Few things match like “young girls” and “horror”, just ask the Japanese. Even in the Western world, horror films starring children have been quite effective. Quien puede matar a un niño?, Children of the Corn, The Omen, The Other to name but a few. One movie that also wants to be on that list is Orphan, in which we meet Esther, a young girl who spends her life in an orphanage after her family was killed. She’s quite good at drawing and playing the piano, you know. Esther is lucky: the Colemans, a happy couple with two children, want to have a third child and have decided to introduce an adopted child into the family. Esther is lucky, the family is less so. Because Esther isn’t just a normal cute girl… Esther is [ooh ahh, spoiler alert narrowly avoided by SPAT, the Spoiler Prevention Action Team.]
Actually, it doesn’t matter whether you know the truth about Esther or not (not that I’ll spoil the movie for you). It’s quite clear she’s malicious and she doesn’t have the best intentions for most members of the family (or indeed anyone who stands in her way). If you already know why Esther is doing these things, it doesn’t spoil any of the fun… I can assure you, the movie had been spoilt for me. There are movies which are mainly based around the twist and once you know the twist, the fun ends. The Sixth Sense, a movie I’ve been trying to avoid like the plague, is allegedly such a movie. Other films may have their hidden secrets, but the outcome doesn’t spoil the rest of the film. Something Alfred Hitchcock tried to prove in a couple of his films.
Orphan has decided not to be tackled by its twists. While you already know Esther isn’t your regular sweetheart, her new parents John and Kate are still quite unaware, which helps add tension. Esther’s ‘brother’ is scared to death of her, but doesn’t dare to reveal what he knows about Esther. Miraculously, to an extent you sympathize with Esther, mainly because a lot of classmates are a bunch of regular bastards and deserve to be confronted by an Esther-like person. Serves them right, horrible bunch of bullies!
What is definitely less great is that the director (Jaume Collet-Saura) has tried to make his film even more scarier. In fact, he has achieved the opposite. Take the scene where Kate Coleman (Vera Farmiga) is in the bathroom, early in the film. The medicine cabinet is open, so you and Kate can’t see the mirrors on the front. Then… shock! horror! scary music!… she closes the cabinet… and nothing happens. Later in the film the exact same thing happens and… shock! horror! scary music!… her husband suddenly stands next to her. Oh my, how completely the opposite of scary that was. It’s not the only example, there are even scenes where the camera follows Cate or John (Peter Sarsgaard) and when the character turns around, there’s nothing there. It’s as if Collet-Saura was trying to make a scary movie but ends up with Scary Movie. Luckily, there’s only a handful of scenes like this and the rest is a lot better. Not in the least thanks to Isabelle Fuhrman who is perfectly cast as Esther. (Never thought we’d find a girl that could outdo Jodelle Ferland.)
Had it not been for that handful of irritating scenes, Orphan would’ve definitely ended up in my top five of 2009. Nevertheless, it’s great value, even if you already know what’s in store. Not that you know everything…
P.S. Never try to google the word ‘orphan’ when you’re reviewing this film. Unless you’ve mentally prepared yourself for dozens of pictures of starving orphans all around the world.
P.P.S. Don’t stop reading here: there was a bonus update on Saturday, concerning the best music of 2009 (well, if you’d ask me, of course…).
The United States have their hard-boiled detectives and film noir types, but what have the Europeans set against that? Cranky old men in the UK and Scandinavia. Frost, Wallander, Morse… that sort of thing. Lately, the Scandinavians have been busy to ‘invent’ a crime subgenre that benefits from the European diversity. (In case you didn’t know: it generally means that directors need an investment from a couple of countries, countries that in turn ask the director to have a bit of their glorious country inserted into the movie. Thus the European thriller was often an artificial and convoluted creature.) In 2004 the Danish made a crime series (The Eagle) that detailed the maffias and corruption in several countries and for once the result didn’t seem contrived. The series starred von Trier regular Jens Albinus, had music from Jacob Groth and several episodes were directed by Niels Arden Oplev. The latter two helped create the first film of the Millennium trilogy: Men who hate women (a.k.a. Män som hatar kvinnor a.k.a. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). The signs were good and thanks to the international popularity of the books, there was no need for artifical funding by several European countries. Everyone was happy to honour Stieg Larsson and keep the books as Swedish as possible, so as not to upset the millions of fans.
versions of what Larsson hoped to be: an relentless investigative journalist and a ballsy person.) Blomquist is on trial for slander and she’s asked by a company to investigate whether he’s honest or not. They don’t meet.
There are many good things to say about Men Who Hate Women, but some deserve a special bit of credit. First and foremost the writers, who decided to make Lisbeth Salander’s character more prominent (but without betraying the nature of Larsson’s novel). Equally important is Noomi Rapace, who leaves a lasting impression as the gutsy but troubled Lisbeth Salander. And finally composer Jacob Groth, who went to Eastern Europe to hire the help of one of the biggest choirs, so the film would have a score that may be subtle but stands out. Despite the financial support of a lot of European tv networks it gave this film the feeling of a grand Hollywood production, whilst keeping the grittiness Hollywood films will never have.
Because yes, the title is not Men Who Hate Women without reason: what has happened (and happens) to Lisbeth and several other women is not the sort of thing you can talk about during the next family dinner. And unlike a lot of American films the violence isn’t glorified or beautified. No, it’s shown as brutal and vile as it is. At the same time, Lisbeth Salander isn’t exactly a princess herself: she is raped and takes revenge by returning to the rapist and tattooing a warning message on the rapist’s stomach. Probably not someone who’ll go topless to the beach next summer.
And hardcore fans of the film should watch out for the DVD, which is the extended version of the film (as shown on Swedish television). For the film, a subplot that wasn’t necessary was deleted, reducing the cinema version by 30 minutes. This puts Men Who Hate Women closer to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King which did a similar thing and luckily not closer to a lot of other European films which could only get support from networks if they’d added extra footage (read: bonus fodder) so the networks could broadcast the film as a mini-series (thereby filling their schedules for two or three weeks, but reducing the film’s power – but it’s not as if networks tend to care about quality).
Millennium 1: Men Who Hate Women may be bold and brutal, but it’s good European cinema. The Americans, who are not too keen of the brutalness of the film, have announced they’ll remake the film in 2011. It’s already the least anticipated movie of the decade. Misogyny isn’t a fun subject and this film proves you can show it in a film, without reducing yourself to the level of the 80s rape revenge movies like Extremities. Mainly because most abused women aren’t Farrah Fawcett and fairy tale endings don’t always exist in real life. We may seem civilized but underneath this thin layer of manners lies a dark world. Thus spoke Stieg Larsson.
Dutch director Alex van Warmerdam has already been responsible for several films: Abel, De Noorderlingen (The Northeners), De Jurk (The Dress), Kleine Teun (Little Tony), Grimm and Ober (Waiter). Compared to its predecessors, De Laatste Dagen van Emma Blank (The last days of Emma Blank) sticks out because of its long title. However, the director’s typical touch has not been altered: this film too displays a wit so dry it’s waterproof.
Noorderlingen featured a prefab village in the 1950s where a woman is suddenly idolised for her religious gifts, whose Ober featured a waiter who started complaining to the screenplay writer about his role in the film… van Warmerdam’s movie thrive on tiptoeing on the line between realism and surrealism.
learn that Emma’s butler is actually her husband, but just how the other people in the house are connected to each other isn’t clear. Nor is it obvious why they choose to remain in the same house as the tyrannic Emma Blank. It’s all a mystery, much like Emma’s fatal disease.
does organize the occasional outing, but it’s immediately obvious that staying home would’ve been a better option.
Hello and welcome to 2010! On this very first day of the year it’s custom to do two things, pondering about the future (all the best from me and the others behind DV) and looking back at the year we’ve survived. If the media reviews are anything to go by, 2009 was pretty gloomy. Maybe the Mexican flu was even the jolliest thing of the year. Looking back at my film top 10 of 2009 (the list appears next Monday), two things became apparent: on the one hand 2009 was the year Sweden boomed (three films in the top five), on the other hand young girls were not always what they seemed. One film combined both factors and is my deserved number one: Let The Right One In.
Jackson) still struggles from convincing people who hate sci-fi, fantasy and horror to watch it. For some reason, Let The Right One In manages to fill the gaps.
own). And even though Kåre Hedebrant was quite convincing as the badly plagued Oskar, there’s no denying Lina Leandersson makes quite the startling debut as Eli.
scenes were ending and boo sounds when the next scene would start. By the end, I’d gotten sympathy for a film I didn’t like, just because it had to compete against these brainless brutes. Of course, the kids were obliged to see the film, which made them automatically dislike it and noone was there (not that I could spot) to introduce them to the film. I don’t want you to see those two factors as an excuse for this hooliganesque behaviour, the total lack of respect is horrible, but let’s go back to our school years: weren’t obligatory trips always disappointing, a fact you’d persuaded yourself of before the cultural experience had begun? Surely, this would be different if I’d be in a room full of adult people (18+ is adult, after all) who’d gone to the cinema of their own free will and had chosen one particular film out of 18 possibilities…?
watch the screen in awe. This has happened before (see my Eden Lake review) and now it was time to see if Paranormal Activity could do the same.
fat chance you won’t have even seen 1% of the world’s output. (By the way, stay tuned for my Best of 2009 list, appearing on these very pages next Monday.) Paranormal Activity tried to have a better chance by using modern-day equipment like YouTube, showing footage of people fainting during screenings. Whether doctored or not (probably yes), it did help to get the film distributed. What a shame then that the people who were aware of the allegedly scary movie ended up bitterly disappointed. You see, if you go to a film without some form of anticipation and you spend an enjoyable 90 minutes, you’ll like the film. If you go to a film that apparently has made people faint and you get to the end of the film still fully conscious, you’ll feel cheated. One of the films I often quote in this respect, is Silent Hill, which used scary music and visual effects to warn you something incredibly scary was ahead… but the frightening scenes never lived up to my expectations because of this. Likewise, Romero added so many effects to scare you in 
Land of the Dead that, by the time a zombie did pop up, you’d probably yawn.
(pictured next to this text) shows Katie suddenly getting up in the middle of the night and just standing next to the bed for an hour and a half, unaware of what she’s doing. Because this is shown in fast-forward motion, this is a lot scarier than a lot of gore, even though all you see is an immobile woman and a timer racing through the night. Never mind it distinctly echoes the climax to The Blair Witch Project.
this total pillock, what a stupid girl she must be). Despite Katie’s personal experience (she’s been assaulted by spirits before) and countless warnings, Micah insists on using the camera to record every moment of their lives, even if this might make the paranormal manifestations worse. Also, he doesn’t mind provoking the spirit in true Neanderthal fashion: me protecting girlfriend, me scare you away. To summarize, Micah really got on my nerves and I started praying to the demonic entity to kill Micah as soon as possible. Even though of course Micah’s video footage is what allowed this film to be compiled.
be certain, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Oren Peli, writer and director of Paranormal Activity, has read the book. Of course, by referencing House of Leaves and The Blair Witch Project (voluntarily or accidently), you do place your films near other media that may well banish you into their shadow. Paranormal Activity isn’t a match to these two, even if Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat do an excellent job. Especially Katie deserves a lot of credit, being the centerpiece of the film and showing a young woman on the verge of breaking down after having been the target of paranormal activities for a couple of years. In an attempt to look like genuine footage, the film doesn’t have credits. It mainly mentions the names of Katie and Micah at the beginning of the film (and by thanking the couple’s families for allowing Peli to use the footage, you know things won’t end good). As if you were watching an actual documentary. And at the very end, after the film’s climax, the film ends with a black screen telling you this was directed by Oren Peli and that’s it. The lights go on and the audience remains in their seats, slowly coming to terms with the fact they’re in the real world again. Yes, the young couple I’d mentioned in the beginning of this review had lost their appetite to use their mobile phone, instead soaking up the antics of Micah and Katie. And, when the lights switched on and people just sat there, one woman behind me said: “I haven’t been so frightened by a film since Silent Hill.” Usually, I’ll be the last person out of the theatre, not moving from my seat until the credits have ended, but this time I was the first to leave.
In just under a fortnight this decade will be over and a new one will emerge, generally a time for bigger resolutions. So here’s my request: can all the directors in the world stop shaking around with those cameras if it’s not necessary? (And let’s face it: it hardly ever is.) Ever since Dogma 95 and The Blair Witch Project directors found it an übercool tool to add some reality to their films, but more often than not, the only thing it made audiences do was throw up their dinners. Fish Tank suffers from the same problem: cameras jump around for no obvious reasons (it even made me become nostalgic of Jess Franco‘s zooming effects) and in one scene we see protagonist Mia (the excellently cast Katie Jarvis in her debut role) dance to music when suddenly the camera swings around and the sun hits us straight in the eye. There’s only two words for that: bad directing. (Tight budget or not.)
Mia isn’t blessed with the most perfect surroundings: she’s been kicked out of the umpteenth school, has a love/hate relationship with her little sister Tyler and her mother is a single woman keen on booze and snogging with nearly strangers. As the film opens, we see Mia watching a group of girls mimicking MTV videos. Mia mocks them and soon the verbal fight ends with Mia headbutting a girl and possibly breaking her nose. Life is tough where Mia lives.
Another thing is Connor, the new lover Mia’s mother has. This guy seems different from all the previous creeps and is even genuinely kind to Mia and Tyler. Mia even makes an effort to open up to this guy, at which point you can only start hoping there won’t be a moment when the boundaries between mother’s lover and the fifteen-year-old girl will be broken. Mind you, both Mia and Connor don’t mind a bit of alcohol themselves. Yet, credit given where credit is due, Arnold takes the story down a path I hadn’t expected it. Add to this the film’s surroundings, which is depicted with more detail than necessary (there’s a plotline where Mia takes it up for a decrepid horse) and you end up with a film that has more gravitas than most films in this genre: either they end up being unbearably tough and virtually unwatchable (I never feel the need to watch a Shane Meadows movie) or they’re dosed with so much sugar you watch the film with a sick taste in your mouth (the Billy Elliot variety).
On your left you see Jeanne, portraying a young woman (or: girl) descending some stairs to take the local train in Paris (or: RER). And that’s why the film is called The Girl on the Train or (in its original title) La Fille du RER. It may be any RER, but Jeanne (as portrayed by Emilie Dequenne) isn’t any other girl. Jeanne’s story 
The film explicitly shows the involvement of the media in this story, changing Jeanne from the victim of a outrageous crime to a symbol of how today’s rotten society has no respect for other people and victimizes them beyond belief. And then, 
Avenue Kurtodrome 
You must be logged in to post a comment.