El Orfanato...

[Wryan]

OMFG.

Unstoppably amazing! One of the Best Films You'll See All Year! Chilling! Penetrating! Scares like no other film I've seen!

K, can I snag a spot on that worstcriticsoftheyear list now?

. . .

Seriously, though, it's really, really fucking good.

[Raiders]

Meh.

[MacGuffin]

Here's hoping it's scarier than El Espinazo del diablo.

[Wryan]

Meh.

Jesus (that's Hey-sus, btw, and not Gee-zus)! What on earth is wrong with you!?

[number8]

I'll agree with you, Wry. I loved this film.

[Ezee E]

I will find out tomorrow.

[Mysterious Dude]

I thought it was rather run-of-the-mill. Haunted house. Scary kids. Same old, same old.

It did have quite an interesting conclusion, though.

[Rowland]

I can't muster up much enthusiasm for this. Maybe that has to do with Scott Weinberg ranking it as his favorite 2007 movie, I dunno. In any case, I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[Wryan]

Wow. I could think of a lot of phrases to use to describe the film, but "run of the mill" ain't one of em. :)

[Wryan]

Okay, seriously. Can the people saying it was average or bleh AT LEAST admit the seance was a gripping, masterful series of moments? If you don't, I'll cry.

[D_Davis]

Broke my almost 2-month long movie fast with this.

It was okay.

Nothing great, but okay.

One thing though...

Why in the hell didn't Simon yell "Mom! Dad!"? I mean...this is such a rookie mistake in the narrative. Sound clearly travels easily in the house. Those old houses have thin walls, and usually no insulation, all hardwood floors, thinner sheet rock, air ducts that act like ancient telecoms, and so on. Old houses weren't built for sound suppression like they are now. Had he yelled for his mom and dad he would have been found. This really broke the story for me. Why didn't someone question the writer on this? How could this have slipped by? Or, why didn't they, simply, make Simon a mute? This could have been his disability, and it would have totally solved this narrative problem

I also noticed that it had a lot in common with Friday the 13th.


A burlap sack, a deformed kid who gets drowned because of a prank, and a mother who takes revenge on the kids that did it.

The acting is good though.

[number8]

Okay, seriously. Can the people saying it was average or bleh AT LEAST admit the seance was a gripping, masterful series of moments? If you don't, I'll cry.

Ummmm. No. That was my least favorite part of the film. Too much like an ep of Ghost Hunters. If it wasn't for that sequence, this movie would be perfect.

[number8]

Why in the hell didn't Simon yell "Mom! Dad!"? I mean...this is such a rookie mistake in the narrative. Sound clearly travels easily in the house. Those old houses have thin walls, and usually no insulation, all hardwood floors, thinner sheet rock, air ducts that act like ancient telecoms, and so on. Old houses weren't built for sound suppression like they are now. Had he yelled for his mom and dad he would have been found. This really broke the story for me. Why didn't someone question the writer on this? How could this have slipped by? Or, why didn't they, simply, make Simon a mute? This could have been his disability, and it would have totally solved this narrative problem

What are you talking about? He fell and broke his neck. The kid died instantly.

[Sxottlan]

I generally enjoyed this film. I agree with a comment D'Angelo made in his review about how the characters would suddenly develop emotions necessary for a particular scene even if it was an incongruity or disservice to that character. The way Laura becomes completely unhinged when Simon is gone for a few minutes seemed excessive if only to do it in front of people.

Other questions I had when it was all over:

I was a bit confused as to what the ghost children's motivation was, whether it was keeping Simon from Laura or helping her find him.

So was that Simon in the mask the whole time during the party?

Also, I had to wonder why no one noticed five children going missing after apparently suffering a very loud and agonizing death at the hand of the one caretaker.

So was the old lady really there? The editing made it unintentionally weird as she just walks out without a word and disappears. How would she have known to come to the orphanage and that someone was moving in? Was there any real danger to her?

The ending reminded me a bit of the ending to The Upside of Anger and in a bad way. Okay, did anyone think it odd for a building that size to not have a basement? It was like she didn't know her own house at all.

[D_Davis]

What are you talking about? He fell and broke his neck. The kid died instantly.

No he didn't, not right away. The mom heard the pounding on the wall that night or the next night, depending on how long she was at the hospital. After she got back from the hospital, she got out of bed, the noise of the pounding woke her up, she rolled down the hall, put her ear to the wall, and then she heard the banister break and the thud, and then the noise stopped. Had Simon yelled then, she would have heard him. They even showed this in the flashback at the end when she was putting everything together. Simon was in the basement for at least 12 hours before he actually died.

[D_Davis]

Okay, seriously. Can the people saying it was average or bleh AT LEAST admit the seance was a gripping, masterful series of moments? If you don't, I'll cry.


This was my favorite part.

I also felt that the film was paced all wrong. There was a noticeable lack of building tension. There were little peaks and valleys of tension and relief, but it never felt like it was moving with a forward momentum. There wasn't a point where I said, "this is where it gets real," and then it did. It just kept dribbling out things, and then backing away. There was never a time of complete and totally gripping fear. I found myself getting bored a few times. I thought it was very static, except for the last few moments and the first time you see burlap boy. The first appearance of burlap boy was my favorite part.

[Dillard]

I think the reason this film works so well is that is it not only a Ghost story/horror film, but it is also a drama about losing a child and how a couple (mostly the mother though) reacts to that. It interweaves these two elements incredibly well. As far as a lack of rising tension goes, sure, there is not a steady gain to an all-hell-breaks-out moment, but I think that it works in the film. And would there have to be an all-hell-breaks-out moment anyway? There is a dread that permeates many of the scenes, and I noticed that this is often set up visually as much as anything else (the score cuts out). One example I'm thinking of is when Laura goes to check on the noise coming from the shed early in the film. It's very well done. The best horror films are the films where the horror serves the story, and not the other way around.

And so I appreciated the fact that the film did not often resort to cheap gimmicks. We only see the boy in the burlap sack, what, twice? And yet, the image of the boy drives the dread for me throughout the film. But he doesn't keep showing up in scenes to chase the mother around like in most horror/slasher films these days.I like that the film's horror is based on what the mother does not know, about the past, and about what has happened to her son. Mothers are supposed to know everything, aren't they? The scenes in which Laura watches old home videos of the kids she grew up with add a lot to our sense of two disparate times coming together. Then the sequence with the medium is particularly strong (as I can see it easily-butchered in a lesser film). As Laura finds more pieces to the puzzle of her missing son, I was completely wrapped up in her struggle. It is Belen Rueda's strong role and strong acting that drive the film (even if moments are a tad overwrought).

No, this film was not about the scares for me. I loved the attention to detail. Bayona does an excellent job of establishing the spaces and scenes he's working with (and he does so with a great deal of economy). For example, to set up the welcoming/party scene for the potential residents of the manor, he gives us a shot of the colorful ornamental lights, then a medium shot of Carlos outside, then shots of the kids in their masks. It is actually the beautiful shot of the ornaments, dangling in a row between two trees, that heightens our senses for the scene, in which we know something important will happen. The set-up actually reminded me of the birthday party scene in Richard Donner's The Omen, another great film about the horror of losing a child (in that case to the forces of darkness). :)

[Wryan]

Broke my almost 2-month long movie fast with this.

It was okay.

Nothing great, but okay.

One thing though...

Why in the hell didn't Simon yell "Mom! Dad!"? I mean...this is such a rookie mistake in the narrative. Sound clearly travels easily in the house. Those old houses have thin walls, and usually no insulation, all hardwood floors, thinner sheet rock, air ducts that act like ancient telecoms, and so on. Old houses weren't built for sound suppression like they are now. Had he yelled for his mom and dad he would have been found. This really broke the story for me. Why didn't someone question the writer on this? How could this have slipped by? Or, why didn't they, simply, make Simon a mute? This could have been his disability, and it would have totally solved this narrative problem

The parents he hates and believes are lying to him? Plus the fall happened at night, so maybe he fell asleep after playing in the room for awhile and didn't notice he was shut in until later. The fall happens as he's beginning to bang on the door. If I was in the situation personally, I would try my hardest to open the door for myself before thinking to ask for help, but that's just my personality.

[Wryan]

Ummmm. No. That was my least favorite part of the film. Too much like an ep of Ghost Hunters. If it wasn't for that sequence, this movie would be perfect.

I KNEW someone would dreg up Ghost Hunters or something. Come on! Throw that out of your mind! It's an insanely well-crafted sequence. And Chaplin was awesome.

[Wryan]

No he didn't, not right away. The mom heard the pounding on the wall that night or the next night, depending on how long she was at the hospital. After she got back from the hospital, she got out of bed, the noise of the pounding woke her up, she rolled down the hall, put her ear to the wall, and then she heard the banister break and the thud, and then the noise stopped. Had Simon yelled then, she would have heard him. They even showed this in the flashback at the end when she was putting everything together. Simon was in the basement for at least 12 hours before he actually died.

Well, really, you just answered your own question. They were at the hospital for hours. Simon could have been screaming himself hoarse then and gave up thinking no one was around.

[Wryan]

This was my favorite part.

I also felt that the film was paced all wrong. There was a noticeable lack of building tension. There were little peaks and valleys of tension and relief, but it never felt like it was moving with a forward momentum. There wasn't a point where I said, "this is where it gets real," and then it did. It just kept dribbling out things, and then backing away. There was never a time of complete and totally gripping fear. I found myself getting bored a few times. I thought it was very static, except for the last few moments and the first time you see burlap boy. The first appearance of burlap boy was my favorite part.

I disagree about the point where it gets real/scary. It's after the ambulance and the revelation of who Benigna was. That's the exact moment where I felt terrified at the very prospects of where the story was going and could go from there. Complete and gripping fear? Laura alone/prepping the house right up until the sack reveal; ALL of that, start to finish, scared me shitless. I can't say that it was static at all.

Scariest moment in the entire film?

The second time the closet door closes.

Literally shook my body for three full seconds. Fuck that scared me.

[Wryan]

As for not knowing about the extra rooms, it's a big old house. And the room was hidden inside a closet behind wallpaper. It's practically a crawl space. The same element has appeared in countless films. It's very reasonable. Imo.

[Wryan]

I generally enjoyed this film. I agree with a comment D'Angelo made in his review about how the characters would suddenly develop emotions necessary for a particular scene even if it was an incongruity or disservice to that character. The way Laura becomes completely unhinged when Simon is gone for a few minutes seemed excessive if only to do it in front of people.

Other questions I had when it was all over:

I was a bit confused as to what the ghost children's motivation was, whether it was keeping Simon from Laura or helping her find him.

So was that Simon in the mask the whole time during the party?

Also, I had to wonder why no one noticed five children going missing after apparently suffering a very loud and agonizing death at the hand of the one caretaker.

So was the old lady really there? The editing made it unintentionally weird as she just walks out without a word and disappears. How would she have known to come to the orphanage and that someone was moving in? Was there any real danger to her?

The ending reminded me a bit of the ending to The Upside of Anger and in a bad way. Okay, did anyone think it odd for a building that size to not have a basement? It was like she didn't know her own house at all.

I know I'm responding a lot. It's just because I loved this film. :)

I never felt Laura's emotional stress at the party was incongruous. It's the day on which everything has to go smoothly, perfectly, and her son is not only still turning to imaginary friends even when the prospect of real friends presents itself, but he also just recently found out about his parents/illness and is generally being a pain in the rear about all of it. She tries to get him to come downstairs and ends up slapping him instead. She goes from finding empty room to bathroom fright/injury to wondering where Simon is. Emotions can bubble up quickly in situations like that. I never felt it developed "suddenly."

Ghost children are ambiguous a bit sure. I don't think they had ESP and were trying to ensure that Laura found Simon AND killed herself just so they could have an eternal "Wendy." I just think they were trying to help her find some kind of "peace," cruel as it might end up being. Remember, she "just needed to find him."

Simon in the mask during the party. Possibly. Something the film does well, imo, is to never allow the audience to fully settle on "the ghosts are real" or "she's gone off the deep end." It could easily have been Simon, though why he'd make those creepy growling noises I dunno. It could also have been the spectre of Tomas. It could have been Simon after discovering Tomas' room and playing with his things, including the nasty old burlap sack.

The children were poisoned, likely by Benigna, after they inadvertantly killed Tomas (insinuated to be her son?). That they were intentionally poisoned might not have occurred to the other caretakers. Maybe they thought they had eaten some bad berries in the forest or something and tried to help them as best they could, but the children ultimately died. The bones found by Laura in the cottage out back didn't seem like ALL the children. This was the only part of the film I didn't really understand. Were those bones meant to be Tomas or one or two of the poisoned children? Benigna was found there trying to recover the bones before anyone else discovered them, but for what reason? I can't recall the conversations after the police came and found the body/bodies. I'd have to see the film again to be sure.

And Benigna was definitely a danger. Other than being, you know, insane, she obviously didn't want anyone moving back into the house on the chance that they would discover the truth. For all we know, she might have watched the house for decades. When it became clear that new owners were focused on moving in, she tried in her own way to scare/ward them off. She just didn't do it very well. And then she got run over and turned into a reaper.

[D_Davis]

Well, really, you just answered your own question. They were at the hospital for hours. Simon could have been screaming himself hoarse then and gave up thinking no one was around.


They should have shown this to clear up the narrative. Simple stuff like this really bugs me, especially when the entire premise of the narrative relies on it.

[Wryan]

They should have shown this to clear up the narrative. Simple stuff like this really bugs me, especially when the entire premise of the narrative relies on it.

Shown him screaming? When? Obviously not during the hospital scenes since it would spoil the ending. If at the end, it would create a difficult extra addition to the "this is how it all happened" montage. How would you, in that montage, show that he was screaming while they were at the hospital?

Fine line between little stuff that's easy to fix and little stuff that's so little it's not worth worrying about. :)

[Mysterious Dude]

How would you, in that montage, show that he was screaming while they were at the hospital?You film a shot of him screaming and edit it in between two other shots. What's so hard about that?

What's the good of showing how it happened if you don't fully explain how it happened?

[Wryan]

You film a shot of him screaming and edit it in between two other shots. What's so hard about that?

What's the good of showing how it happened if you don't fully explain how it happened?

You show him just screaming and you'd have to make it clear that he's screaming and no one can hear him, which would be cumbersome. There's a line here where you want more explained for the benefit of the audience and I think the audience gets it just fine with what's given. That's all. :)

[D_Davis]

Fine line between little stuff that's easy to fix and little stuff that's so little it's not worth worrying about. :)

Well, this "little" thing as you put it, in your jackass-tainted post ( ;) ), totally breaks the narrative.

But, I didn't say it was "little," as in a trivial oversight. I can do with trivial oversights, no big deal. I said it is a "simple" thing to fix that would render the entire premise of the narrative, unbroken. Because as it stands now, it doesn't make any sense. It is a simple fix because it would only take a few seconds of screen time, and someone to pay attention.


The easiest way to fix it would have been to make Simon mute, or, give him a cold at the beginning of the film and demonstrate that his voice is hoarse. There are many ways in which they could have addressed this issue, and it would have taken a few seconds of screen time.

[D_Davis]

You show him just screaming and you'd have to make it clear that he's screaming and no one can hear him, which would be cumbersome.

Here is like 10-20 seconds worth a film.

While the parents are at the hospital

Shot of Simon screaming, "Mom!"

Shot of empty kitchen on first floor

Shot of Simon screaming, "Dad!"

Shot of empty foyer.

Shot of Simon screaming, "Mom!" (his voice is getting weak).

Shot of empty upstairs hall

Shot of Simon screaming, "Dad!" (his voice is now almost totally gone).

Shot of the outside of the house, completely dark, and you can'y hear a thing.

Done.

As it is now, they keep it ambiguous to make the reveal/twist at the end more profound, when in reality, it just makes it broken because it doesn't answer this question.

[Wryan]

Here is like 10-20 seconds worth a film.

While the parents are at the hospital

Shot of Simon screaming, "Mom!"

Shot of empty kitchen on first floor

Shot of Simon screaming, "Dad!"

Shot of empty foyer.

Shot of Simon screaming, "Mom!" (his voice is getting weak).

Shot of empty upstairs hall

Shot of Simon screaming, "Dad!" (his voice is now almost totally gone).

Shot of the outside of the house, completely dark, and you can'y hear a thing.

Done.

As it is now, they keep it ambiguous to make the reveal/twist at the end more profound, when in reality, it just makes it broken because it doesn't answer this question.

Yeah, and that description you gave, to me, feels cumbersome, and a bit cliched...AND spoils the shock of the ending. If the film did what you just showed, Tomas would be gone from everyone's mind and it would have been a different movie. Besides, ultimately, I was fine with it and didn't feel the extra material was needed. If you weren't, then you weren't.

Jackass! :)

[D_Davis]

Yeah, and that description you gave, to me, feels cumbersome, and a bit cliched...AND spoils the shock of the ending. If the film did what you just showed, Tomas would be gone from everyone's mind and it would have been a different movie. Besides, ultimately, I was fine with it and didn't feel the extra material was needed. If you weren't, then you weren't.

Jackass! :)


Why you little....!


If a film relies on the shock of it's ending to be good, then it is not a good film. And if the shocking end is only shocking because of a shaky narrative made ambiguous just to shock the audience, than it is even less good.

For instance, I can rewatch Unbreakable, and I still think it is a good film.

However, I never want to see this film again. The whole time I'll just be thinking about the thing that bugs me and how I think it breaks the entire premise of the narrative.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well... that was very disappointing. :(

I suppose the film had its instances of emotional honesty, and thematically...

it's a bit daring, nicely presenting its children as aggressive presences and working as an occasionally moving ode to children without futures and how much a right they have to be selfish and independent and self-serving.

But it's not scary, involving, or original. It's average, which is too bad. And the ending could've had punch

since it's not entirely a happy one

but it didn't.

[Wryan]

Why you little....!


If a film relies on the shock of it's ending to be good, then it is not a good film. And if the shocking end is only shocking because of a shaky narrative made ambiguous just to shock the audience, than it is even less good.

For instance, I can rewatch Unbreakable, and I still think it is a good film.

However, I never want to see this film again. The whole time I'll just be thinking about the thing that bugs me and how I think it breaks the entire premise of the narrative.

And I disagree. There's a wheelbarrow full of moments in here that work beyond the shock of the ending, which made sense to me!

/laughs all the way to the bank............but makes a wrong turn and gets run over by an ambulance

[KK2.0]

Here's hoping it's scarier than El Espinazo del diablo.

Well, while not very scary, Devil's Backbone is still a damn good movie.

El Orfanato opens here in the beggining of February, i'm anticipating it quite a bit.

[Ezee E]

Well, I liked it a ton. As mentioned, the scares serve the story, rather then simply trying to shock the audience or make us feel disturbed. The jump moment with the ambulance, while maybe a little forced, eventually leads to the best jump moment that I've seen in years. Totally effective.

The scariest part in the movie to me was the second round of knocking on the wall. Why does it work? It was set up earlier in the movie. Phew, that was spooky.

I like that they didn't spell out davis' problem with the movie. It leaves some up to the imagination. Was that Simon in the mask or not? Etc.

There are a couple dry spots in the movie. It may need a revisit from me to see why some of those scenes are there. It's definitely worth seeing. I'll have to look at my list, but it's probably the best horror movie of '07.

[D_Davis]

I like that they didn't spell out davis' problem with the movie. It leaves some up to the imagination. Was that Simon in the mask or not? Etc.


I don't think it has anything to do with spelling something out. It has to do with the filmmakers leaving something intentionally vague so that their narrative works, when it could have been corrected with a simple edit to the script and a few seconds of screen time. It's just poor plotting. I simply cannot imagine anyone reading this script and not asking the writer why Simon doesn't call for his mom and dad, especially when it is shown that sound carries quite easily throughout the house.

[Ezee E]

I don't think it has anything to do with spelling something out. It has to do with the filmmakers leaving something intentionally vague so that their narrative works, when it could have been corrected with a simple edit to the script and a few seconds of screen time. It's just poor plotting. I simply cannot imagine anyone reading this script and not asking the writer why Simon doesn't call for his mom and dad, especially when it is shown that sound carries quite easily throughout the house.
I never even considered it while watching the movie. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

[D_Davis]

I never even considered it while watching the movie. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.


I think this stems from my reading so much lately, and studying the plotting devices of different authors. This is especially important to writers of fantastic fiction - there are so many questions to ask, and so many answers that need to be given. The motto of my presently-favorite author, Theodore Sturgeon, is "Ask the next question." And I've been doing that with the things I am reading and the very few things I am watching.

For instance, right now I am reading a fantastic book called Way Station. The main character Enoch, has been alive for hundreds of years. For about 80 of these years, he has been subscribing to various magazines - these are one of his only outlets to the world outside of the galactic way station he operates. While reading the book, I was asking myself, "wouldn't the magazine company be suspicious of one man being such a long time subscriber?" And then, a few chapters later, the author addresses this very question - in a concise, simple, and effective way. Had the author not addressed this concern, I could see it nagging away at the back of my mind, especially since the book is so wonderfully written in its examination of the main character.

The problem I had with The Orphanage is a lot like the problems I had with Pan's Labyrinth. Just small little nagging problems with the plotting, but problems that a careful writer should consider.

[baby doll]

This movie sucks.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This has earned the new title The Orpha-meh-ge. Tired story, lack of tension, waste of a solid setting and atmosphere, predictable twist, and gouda-powered ending. Consider me unimpressed.

[[ETM]]

Consider me unimpressed.

This is like deja-vu... all over again.:)

[Kurosawa Fan]

;29018']This is like deja-vu... all over again.:)

Yeah, things get lost in Y Tu Film Discussion, and I forgot this already had its own thread.

[soitgoes...]

Haha. I just watched this with my girlfriend, and I actually turned to her during the seance scene and said, "Here you go babe, just like all those Ghost Hunters shows you watch." Seriously, not very scary at all. It wasn't bad, but I wanted it to be so much more. Why is it that the woman in these types of movies is always the one who never lets go, but the man always seems to give up?