Michael Ledo Josh (Stephen Moyer) and Alice (Rachel Blanchard) are getting a divorce. They opt to sell their home on their own during a buyer's market. Alice lives in the house. David does not. Alice gets the feeling someone is in her house. This was a well shot good creepy scene with the proper music. You could sense her anxiety as she calls around for her girlfriend. Unfortunately it doesn't last and the next thing we know Alice is a prisoner in her own home...during open house. David (Brian Geraghty) is our clean cut intruder who looks like a prospective buyer. Based on early events and conversations, things are a bit strange as a mystery develops. Who are these people? What do they want? Why this house and couple?Bad girl Tricia Helfer as Lila provides the token eye candy. Brian Geraghty has got that Anthony Perkins creep working for him.F-bombs, no nudity, dry humping, women kissing

Brakathor As usual, when I watch a film with psychopathic homicidal criminals who seem to have everything go their way despite taking ludicrous risks and being sloppy to the extreme, I sit there half angry trying to process it all.The film is about a serial killer duo who apparently move from house to house, killing all the occupants, setting up residence for a week or two, then leaving to repeat the process again. Criminally speaking, this can go on successfully for a time and eventually they WILL get caught. They operate in a way in which they leave tonnes of evidence; fingerprints, witnesses, plus half a dozen dead bodies, people who had plans/appointments to come to the house and apparently NONE of them informing their loved ones or friends about where they were going, and thus, the police stay well out of the picture. This is what we know after having sat through half of the film, so at this point we realise 1. they arrive on scene ALREADY wanted by the police. 2. composite sketches should be being blasted all over the news. 3. chances are they should be identified by fingerprints and/or DNA (hair strands/blood). The fact that both killers, but the woman in particular are being so brazen during this film more or less gives them a 95% chance of being caughtAll this being said, assuming they're the luckiest serial killers alive with an unnatural blessing to kill as many people as they want to (It's a weak poorly planned serial killer movie, so OF COURSE.), and assuming they are this lucky, let's examine the 5% window that this film lives in. One question people will always ask themselves is "how is it that no one in the neighbourhood took notice or showed suspicion." A valid question, though even more valid is the general lack of concern by people uninvolved. e.g. I once personally saw someone get kidnapped off the street and hauled into a moving van, and I didn't particularly care enough to call the police, as I was already late for my train, and I didn't see any of the other few people around reaching for their cell phones either, so this aspect of the film's integrity which other reviewers have brought up, is honestly not a worthy criticism.Where I turn to now is the character's actions. The worst and most nonsensical aspect to me is the character driven premise... WHY does the male killer not simply kill the owner the second she walks into the room, finding her friend dead. He has absolutely no reason not to, has already killed 3 people in the house, so it makes no sense, as well as being really stagy how she backs into where he's hiding and then all fades to black and she SOMEHOW conveniently loses consciousness basically so the encounter/interaction between the two wont have to be dealt with and she can awaken later in chains. Not very smooth directing at all. That being said, the directing is VERY American school, as the film is riddled with 5 or so scenes where characters show up JUST at that pesky moment.To top it off, an important criticism that many brought up was the dialogue and thus the motivation of the characters. Firstly, despite the owner stating that she believes the male killer is DIFFERENT than his female counterpart, he is clearly just as brutal as her, if not moreso, and there is no real worthy conflict between the 2 killers shown. He is really given NO motive, emotional, logistical, or otherwise to abandon his current companion for this new woman that he for no particular reason spared, and had no meaningful dialogue with, and thus no real basis for any emotional connection.The ending however was more or less the final shitscoop on the turd Sunday we've been forced to swallow here; contrived, melodramatic, stagy, and the climax of an entirely unfounded plot premise for all the reasons I have listed above. Even though the acting is fairly competent, especially by the male antagonist, it really leaves you feeling nothing in the end, and honestly, I really cannot see the point in sacrificing any of your time on a film written/directed by someone who took no time to produce meaningful dialogue, and who clearly put no thought or planning into the nature of the criminal elements portrayed on screen.

TheHrunting A woman named Alice (Rachel Blanchard) is selling her house after a divorce and her agent is showing it off to potential buyers while she still lives in the residence. A person sneaks in and hides--hey, it's an "open house" isn't it--and awaits her to come home, not because this person wants to dodge the pesky realtor, but to meet her face to face and use her dwelling as a slaughterhouse for whoever comes in contact with it.You're introduced to David and Lila: a couple who make a sadistic partnership, as the female is spontaneous and seductive, and the male is the silent planner type. Lila arrives at the home after the bloody fact with a friend of Alice already being killed, but doesn't know David has the homeowner Alice locked away instead of slaying her too. Lila is gone during the day and David plays Mr. Nice to the traumatized Alice with some Stockholm Syndrome to smooth her over for a possible change of heart.Death after death is shown by both David and Lila with the weapon of choice being a kitchen knife and video camera rolling to catch the memory. Though this comes with no real point and has more forced scares going on than your neighbor's cheap garage setup during Halloween. This tries far too hard to make you uneasy without actually providing anything to substantially pull that off with, such as cuing the high pitched and grating music too early or late, or just the pacing having drastic ups and downs. Like "The Strangers" attempted, there's no background motivational factor to these perfectly normal looking villains except to show every now and again they have moments of anger and control problems. Not to mention there's only a quick little character backdrop on the victims but nothing that would make you care in the slightest. That might have been fine and dandy to creating fear of the unknown, but this is also missing the element to put you in their shoes if it was being any more minimalist. Could this happen to you when selling your house? From the tone of this movie, probably not, as the camera never bothers to leave the home and show someone enter at their own risk, or even get a questioning look through the blinds from a neighbor to put you on edge or their sadistic plans on ice. The safety barrier of the screen you're watching it on is never pulled away.For a film aimed towards horrific murder it's awfully polite and melodramatic by trying to play on what you wouldn't expect serial killers to act or look like as one is glamorous and model-esque and the other polite and clean cut. The tone tries to be two things at once: gruesome and personal. It shows the deteriorating relationship between David and Lila, as well as the growing one with David and Alice. You'll get the side that's warm and caring to each other, and another that delivers point blank killings to everyone else. The camera follows around David and will literally sit on him doing everyday household things as if something substantial is going on between the lines. As if you're supposed to feel bad but forget that he's a maniac underneath that wholesome '50s look because he's lonely and cooks a mean dish. The interpretations left up the viewer rely on luck than truly being open to them. The paper thin storyline all the while drops little hints, but strings you along by being so vague as to lose the audience's attention long before its conclusion. They could have told me who really shot Kennedy at the end and it wouldn't have saved this."The Stepfather" did something similar where he pretended to be somebody he wasn't and when after he was done with the people just disposed of them; the horror being that it's a cycle and he'll only do it again. "Open House" tries to dodge what you wouldn't anticipate if you watch horror films, with not only the characters but the drama-like story line that pushes away from tried and true conventions, though somehow it couldn't maintain the juggling act as basic as it was. "The Collector" was much more effective for a recent trapped in a house movie that balanced fear, mysteriousness and suspense. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/)

meghan-c-simon After reading the reviews, I anticipated a terrible movie.Remember: this is Paquin's debut - 1st effort....I have seen a lot worse.while full of the normal thriller clichés and obviously working with a low budget, the acting and art direction is surprisingly good... as is the psychological tension/dynamic between the protagonist, his partner, and his captor.all in all? not bad...I wouldn't see it in the theatre but it would be worth a one time rental.