although it does get slightly better as the film progresses - or perhaps I just didn't notice it anymore with so many technical issues and trying to figure out how the edits could possibly have been considered passable. The whole film is like one big slapped together rush. The only saving grace is Rachel Alig - who does quite a reasonable job of acting (against the odds I suspect) - and has several half naked scenes (although this seems to be something of a trademark of hers) - which in the end do nothing to alleviate the strain of watching this hacked together set of images. At first I thought this was some king of home made video, or an experiment by first year film students, but apparently I was wrong. This was supposed to be a proper film. Never mind. Whatever went wrong in this may be addressed by all those involved when they work on other productions. Hopefully they will see it as a learning curve - never to be repeated. As for the story - well - it's just not worth going into.

Rebecca is hired to keep Marion company by her son. Marion resists the idea that she needs help. Rebecca is charming & breaks through her resolve. She convinces Marion to post on a site that offers free rooms to traveling strangers. Meeting people is fun. Rebecca loves 'collecting' new friends. Don't be fooled by the acting. The compelling plot & slow onset of dread overcomes all. A twisted dark story. These sweet ladies can't be trusted. I am not a friend or family member. I gain nothing by this review. I just hate seeing worthy independent cinema slammed.

I look thru the other reviews for this movie, and it just blows me away to hear so many negative comments about this film. It really makes me wonder if they watched this movie or not! Because of all the "haters" out there, I would like to give you my comments, because i HAVE watched this movie, and really enjoyed it. Acting: very strong, overall. The guy who played granny's son is not the greatest, but he goes away after ten minutes. "Granny" is an amazing actress who really shines, as is Rebecca. Overall the cast was very strong. Story: Very interesting. I don't want to give anything away, but i think this story has a very contemporary feel to it, and addresses a major social problem. Suspense: Yeah, it's creepy! Technical: I love the way this movie was shot--lots of interesting angles and lighting. Music: really good, complimented the imagery very well. To be honest, i think some people just like to criticize--i have no idea how anyone could give this movie less than 6 or 7 stars, and to give it one star is atrocious!

After i've watched this movie i really feel i should write a short helpful review. DON'T WATCH IT. I can't describe how bad it is, honestly. While i was watching i had only one question on my mind. Which is worse the plot, the acting or the directing? Still unanswered. I've seen some bad movies now and then, i'm usually neutral about them but this got out of hand. No action at all, 1 hour and a half i could have spent doing nothing. To be fair though, it had some moments that could make this movie work as an average comedy. For example while the couple was in bed they were seeing visions on the ceiling. For real, they actually did it twice. I laughed, that got me.

I found this to be a well-executed indie thriller that really brought together disparate ideas into a interesting and compelling story. Not really sure where the negative reviewers are coming from, I guess some people just have to hate. The acting is generally very good, although Glenda Morgan Brown as Granny really stands out--she owns the part and really lights up the screen. I thought the cinematography was exceptional, there were some beautiful shots that really made the movie interesting. There were some very interesting surprises as well, especially the twist ending. What is going on in your small town?