29.4.08

A review of The Orphanage (2007)



"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...


Quotidian Neologism

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
:)

27.4.08

HQTube

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 :)


Anyway, thanks to http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Watch_Higher_Quality_YouTube_Videos for the info and the (somewhat faulty) embedding instructions. I'll give it another go later.

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?

22.4.08

How can you Breathe Six Feet Under?

As a precursor to some inane waffle about Six Feet Under and cos I think its rather nice and cos I havent quite figured out how to simply put music on this blog (yes I know you have to host the track somewhere and embed the url, blah blah...) heres a song called Breathe Me by Sia.
She seems to have a cold, or maybe shes supposed to sound like that. Whatever, the music is lovely and I dare anyone who has watched all of Six Feet Under to listen to it and not feel at least a twinge of emotion.
(for ye unwashed and uneducated masses, the song features in the final moments of the final episode of one of the finest tv shows ever made - during a sequence that is as bizzare and humourous as it is moving. Kinda the way life is)

Anyway, here's the slightly pretentious music video. Best to close your eyes or just leave it running in the background.

Enjoy :)



21.4.08

The Fall Trailer

Perhaps the most beautiful trailer in recent memory (a word I don't use lightly), this is Tarsem Singh's follow up to 2000's The Cell. Unlike most people I quite liked The Cell, though more for its' amazing imagery than its casual brutality.
Anyway, this film has been finished since 2006 and has so far only had a pretty unsucessful run in Russia so I wouldnt hold my breath for seeing it at the local multiplex.
I'll stop waffling and let you watch it. Do seek out a HD version, these Youtube vids don't do it justice.

Epic...

Another couple of vids here, part of a supposed series entitled Epic... something.
I'm considering Epic Cooking or Epic Clouds... can't think of anything else at the moment.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.



I really like the lens flare at 1.08 :)

20.4.08

Trailers Anonymous

'Hello My name is Daniel and I love trailers'

I really do. I think it's their simplicity, the facile nature of the two and a half minute relationship. The bombastic promises they make (like every Tom Cruise film will 'change your world') and the way in which they satisfy all your cinematic needs in moments.
I've tried to sort through my addiction, I even considered doing my thesis on trailers as a form of therapy but I'm still absurdly drawn to them. Consider an example; Timur Bekmambetov's latest film Wanted.


Now I've seen the director's previous films (Nightwatch and Daywatch) and I found them wholly confusing and underwhelming. And yet, addict that I am, I'm absurdly excited by the trailer for Wanted. I'm like some kind of pathological goldfish, coming to each film with renewed hope no matter how many times I've been disappointed. And I blame the trailers.
The main problem, probably obvious to everyone else out there, is that being able to make a good trailer just means you have two minutes of good footage. With editing and, perhaps more importantly, music any film can be made to seem good. Case in point, the Matrix Revoloutions has a pretty good trailer and is one of the worst (or at least, most disappointing) films ever made. I suppose all this really means is that the advertising companies are doing thier jobs - flashy and well edited trailers makes thousands of idiots like me spend money on their films.
It's opium for the masses...
Just for fun (and to make it seem like there's more content on this page) here's an alternate trailer for the rather good and criminally underrated 2002 film Equilibrium.
The film was advertised as a Matrix-beater and, as such, I suppose people would be disappointed. In my opinion it's a bit more deep than the Matrix and the action is very impressive for the budget. Anyway, this vid basically cobbles together the best action moments in the film in a way and is, if I do say so myself, rather satisfying.
Enjoy :)


Well greetings and hello.
More out of boredom than any real motivation I've decided to join the blogging community. No doubt this brief interest will fizzle over the coming weeks as I realise I don't actually have anything much to say but I'd rather be here than on facebook.
To be honest I see this more as an opportunity to force myself to do some writing, or at least in a more or less systematic and hopefully less mysanthropic way. Though ranting online does feel a little like the literary equivalent of shouting into the abyss.
Should anyone actually end up here, my intention is to treat this site as a dumping ground for my opinions about life (ie: rants) and a repository for my over written opinions of whatever films I've recently watched. If I ever think of anything else interesting then you'll find it here too.
Alrighty then, here's a Bourne Ultimatum review from the archives to get me going.

A review of The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)


I liked both The Bourne Identity (2002) and The Bourne Supremacy (2004) but I didn’t love them. As espionage thrillers they were a welcome antidote to Bond (especially in the wake of 2002’s bloated Die Another Day), were competently made and, at the very least, consistently entertaining. It seems to be something bordering on blasphemy to suggest this, but I must admit I preferred the Doug Liman directed Identity over its sequel, helmed by Paul Greengrass. The latter’s handheld camerawork (even in scenes where a properly composed, static shot would be more effective) constantly distracted me from the onscreen events. This irritating stylistic choice, coupled with an unnecessary-to-the-plot (though undoubtedly thrilling) car chase in the final act makes Supremacy the weaker film, in my opinion. However, regardless of minor foibles, I enjoyed the two Bourne films thus far and, with this in mind, looked forward to checking out the latest instalment – The Bourne Ultimatum.


Again directed by Paul Greengrass, now with the frankly awe-inspiring United 93 (2006) under his belt, Ultimatum follows on immediately from the events of Supremacy. In fact, the initial action follows Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) as he escapes from the aftermath of the car chase which ended the previous film. It is during Bournes’ escape from the police in Moscow that the first possible downfall of the film reared its head – flashbacks. Though the gradual reveal of Bournes shattered memories has been an element in each of the previous films, it is such a tired cinematic device that I feared its use, so early in the film, might be a symptom of sequel fatigue. A spy film with a central character suffering from amnesia had been done to death 50 years ago, and is a plotline revisited by countless neo-noir and science fiction stories. Here it frames a tale of revenge on the people who created Bourne; echoing backwards to his indoctrination into the ranks as a mindless assassin. The use of this device, and the generalities of the plot which it fuels, are rather crude, rudimentary and extremely familiar. But this is where the disappointments with The Bourne Ultimatum end.


The plot, in complete disregard of its failings, rockets along – taking us on a globe-trotting adventure from Moscow to Tangiers and, ultimately, New York. An ensemble of new and returning characters populate Bournes headlong sprint from one danger to the next. The acting is almost uniformly excellent; Damon manages to meld death-dealing assassin with world-weary everyman perfectly, Julia Stiles makes the most of a chance to flesh out her returning character and David Strathairn is uncompromising as a heavy-handed section chief. The only minor casting blip comes in the form of the other operatives sent after Bourne – they are particularly nondescript, forgettable and almost indistinguishable from one another. Though this is, quite possibly, deliberate it occasionally feels as though Bourne is fighting and running from the same Terminator-like enemy throughout. The events are essentially the same as the previous outings – the only real difference being that this time instead of running away Bourne is taking the fight to his former bosses. The action, in keeping with the series, is short, sharp and brutal. The choreography and execution of the action scenes is near perfect in this film, building on the lessons learned in the previous outings. The hand-to-hand fighting is not marred by the jump-cutting, speed ramping mistakes of the first film and the central New York car chase is both breathtakingly captured and is at least partially integral to the plot. The most effective sequence though, in my opinion, involves Bournes interaction with a British reporter (Paddy Considine). The latter is guided through the rush hour madness of Waterloo Station in London while Bourne moves around the periphery; eliminating the agents who are stalking them. The sequence is relatively action free but filled with the kind of sustained tension and a palpable sense of danger which action films in general, and Hollywood films in particular, generally find impossible to create.


As the third part of a previously competent and enjoyable trilogy, The Bourne Ultimatum had the deck stacked against it – particularly coming at the end of a summer movie season with so many disappointing second sequels (Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, Spiderman 3…). Against all odds it truly delivers. I would not hesitate to say that it is the best of the trilogy; likely the best action film I’ve seen this year and possibly one of the best films of the year thus far. As a film-lover who is more often disappointed than dazzled I am delighted to be able to recommend this film as a triumph of sincere and sustained talent rather than a vacant money-maker, a symbol of studio greed. The Bourne Ultimatum is uncomplicated without seeming shallow, realistically brutal without feeling constrained by its PG-13 certificate, well-acted, impeccably directed and, above all else – it leaves you with that indefinable feeling of post-cinema satisfaction. It’s neither the greatest film ever committed to celluloid, nor even the greatest action film but it succeeds far more than it fails and deserves to be seen and appreciated.

Enjoy.


P.S. And yes, for the record, the ubiquitous shaky handheld camera-work does make an unwelcome return. Though noticeably toned-down it is still consistently distracting, injecting unneeded energy into dialogue scenes and occasionally obfuscating any sense of geography in the action scenes. However, Greengrass pulls off everything else with such panache that he can be forgiven this one, peculiar habit.