I don't do rollercoasters. I just find the whole experience utterly terrifying - the brief acceleration and the clenching of every muscle - it is our bodies preparing for death. The fact that relatively few people actually die on rollercoasters isn't as reassuring as it probably should be. So I went to Thorpe Park in Surrey in England and went on a total of 3 rides all day. And I felt like I was going to die every time. Still I got some good pictures and videos of people who quite enjoy being strapped to hunks of metal and putting 'near-death experience' on repeat/play for a few hours. The constant, uncontrollable screaming really got to me after a while. If someone had actually decided to go on a murderous rampage - how could we even tell something was wrong...
As always check out MyFlickr for these pics and more. The above video is hosted at Vimeo, a site which not only hosts videos at 640x480 without a fuss but also promises true 720p hd. I have yet to test the second claim (I literally have no movies at that resolution!) but I've found the site easy to navigate and the tools, especially the embedding tool, very helpful.
After Dog Soldiers (2002) and The Descent (2005), Neil Marshall seemed like the new wunderkind of British horror cinema. His latest, Doomsday, is a markedly different film from his earlier work – most clearly in it's inability to choose which genre it belongs to. Dog Soldiers clearly leaned in the direction of comedy while The Descent was a masterful lesson in claustrophobic horror, marred only slightly by a number of over the top action scenes in its final act. Doomsday has funny moments, horrible moments, thrilling moments and, more often, moments filled with levels of absurdity which would not feel out of place in a full-blown spoof.
The year is 2033. A quarter of a century has passed since the outbreak of a fatal disease in northern Britain. Scotland has been cut off - segregated behind a barrier closely following the lines of Hadrian's wall. But the disease has returned, the south is threatened and a crack military team (led by Rhona Mitra) is sent into the contaminated zone to find survivors, and a cure. Throw in Marshall's proven abilities to create tension and a little offbeat humour and it sounds like the making of a minor classic, right? Well yes and no. The films' greatest strength is also its biggest liability – namely nostalgia.
Some films use nostalgia extremely well. A recent example would be Superman Returns. The slow, majestic sweep of the title sequence served to reintroduce us the universe of Superman (literally and figuratively). John Ottman's marginal reworking of John William's superb score was so evocative that it, in conjunction with the familiar (though now CG enhanced) starscapes created a near instant sense of comfort. Superman Returns is homage, Doomsday is convoluted pastiche.
The film is a literal expression of what happens when you give a director too much freedom. After only 2 features, Neil Marshall's track record was simply not strong enough to be allowed this kind of free reign. The result is a mess; the bastard child of a dozen or so 70's and 80's films – from the Warriors to Mad Max via Escape from New York. It also moves schizophrenically from one genre to the next: near future vistas give way to post-apocalyptic deserted cities (a la 28 Days Later) before moving on to psychedelic dancing cannibals, mobs of bikers and an extended, somewhat unnecessary, car chase. Did I mention there's a medieval section as well that comes off as a nicely shot mash-up of Robin Hood and Gladiator? As a knowing and self-referential piece of cinematic shlock this would be perfectly enjoyable but the fact is that Doomsday takes itself far too seriously. What humour exists is often as blatant as assuming that a stunning woman like Mitra aping almost Snake Plissken worthy dialogue is entertaining. This works, to a point, but it is missing that vital cue for the audience; how are we supposed to take this? In Dog Soldiers there was a healthy sense of the ridiculous, both on the part of the characters and the audience. Likewise in The Descent, we know from the outset that the film will not be lighthearted. Doomsday refuses to make that choice, veering from an overlong dance sequence which looks like the gag reel from a Prodigy music video to the genuinely shocking roasting of a live human being. The contrast of different styles can work within the structure of a film to make the relief of the comedy or the shock of the horror more powerful but when it vacillates this often and this wildly any such affect is lost.
One major point to remember is that the movies which Doomsday references are themselves a mixed bag. That's the thing with nostalgia, its better felt than examined. The original Superman comes across, to me, as strangely elitist these days and Escape from New York is an extremely uneven film. So, in trying to bring these kinds of films together, Marshall has doubly handicapped himself: Firstly, by being limited to sources of varying quality. Secondly, by trying to reference so many other films, the coherence of Doomsday suffers. So much so that each scene begins to resemble a discrete entity, rather than a part of the whole.
Doomsday is, however, a difficult film to truly dislike. There is a kind of manic energy to it, an undercurrent of gleeful nastiness that allows it to bulldoze through the cliches, plot holes and bloated editing. The action is generally well shot and presented and the whole film has a technical polish which we are not used to seeing in British cinema. The acting is generally good and Mitra makes an impressive leading lady, hopefully this will be a breakthrough role for her. As for Neil Marshall, this is without a doubt his weakest film to date and makes one wonder whether he's ready to make the move to big budget filmmaking (there are rumours he is about to be subsumed into the Hollywood machine). We can only hope he works from a better script with more supervision in the future.
I find it hard to imagine that we will still be talking about Doomsday in twenty years but for all its' faults there is some entertainment to be had. With the right attitude, a dvd turned up loud and a few drinks it might manage to become a minor cult favourite in the future. And, through the quality obscuring mists of nostalgia, maybe that is how a classic is born...
Three hours of tape and many miles of rather fast driving resulted in this time lapse video of the journey from Westport Co. Mayo to the edge of the M50 - seemingly the place where innocent automobiles go to die. The music is 'Birthright' by Celldweller and 'Breathe Me' by Sia. I think the whole thing turned out rather well, even through the all obscuring veil of youtube compression. I know it's long but do try to watch til the end...
Climbed Croagh Patrick County Mayo on Sunday. It wasn't easy. In fact I'm fairly sure I wished for death on a number of occaisons but I made it to the summit nevertheless. The view was stunning and, in retrospect, almost worth the physical effort. Almost. Have a lookie as some photos and please visit my flickr page for even more:
"And what do you say to your other nickname, the Merchant of Death?
That's not bad"
Iron Man is the first feature to be made entirely by Marvel – a significant gamble which has paid off to the tune of over $350 million worldwide after just two weekends. For a non-sequel from a fledgling company that is very impressive. It also bodes well for Marvel's second project, the reboot of The Incredible Hulk – due in cinemas in June. Comic book films are big money spinners now but the success of a new series is predicated on the entertainment value of the central character – and in this way Hulk and Tony Stark have similar problems. They just aren't super enough...
Iron Man starts with an unnecessary flashback structure, presumably to ensure some loud action in the first minute or two. Tony Stark (played with now-familiar post-rehab gusto by Robert Downey Jnr.) is the embodiment of the capitalistic, jingoistic American ideal. He has become absurdly rich designing weapons and, more significantly, has no moral qualms whatsoever about the negative effects of his work. Stark is not a nice man. Except he is. This potentially realistic and complex dualistic behaviour is lost in the film's failure to choose sides. This leads us to the first of many problems; what are we, the audience, supposed to think of Tony Stark? He is presented as bright and brilliant; a charming man of the people but also as a womaniser and something of a warlord. This initial confusion is nothing compared to what happens later on. After a brush with death and a subsequent escape (which is accomplished in an ultraviolent fashion) he holds a hippie press conference and vows to stop making weapons for good.
This turnaround is simply too fast and, as presented by Downey Jnr. with his usual twinkly-eyed glazed look, has none of the power or angst we have come to expect from comic book origin stories. His parents are not murdered before his eyes, nor is his home world destroyed. He does not belong to a mutant race of outcasts nor does he inadvertently cause the death of a loved one. He simply comes across as a petulant child who is bored with his old toys. Instead of using his money to work for peace or help starving children he creates a powered battle suit and flies around the world blowing things up. Exactly how this is 'protecting the people he put in harm's way' is slightly beyond me. And the hypocrisy of the double standard is appalling – it is only when Stark realises that (Shock! Horror!) his weapons might be used against American troops that he begins to examine his conscience.
Don't get the wrong idea, there is nothing particularly obnoxious about Iron Man. The performances are light and breezy and the script is a cut about the blockbuster norm; littered as it is with a particularly dry sense of humour. The central performance from Robert Downey Jnr. is the film's saving grace but also its' Achilles heel. His presence is enjoyable on the one hand but, in my opinion, also detracts from the credibility of the whole endeavour. You keep expecting him to wink to camera and finally admit it is some kind of extravagant Saturday Night Live parody. That Jeff Bridges is really being played by Will Ferrell and Terrence Howard is actually just a cardboard cutout. I still don't get Terrence Howard. I've yet to see him raise a palpable, or even guessable, emotion in his roles – his face seems oddly expressionless and his voice almost unbearable. He gets some good lines in this film but sounds like he's reading them from an auto cue. But I digress. As once off summer entertainment this kind of self aware film-making is bearable but I simply can't see the film becoming a much loved classic in the future.
So, what does the film have going for it? The special effects are extremely impressive, with the integration of cg and live action especially so. The set pieces, when they come, run the gamut from almost boring to genuinely thrilling. Stark's armoured escape from captivity is suprisingly dull while some of the later aerial combat sequences are really good fun. Once again though, the use of sfx has positive and negative effects, particularly in relation to the ending. The final confrontation has become a serious problem for the superhero film. In days of yore, special effects were difficult, so typically the best the film had to offer was saved for the ending. Now, every scene is liberally slathered with computer generated gunk. The result is explosive fatigue, a run of overpowering sequences which forgo actual affect for special effect. A dozen astonishingly well-rendered high octane scenes does not create a cumulative effect. There is a new cinematic law of diminishing returns. If the same level of frankly awe-inspiring cg work is applied to the hero designing and dressing in his suit then what is left for the audience to look forward to. What makes a special effect special these days? The ending of Iron Man is another clunky computer-aided brawl, where narrative is suspended for minutes at a time while increasingly unrealistic pieces of metal and flesh beat on each other. This moment is reminiscent of a dozen other recent movie resolutions: from Hellboy to The Matrix Revolutions, all equally unengaging. Without vicarious involvement – a sense that a character we can identify with is in danger – it just amounts to so many polygons.
Perhaps I've been a little harsh on Iron Man. I can't honestly say I was bored by the experience but I do feel its' major mis-steps are a symptom of a greater malaise at the heart of contemporary blockbuster cinema. If, however, your cynicism has not quite reached the pathological degree mine has you could well have some fun with Iron Man. Robert Downey Jnr., Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow are amiable enough company (even if the latter seems as though an errant puff of wind would shatter her into a million pieces) and the director, Jon Favreau, keeps things moving at a reasonable pace. Stark's character arc is minimal (more of a character stroll really) but his near trademarked delivery of PG-13 witticisms should be enough to hold your attention. Just.
"Seeing is not believing. Believe, and you will see."
The Orphanage is not a horror film and it is not directed by Guillermo del Toro.
These two common misconceptions have followed the film around since it's release. The former can perhaps be dismissed as semantics but the latter bears some semblance to the belief several years ago that Quentin Tarantino had directed Hero(2002). The major difference is that del Toro is a genuinely talented director and Tarantino is an over-rated adolescent. But that's another rant for another day.
The Orphanage was actually directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, in his feature film debut, though it could easily be mistaken for del Toro's work. Best known for his comic book movies Blade II (2002) and Hellboy (2004), The Orphanage is more tonally similar to some of his Spanish language work, particularly The Devil's Backbone (2001) and elements of Pan's Labyrinth (2006). However indebted Bayona is to films of this type he still manages to carve out a niche for himself with a suspenseful, emotional and technically accomplished ghost story.
I mentioned before that I did not consider The Orphanage to be a horror film and I stand by that assertion. Although the horror genre has always been difficult to define I would rather refer to this movie as an exercise in suspense mixed with a good old-fashioned ghost story. This does not mean that the film is not scary, far from it. There are jump scares and horror clichés aplenty but the film is smart enough to play with these conventions in a number of smart ways.
A married couple with an ailing, adopted son move to a mansion in the country with the intention of setting up a care home for disabled children. The title of the film refers to the fact that the mother was also an orphan and the house is the orphanage where she spent her youth. An initial flashback to this time shows us that Laura was happy here and she clearly wants to help other young children now. Her son, Simon, seems content in the new house, especially as he finds a number of new invisible playmates. He and his new friends play games, including a frantic treasure hunt, and his parents are generally tolerant of his childish delusions. The initial pacing of the film is gentle, coming to a head with Simon's sudden disappearance and Laura's desperate attempts to find him. She is willing to go to any lengths to be reunited with her son. The events which make up the latter half of the film are sometimes shocking, often intensely creepy and move at a fast pace towards the inevitable but heart-wrenching conclusion. It ticks all the stereotypical boxes for this kind of film - old dark house, creepy children, loud noises, even a surprisingly elaborate sequence involving a medium - but manages to feel fresh through a number of unique twists. The use of children's games is especially effective, with one memorable moment employing just the right mixture of tension and outright fear.
The cinematography is gorgeous but inobtrusive, certain shots are stunning when taken on their own but do not detract from the flow of the film. The use of cg within the film is subtle, something which non-American productions seem much better at. Visual effects are used to add to a scene rather than overpower it, except in the strangely cg-heavy title sequence. It is an anachronism in an otherwise technically sparse film and was most likely tacked on late in the game. The performances are likewise terse. Most notable is Belén Rueda as Laura; managing to play the distraught mother with commendable subtlety rather than the usual perfunctory hysterics. The performances of children are more difficult to critique. Suffice it to say that most of the young cast are blissfully silent and the son, Thomas (Roger Princep) does a fine job with some challenging material.
And there is yet another element which sets this film apart from its' contemporaries. It is in Spanish and, perhaps unfairly, this only adds to the overall sense of mystery. Even with subtitles, there is a more active engagement when we are viewing something that is not in our native language. We are not as focussed on what the characters are saying, instead we really see them, their interactions with their environment and eachother. I genuinely believe that this linguistic divide makes the film more effective and scarier. And make no mistake, this film is scary. True it has more in common with the short, sharp shocks of The Others (2001) than the hysteria-inducing gore and violence of Haute Tension (2003) but the insidious intrusion of the supernatural into the domestic is truly chilling.
The Orphanage is a highly effective ghost story with some interesting twists on the sub-genre that manages to maintain a constant level of dread and suspense. The resolution is shocking but also manages to retain an element of hope, as well as an insight into a possible view of the afterlife. I would strongly recommend this film for anyone who is tired of the assembly line abattoir of American horror – where tanned teens' barely one-dimensional lives are ended in a spray of (usually off-screen) viscera. If you have any brain-cells functioning after being subjected to such films, The Orphanage may give you a few sleepless nights but, after all, isn't that what a good ghost story is for...
Words are great. So are books but as they are, essentially, longer or shorter collections of words in many different orders - words were better, first. Dictionaries are great too - they resemble books in that they are collections of words but they are gloriously unfettered by the percived need for a 'plot' in literature or an 'argument' in academia. Dictionaries are just lots of words with other words explaining what the initial words mean. They come bound together in many pages but, in our fantastic technology-riddled world, dictionaries also exist on the Internet. So, from now on you can learn a new word here every day courtesy of www.dictionary.com It's not a book but it's still rather good. And it doesn't encourage the persistent genocide of trees. Which is good as well. It's an excellent resource and... words are great :)
So YouTube now allows you to upload vids at a slightly higher quality - 480x360 resolution to be precise. May not seem like a lot but it does make things seems a little clearer. The increase in audio quality is a little more noticeable (44100 Hz, up from 22050 Hz) but I think thats just because it used to sound pretty awful.
There are a number of ways to see the higher quality vids on YouTube, but so far none are especially straightforward. The most common is to append &fmt=18, which I'm told 'downloads the video as a MP4 (H264 with AAC audio), encoded at 480x360'. But there is also the mention of adding &fmt=6 which results in a different resolution (448x336) on selected vids. I'm not sure what Google thought they were doing here, but it seems to have been implemented in a pretty awkward way.
You can also change your account settings to automatically play the higher quality vids if they are available but, for me at least, this still makes it confusing because you are never sure which type is playing. Of course, as I'm on a 1 meg connection, the fact that the video is loading like an ameoba relay race is probably a good indication.
Anyway to enable this, go into your YouTube account, then down at the bottom under ACCOUNT/Video Playback Quality choose - 'I have a fast connection. Always play higher-quality video when it's available'.
As a test I thought I'd try to embed two vids, in old and new resolution, beside each other. I'm not that excited about the new Iron Man film but I'll use it as an example anyway.
Hmmmm, I followed all the directions. Maybe because the trailer is widescreen some of the values need to change... Robert Downey Jr. does seem a little stretched :)
P.S. it seems that there is no way to embed the non mp4 vids at present so the audio quality of the Iron Man trailer does not have higher bitrate audio but is apparently in stereo. Is anyone else confused yet?
Posts
