Orphan (US - BD)
Matt's definitely not looking to adopt after seeing Warner's latest thriller on Blu-ray
Film
Tragedy seems to follow nine-year old Esther. She was orphaned in her native Russia and her last adoptive family perished in a fire she barely escaped. But now the Coleman family has adopted her and life is good. Until a classmate takes a serious fall in the schoolyard. Until an orphanage nun is battered to death. Until Esther's new mother wonders if that tragic fire was really an accident and starts to believe that Esther isn't the bright, sweet little girl she pretends to be.
Orphan is the latest movie to enter into the 'Evil Child' sub-genre of horror films and thrillers, a sub-genre that has had plenty of hits and plenty of misses. The barometer I use when viewing these movies goes something like this-- 1956's The Bad Seed with it's chilling performance from Patty McCormack as Rhoda and Robert Mulligan's The Other are near the top and where all movies that enter this genre are judged. After that the original Richard Donner The Omen is somewhere in the middle, with 1993's The Good Son at the bottom of the barrel, but amazingly still right above Problem Child and Problem Child 2 who couldn't sniff the barrel to begin with.
Using that barometer, Orphan lingers right around the pseudo biography of Macaulay Culkin's childhood. If there was a cliche used in all of those previous movies that this movie didn't throw at me I must have missed it or nodded off during the picture's longer than it actually is 123-minute running time. The filmmakers even made sure to make good use of Rosemary's Baby when pilfering for ideas and giving the very capable Vera Farmiga all of the hysterical "this child's evil and no one will believe me" dialogue they could squeeze in without sounding too ridiculous. Actually, strike that. The dialogue is ridiculous and unintentionally laughable throughout most of the picture and from all involved, even when recited by such dependable actors as Peter Sarsgaard and CCH Pounder who try their best with what they have.
Originality and dialogue aside, this movie has a lot of other problems and is guilty of some large gaps in logic, having a glacial pace (did I mention this movie is 123-minutes long already?), and having nary a scare or thrill to be found. Having said that, I've enjoyed movies with far less technical polish, far less originality, and far worse actors spouting off scripts seemingly written on the fly and probably on restaurant napkins. Have you ever seen the 1980 evil child flick The Children? If you have you should know exactly what I'm talking about, and if you haven't you should seek it out someday.
My real problem with Orphan is deeper than what I've already mentioned and has to do with its cavalier attitude towards placing children in the situations it does, especially when it comes to the youngest child of the Coleman's who also happens to be deaf. In one sequence alone the innocent is thrown out into traffic, made to drag a near lifeless body from a snowy road and then cover up the crime after being threatened. Later during the film's climax she's shot at and ultimately fires a revolver, which makes Orphan not only guilty of being in extremely bad taste but of stretching plausibility well past its limits too.
Now I don't consider myself a prude--in fact I'm far from it and been told as much many, many times--and maybe it's the parent in me that makes me feel this way, but guns and kids in movies like this just don't mix. It's cheap and lazy of the filmmakers to place the two together in a movie that is meant to be nothing more than a pulp thriller and I can't see any excuse for it. Given that, the little deaf girl with a piece is just the icing on the cake as far as what the filmmakers make their child stars go through. Just wait until the picture's surprise twist comes at the start of the third act. I won't reveal it here, but if you're paying any attention at all you'll see it coming a mile away, and even then you still won't believe what you're watching. Repulsive.
Video
No matter what one might think of the film itself, no one can argue that Warner's video transfer of the film to Blu-ray isn't great. The 1080p VC-1 transfer is excellent, featuring deep consistent black levels, nice sharp detail in every frame and superb handling of the subdued, wintry color scheme as well as the frantic colors seen later in the movie and sporadically throughout. Being a relatively new film I didn't see any traces of artifacting from the source used, and didn't really notice any digital noise reduction, aliasing or other such anomalies in the video that would hinder one's enjoyment watching the film. Those looking for a true to theater experience are going to certainly get it as this is an excellent video transfer.
Audio
The disc's Dolby TrueHD 5.1 audio presentation is largely on par with the video and an effective one for a thriller such as this. Dialogue is clear from the center channel with sound levels in all channels balanced quite well. The surround channels are used to great effect in providing some jolts and delivering an enveloping experience, and the LFE channel has some heft to it when called for from time to time. Overall this is a decent track that supplies what it needs to--not exactly reference quality, show off your system stuff, but just what the picture needs.
Extras
I was surprised to find so few extras on the disc, but I guess I can be thankful for small miracles. Included is a high definition, 15-minute featurette entitled Mama's Little Devil's: Bad Seeds and Evil Children which discusses the film's titular character and serves to remind you of other, better films. The other extra is an approximately 4-minute segment of deleted scenes and an alternate ending that really doesn't add much to the total package. Also included is a digital copy of the film so that you can torture yourself on the go, and the Blu-ray disc is BD-Live enabled.
Overall
If I only make one thing clear in this review, let it be that I hated this movie. And I don't mean I disliked it because it wasn't entertaining or thought it was bland, no, I really hated it. I could excuse Orphan for building its premise on and executing nearly every cliche in the 'Evil Child' genre as it's not like far better films haven't done the exact same thing. If that were the case all it would be guilty of is being an unoriginal bore that goes on for about 30-minutes too long. What I can't excuse it for is being morally reprehensible, especially in the third act when I was praying that the laborious 123-minute running time would come to an end.
Warner Home Video's Blu-ray disc is technically great and right along with their high standards featuring a very strong audio and video package, but the extras are light to say the least. Overall I can't really recommend Orphan to anyone except those who just can't get enough of watching children do very bad things, which I get enough of in my house as it is. Everyone else should move along and make their way over to Warner's recently released Trick 'R Treat instead, there's nothing to see here.
*Note: The images on this page are not representative of the Blu-ray.
Tragedy seems to follow nine-year old Esther. She was orphaned in her native Russia and her last adoptive family perished in a fire she barely escaped. But now the Coleman family has adopted her and life is good. Until a classmate takes a serious fall in the schoolyard. Until an orphanage nun is battered to death. Until Esther's new mother wonders if that tragic fire was really an accident and starts to believe that Esther isn't the bright, sweet little girl she pretends to be.
Orphan is the latest movie to enter into the 'Evil Child' sub-genre of horror films and thrillers, a sub-genre that has had plenty of hits and plenty of misses. The barometer I use when viewing these movies goes something like this-- 1956's The Bad Seed with it's chilling performance from Patty McCormack as Rhoda and Robert Mulligan's The Other are near the top and where all movies that enter this genre are judged. After that the original Richard Donner The Omen is somewhere in the middle, with 1993's The Good Son at the bottom of the barrel, but amazingly still right above Problem Child and Problem Child 2 who couldn't sniff the barrel to begin with.
Using that barometer, Orphan lingers right around the pseudo biography of Macaulay Culkin's childhood. If there was a cliche used in all of those previous movies that this movie didn't throw at me I must have missed it or nodded off during the picture's longer than it actually is 123-minute running time. The filmmakers even made sure to make good use of Rosemary's Baby when pilfering for ideas and giving the very capable Vera Farmiga all of the hysterical "this child's evil and no one will believe me" dialogue they could squeeze in without sounding too ridiculous. Actually, strike that. The dialogue is ridiculous and unintentionally laughable throughout most of the picture and from all involved, even when recited by such dependable actors as Peter Sarsgaard and CCH Pounder who try their best with what they have.
Originality and dialogue aside, this movie has a lot of other problems and is guilty of some large gaps in logic, having a glacial pace (did I mention this movie is 123-minutes long already?), and having nary a scare or thrill to be found. Having said that, I've enjoyed movies with far less technical polish, far less originality, and far worse actors spouting off scripts seemingly written on the fly and probably on restaurant napkins. Have you ever seen the 1980 evil child flick The Children? If you have you should know exactly what I'm talking about, and if you haven't you should seek it out someday.
My real problem with Orphan is deeper than what I've already mentioned and has to do with its cavalier attitude towards placing children in the situations it does, especially when it comes to the youngest child of the Coleman's who also happens to be deaf. In one sequence alone the innocent is thrown out into traffic, made to drag a near lifeless body from a snowy road and then cover up the crime after being threatened. Later during the film's climax she's shot at and ultimately fires a revolver, which makes Orphan not only guilty of being in extremely bad taste but of stretching plausibility well past its limits too.
Now I don't consider myself a prude--in fact I'm far from it and been told as much many, many times--and maybe it's the parent in me that makes me feel this way, but guns and kids in movies like this just don't mix. It's cheap and lazy of the filmmakers to place the two together in a movie that is meant to be nothing more than a pulp thriller and I can't see any excuse for it. Given that, the little deaf girl with a piece is just the icing on the cake as far as what the filmmakers make their child stars go through. Just wait until the picture's surprise twist comes at the start of the third act. I won't reveal it here, but if you're paying any attention at all you'll see it coming a mile away, and even then you still won't believe what you're watching. Repulsive.
Video
No matter what one might think of the film itself, no one can argue that Warner's video transfer of the film to Blu-ray isn't great. The 1080p VC-1 transfer is excellent, featuring deep consistent black levels, nice sharp detail in every frame and superb handling of the subdued, wintry color scheme as well as the frantic colors seen later in the movie and sporadically throughout. Being a relatively new film I didn't see any traces of artifacting from the source used, and didn't really notice any digital noise reduction, aliasing or other such anomalies in the video that would hinder one's enjoyment watching the film. Those looking for a true to theater experience are going to certainly get it as this is an excellent video transfer.
Audio
The disc's Dolby TrueHD 5.1 audio presentation is largely on par with the video and an effective one for a thriller such as this. Dialogue is clear from the center channel with sound levels in all channels balanced quite well. The surround channels are used to great effect in providing some jolts and delivering an enveloping experience, and the LFE channel has some heft to it when called for from time to time. Overall this is a decent track that supplies what it needs to--not exactly reference quality, show off your system stuff, but just what the picture needs.
Extras
I was surprised to find so few extras on the disc, but I guess I can be thankful for small miracles. Included is a high definition, 15-minute featurette entitled Mama's Little Devil's: Bad Seeds and Evil Children which discusses the film's titular character and serves to remind you of other, better films. The other extra is an approximately 4-minute segment of deleted scenes and an alternate ending that really doesn't add much to the total package. Also included is a digital copy of the film so that you can torture yourself on the go, and the Blu-ray disc is BD-Live enabled.
Overall
If I only make one thing clear in this review, let it be that I hated this movie. And I don't mean I disliked it because it wasn't entertaining or thought it was bland, no, I really hated it. I could excuse Orphan for building its premise on and executing nearly every cliche in the 'Evil Child' genre as it's not like far better films haven't done the exact same thing. If that were the case all it would be guilty of is being an unoriginal bore that goes on for about 30-minutes too long. What I can't excuse it for is being morally reprehensible, especially in the third act when I was praying that the laborious 123-minute running time would come to an end.
Warner Home Video's Blu-ray disc is technically great and right along with their high standards featuring a very strong audio and video package, but the extras are light to say the least. Overall I can't really recommend Orphan to anyone except those who just can't get enough of watching children do very bad things, which I get enough of in my house as it is. Everyone else should move along and make their way over to Warner's recently released Trick 'R Treat instead, there's nothing to see here.
*Note: The images on this page are not representative of the Blu-ray.
Review by Matt Joseph
Advertisements
Existing Posts
This is a bloody brilliant movie with excellent performers
this one suks, a childs movie comone!!
Guys guys guys....relaaaaxx......
IT's only a movie...
IT's only a movie...
Quote: I dont mind a review that offers opinions, but when it contains outright bashing and warnings to viewers not to invest in a film is not what I really consider a fair review.
I stopped reading here. Warning viewers not to invest in a film based on the critic's opinion is the point of the exercise.
I stopped reading here. Warning viewers not to invest in a film based on the critic's opinion is the point of the exercise.
this film is awful. overlong CLICHED nonsense with possibly the worst 'twist' ending ever. please do yourself a favor and seek out don't look now instead ( if you haven't already ). for those that use critic scores/views as justification for your own feelings please remember that some of the greatest films where critically panned on release, only to be reappraised years later to be works of art, in-fact the only critic i would listen to is mark kermode and im guessing he didn't even go near this piece of tripe.
I dont mind a review that offers opinions, but when it contains outright bashing and warnings to viewers not to invest in a film is not what I really consider a fair review. This movie is far from being perfect and there are quite a few things I did have a problem with at least from a technical point and plot point of view. I think that the boundaries that are pushed were well done without having them be extremely morbid. I mean, this movie could have shown a lot worse things and I have seen worse things in a movie that go way beyond the moral boundaries. The acting was a little over the top, but it wasnt enough to ruin the film in my opinion. I think that Isabelle Fuhrman did an outstanding job with the role considering she was only 12 years old. I agree with the statement made about the fact that after leaving the theater you cant help but feel uneasy and perhaps a bit disturbed. I think this comes from the moral issue that the viewer is faced with...I work in a movie theater and have talked to many people that saw this movie. This is a movie that you will either love or hate. I think this is because of the way the movie makes you feel. The character build up is the key element here. You are made to be attached to each character, even Esther. At the end of it all, I couldnt help but feel somewhat sorry for Esther as I feel her "illness" made her evil. Think about it..try to put yourself in her shoes...can you honestly say you think your life would be anything resembling normal? I dont think so. But all this doesnt excuse her evilness, so in there lies the moral problem the viewer I think is faced with. Which in turn is what gives this movie a massive "creepy" feeling to it and you are left with this "bowling ball in your gut" feeling after watching it.
I personally thought this movie was brilliant as long as you are not trying to find something wrong with it, cause let's face it...you can find something wrong with any movie. It's entertainment...not a retelling of how life really is. I think this movie is quite different than most "horror" movies out there. There are a lot of elements that are used that has been used before, yes...and the "evil child" thing has been done to death, yes. But I feel this movie uses all of that to its advantage and while you expect a lot of what happens and even if you know what the twist will be at the end, I think it still leaves you with a sense of supsense and a feeling of undeniable discomfort. Which in my opinion is the purpose this movie was trying to strive for.
I would actually love to see a movie that shows us Esther's past and how she became the way she is..and that alternate ending in the dvd...that definately should have been put into the theatrical version as it adds to the over all creepiness of the movie. Just my two cents worth. This review was way too harsh to be taken as constructive critism. If you want to see a truly horrible movie..watch War of the Worlds II...I can almost guarantee you'll want to gouge your eyeballs out after watching that one. :p
I personally thought this movie was brilliant as long as you are not trying to find something wrong with it, cause let's face it...you can find something wrong with any movie. It's entertainment...not a retelling of how life really is. I think this movie is quite different than most "horror" movies out there. There are a lot of elements that are used that has been used before, yes...and the "evil child" thing has been done to death, yes. But I feel this movie uses all of that to its advantage and while you expect a lot of what happens and even if you know what the twist will be at the end, I think it still leaves you with a sense of supsense and a feeling of undeniable discomfort. Which in my opinion is the purpose this movie was trying to strive for.
I would actually love to see a movie that shows us Esther's past and how she became the way she is..and that alternate ending in the dvd...that definately should have been put into the theatrical version as it adds to the over all creepiness of the movie. Just my two cents worth. This review was way too harsh to be taken as constructive critism. If you want to see a truly horrible movie..watch War of the Worlds II...I can almost guarantee you'll want to gouge your eyeballs out after watching that one. :p
Xian Tianhan wrote: Once again, the review is just horribly written. Not ONCE do you talk about ANYTHING that constitutes towards a film's quality in a constructive manner. You briefly talk about the performances, but let discussing them dither past you almost as if you really don't have anything to say about them at all. You make a single example about the supposed "bad writing" that is unbelievably flawed by the fact that we KNOW Esther forged a PASSPORT. Do you honestly think that mere medical papers would be more difficult to forge than a freaking PASSPORT?! The fact that almost every single person on this site apart from the contributors agree that this review is horribly written (we're not saying anything against your opinion, we're just saying you have a horrible way of getting that opinion across), is a testament to this entire thread.
How can you get on Matt for making generalizations when you're going to make them? '
And 'almost every single person on this site apart from the contributors agree that this review is horribly written'? You might want to re-count. I count 4. Mostly it's just
This just comes down to a continuing problem of readers not understanding or appreciating the point of criticism. I complain about it all the time, but it's not something specific to DVDActive. In fact, discounting exceptions like this thread, DVDActive readers are actually pretty understanding, level headed people. A visit to the imdb or rottentomatoes message boards is enough to make you cry. People take opposition so personally they can't appreciate the value of a different point of view. There are plenty of professional 'critics' that write fluff pieces for studio kudos, but such homogenization is boring, not to mention dangerous to real film art. Voice your opposition everyone, by all means. I can't speak for Matt or any of the other reviewers, but I appreciate genuine discussion. It's the fun of being a film fan, and the fun of meeting other film fans over the internet. The s**tty thing is the faceless, anonymity the internet allows. This leads to the personal attacks people would never defer to if they were forced to discuss such things face to face.
How can you get on Matt for making generalizations when you're going to make them? '
We're
not saying anything against your opinion...'? You're speaking for two pages of childish attacks spiked by a few honest opposing opinions? This is almost exclusively about Matt's opinion.You're
attacking his opinion by claiming it's based on his biased against gun use. If you agreed with Matt there's no way you'd be spending this much time telling him he'd made writing errors. And no one is reacting to Matt's attempts to explain his opinion, they're just attack him personally.And 'almost every single person on this site apart from the contributors agree that this review is horribly written'? You might want to re-count. I count 4. Mostly it's just
you
writing it over an over. There are a couple more people disagreeing with Matt, but they don't mention anything about his writing. This is about opinions, not writing skills. Let's pretend you actually give a s**t about his writing ability. Reviews are opinion pieces, or editorials. It's not necessary to use 'in my opinion' or the like because it's implied that this is the critic's opinion. It's also not necessary the critic take the time to list more than one example to back up his or her opinion. Reviews that delve too far into examples end up a 3000 word monstrosity like my Wolverine review. I'm also think you don't understand the word 'constructive'. Would you prefer Matt tore the thing apart for a couple dozen paragraphs? He makes it clear that he's seen more evil child movies than most of us, does he really need to point out plot point by plot point what bits were taken from other films you've never heard of?This just comes down to a continuing problem of readers not understanding or appreciating the point of criticism. I complain about it all the time, but it's not something specific to DVDActive. In fact, discounting exceptions like this thread, DVDActive readers are actually pretty understanding, level headed people. A visit to the imdb or rottentomatoes message boards is enough to make you cry. People take opposition so personally they can't appreciate the value of a different point of view. There are plenty of professional 'critics' that write fluff pieces for studio kudos, but such homogenization is boring, not to mention dangerous to real film art. Voice your opposition everyone, by all means. I can't speak for Matt or any of the other reviewers, but I appreciate genuine discussion. It's the fun of being a film fan, and the fun of meeting other film fans over the internet. The s**tty thing is the faceless, anonymity the internet allows. This leads to the personal attacks people would never defer to if they were forced to discuss such things face to face.
HorrorFreakX wrote: What an awful review. This was not cliche at all and definitely not predictable. I made an account just to express my disgust for this review.
And now you've lost it. I don't know why people think they have the right to come on here just to slag people off, but they don't. Debate is one thing, but insulting our reviewers for daring to have their own opinions is another. I've noticed that it's usually teenagers who make the most noise.
JohnKramer wrote: this reviewer seems like such a wimp.NEXT.
Again, joining just to insult the reviewer will not be tolerated.
Same goes for anyone else. If you don't agree with the review feel free to state your reasons for liking it, but do not resort to insulting Matt.
And now you've lost it. I don't know why people think they have the right to come on here just to slag people off, but they don't. Debate is one thing, but insulting our reviewers for daring to have their own opinions is another. I've noticed that it's usually teenagers who make the most noise.
JohnKramer wrote: this reviewer seems like such a wimp.NEXT.
Again, joining just to insult the reviewer will not be tolerated.
Same goes for anyone else. If you don't agree with the review feel free to state your reasons for liking it, but do not resort to insulting Matt.
Contributors vs. readers? Civil war? Exciting! Let me get my popcorn, sit back and enjoy watching this. Oh, and just for the record, I liked the movie too. There.
Wow! The only other thread this reminds me of is the one back from when 'The Passion of the Christ' was released on DVD. But back then the fuss was justified due to the nature of the subject.
I found 'Orphan' to be one of the most enjoyable movies of the year and I can clearly remember the flood of positive opinions on the DVDactive website back when the movie was first announced for Home Video release (this fuelled my expectations for it as the trailer was generic at best).
Finally, a few users have said that the twist at then end could easily be seen coming. I would really appreciate it (seriously) if you can point out what part gave that away cause I thought it was easily one of the best twists of recent memory.
I found 'Orphan' to be one of the most enjoyable movies of the year and I can clearly remember the flood of positive opinions on the DVDactive website back when the movie was first announced for Home Video release (this fuelled my expectations for it as the trailer was generic at best).
Finally, a few users have said that the twist at then end could easily be seen coming. I would really appreciate it (seriously) if you can point out what part gave that away cause I thought it was easily one of the best twists of recent memory.
Dex309 wrote: I have to say that I'm on the one half that really enjoyed this movie.
And from your review and comments, Matt, I can't help but get the impression that your butchering of this perfectly good movie was solely based on your objection to the children/guns aspect of it. Your other criticisms were largely unfounded, and your example of the great gaping plot hole wasn't that great at all. As it was said before me, Esther forged her papers.
And yes, ultimately we can only chalk it up to a difference of opinion, and mine is that your review was unproportionally harsh considering the shortcomings of this movie.
This man has worded my feelings better than I ever could. It's clear that Matt's hate of the movie stems from the use of children with guns. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about a child with a gun. I admit that the youngest girl firing a gun is completely implausible, but that ending was actually tacked on after production had finished. The original/alternate ending can be viewed on youtube, it's much different. But the fact is that you're original hate doesn't stem from the child firing the gun, but the child holding the gun in the first place, almost like you think the scene was written into the script as a mere gimmick. This is NOT gimmick though, and neither is it added for shock value, because to be perfectly honest...I personally (and everyone else I know) gain no shock value from simply watching a kid hold a gun that I know is a film prop anyway. Fact is that it is just common freaking sense that if you are a child and your mother is about to be stabbed, you WILL pick up the gun at your feet and TRY to fire it. Fair enough, the gun shouldn't be able to fire, but that's clearly neither mine or your own point. Your point is that the child should never pick up the gun in the first place because you think it's a cheap shock additive. That is completely absent minded especially since it's clear there is absolutely NO shock to be had from seeing a child pick up a gun. It clearly didn't shock you, me or anybody else on this site. I'm quite sure they knew that something like this wouldn't shock someone, so why the feck would they do it for that purpose?! It's merely used for the sake of narrative progression.
Once again, the review is just horribly written. Not ONCE do you talk about ANYTHING that constitutes towards a film's quality in a constructive manner. You briefly talk about the performances, but let discussing them dither past you almost as if you really don't have anything to say about them at all. You make a single example about the supposed "bad writing" that is unbelievably flawed by the fact that we KNOW Esther forged a PASSPORT. Do you honestly think that mere medical papers would be more difficult to forge than a freaking PASSPORT?! The fact that almost every single person on this site apart from the contributors agree that this review is horribly written (we're not saying anything against your opinion, we're just saying you have a horrible way of getting that opinion across), is a testament to this entire thread.
And from your review and comments, Matt, I can't help but get the impression that your butchering of this perfectly good movie was solely based on your objection to the children/guns aspect of it. Your other criticisms were largely unfounded, and your example of the great gaping plot hole wasn't that great at all. As it was said before me, Esther forged her papers.
And yes, ultimately we can only chalk it up to a difference of opinion, and mine is that your review was unproportionally harsh considering the shortcomings of this movie.
This man has worded my feelings better than I ever could. It's clear that Matt's hate of the movie stems from the use of children with guns. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about a child with a gun. I admit that the youngest girl firing a gun is completely implausible, but that ending was actually tacked on after production had finished. The original/alternate ending can be viewed on youtube, it's much different. But the fact is that you're original hate doesn't stem from the child firing the gun, but the child holding the gun in the first place, almost like you think the scene was written into the script as a mere gimmick. This is NOT gimmick though, and neither is it added for shock value, because to be perfectly honest...I personally (and everyone else I know) gain no shock value from simply watching a kid hold a gun that I know is a film prop anyway. Fact is that it is just common freaking sense that if you are a child and your mother is about to be stabbed, you WILL pick up the gun at your feet and TRY to fire it. Fair enough, the gun shouldn't be able to fire, but that's clearly neither mine or your own point. Your point is that the child should never pick up the gun in the first place because you think it's a cheap shock additive. That is completely absent minded especially since it's clear there is absolutely NO shock to be had from seeing a child pick up a gun. It clearly didn't shock you, me or anybody else on this site. I'm quite sure they knew that something like this wouldn't shock someone, so why the feck would they do it for that purpose?! It's merely used for the sake of narrative progression.
Once again, the review is just horribly written. Not ONCE do you talk about ANYTHING that constitutes towards a film's quality in a constructive manner. You briefly talk about the performances, but let discussing them dither past you almost as if you really don't have anything to say about them at all. You make a single example about the supposed "bad writing" that is unbelievably flawed by the fact that we KNOW Esther forged a PASSPORT. Do you honestly think that mere medical papers would be more difficult to forge than a freaking PASSPORT?! The fact that almost every single person on this site apart from the contributors agree that this review is horribly written (we're not saying anything against your opinion, we're just saying you have a horrible way of getting that opinion across), is a testament to this entire thread.
this reviewer seems like such a wimp.NEXT.
What an awful review. This was not cliche at all and definitely not predictable. I made an account just to express my disgust for this review. You apparently had something stuck up your ass while watching this because this was one of the best thrillers of the year and one of the best summer movies. The fact that you think the twist can be seen from a mile away makes it even more laughable. This is a great movie. I also need to point out that you directed people towards Trick R' Treat instead of this! That movie was dreadful.
I have to say that I'm on the one half that really enjoyed this movie.
And from your review and comments, Matt, I can't help but get the impression that your butchering of this perfectly good movie was solely based on your objection to the children/guns aspect of it. Your other criticisms were largely unfounded, and your example of the great gaping plot hole wasn't that great at all. As it was said before me, Esther forged her papers.
And yes, ultimately we can only chalk it up to a difference of opinion, and mine is that your review was unproportionally harsh considering the shortcomings of this movie.
And from your review and comments, Matt, I can't help but get the impression that your butchering of this perfectly good movie was solely based on your objection to the children/guns aspect of it. Your other criticisms were largely unfounded, and your example of the great gaping plot hole wasn't that great at all. As it was said before me, Esther forged her papers.
And yes, ultimately we can only chalk it up to a difference of opinion, and mine is that your review was unproportionally harsh considering the shortcomings of this movie.
David Blackwell wrote: I am amused by the comments here. I love constructive criticism and comments. IMDB will never match some of the comments that are here at DVD Active. I'm still going to avoid ORPHAN because it looks bad from the trailer.
Just because it looks bad doesn't mean it is bad. For example, "Drag Me to Hell" looked like the most cliched, piece of tripe and the PG-13 from the end of the trailer just supports that claim. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was a sequel to "A Haunting of Molly Hartley" or whatever that movie was. And then, people started liking it. You shouldn't judge a movie by its trailer. You'll miss a lot of good movies by doing that.
Just because it looks bad doesn't mean it is bad. For example, "Drag Me to Hell" looked like the most cliched, piece of tripe and the PG-13 from the end of the trailer just supports that claim. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was a sequel to "A Haunting of Molly Hartley" or whatever that movie was. And then, people started liking it. You shouldn't judge a movie by its trailer. You'll miss a lot of good movies by doing that.
I am amused by the comments here. I love constructive criticism and comments. IMDB will never match some of the comments that are here at DVD Active. I'm still going to avoid ORPHAN because it looks bad from the trailer.
Quote: With that one paragraph, you proved you didn't pay any attention to the movie at all. In the scene where the mother gets a phone call from the guy at the Saarne Institute and he reveals the final revelation about Esther, the mother replies with "But we have her passport and birth papers!" - Which brings us to the conclusion that these papers must be forged. If Esther can can a forged PASSPORT then how is it so unbelievable that she would be able to get forged health/dental documents?
With all due respect, that is flimsy. And steeped in irony. Saying that she forged a passport and birth certificate isn't making this movie any more plausible, and your actually helping Matt's argument in a way. I think you guys just need to chalk this up to differing opinions and give it a rest. This movie isn't worth fighting this hard for.
With all due respect, that is flimsy. And steeped in irony. Saying that she forged a passport and birth certificate isn't making this movie any more plausible, and your actually helping Matt's argument in a way. I think you guys just need to chalk this up to differing opinions and give it a rest. This movie isn't worth fighting this hard for.
I always thought the movie looked too much like The Omen 4
Quote: Assuming that the family in the picture didn't adopt this girl off of the black market and adopted her legally from the state, Esther would have had to be given a thorough medical and dental examination by a state physician before being handed over to a family. The entire movie hinges on the fact that this never takes place. That's a plot hole big enough to land a 747 through.
With that one paragraph, you proved you didn't pay any attention to the movie at all. In the scene where the mother gets a phone call from the guy at the Saarne Institute and he reveals the final revelation about Esther, the mother replies with "But we have her passport and birth papers!" - Which brings us to the conclusion that these papers must be forged. If Esther can can a forged PASSPORT then how is it so unbelievable that she would be able to get forged health/dental documents?
With that one paragraph, you proved you didn't pay any attention to the movie at all. In the scene where the mother gets a phone call from the guy at the Saarne Institute and he reveals the final revelation about Esther, the mother replies with "But we have her passport and birth papers!" - Which brings us to the conclusion that these papers must be forged. If Esther can can a forged PASSPORT then how is it so unbelievable that she would be able to get forged health/dental documents?
Gabe Powers wrote: Oh my God, this just keeps getting more frustrating.
I recommend just ignoring them. Or, I'm not sure if you can do this, disable comments for this review.
I recommend just ignoring them. Or, I'm not sure if you can do this, disable comments for this review.
Oh my God, this just keeps getting more frustrating.
I'd also like the mention the pushing of boundaries. I mean this movie could have easily been rated PG-13 if they cut some stuff out. In fact when I first saw the trailer I was sure it would be. I am glad that they went the 'R' rated route and made it violent yet suspenseful. Too many PG-13 horror films equal trash. I'm sure Matt loved Drag Me To Hell and I hated that movie.
Enough with complaining about the word cliche! I use it all the time in my reviews. Matt's using it twice in the correct context. A last minute twist doesn't negate similarities. It's a genre piece, and genre does play with tropes, but in Matt's opinion The Orphan doesn't bring anything new to the trope.
Chris Gould wrote: Stop paraphrasing Matt, it's cliched 
I know. I know. I'm trying, I really am, but it's an addiction as bad as heroin or so I've heard.
I know. I know. I'm trying, I really am, but it's an addiction as bad as heroin or so I've heard.
Stop paraphrasing Matt, it's cliched
horrorfan25 wrote: We're okay with people disliking a film, but when they lie about stuff that's not even in the film or use the same word over twenty times in a review, that's why we get pissed. Seriously, can Matt think of a better word than "cliche"? He seems to like that word. Even saying the film is full of cliches is inaccurate. If you watched the film, it only is inclusive to maybe three cliches- at the most. Also, the reviewer says, that in the movie a character says "She's evil. Nobody will believe me". When no one utters that line. Furthermore, people get more mad when critics aren't even open minded anymore. They immediately think either "This looks stupid" or "Not the next Godfather? It must be terrible".
I used the word cliche a grand total of...wait for it...wait for it...twice. Once in the body of the review and once in the summary portion. Yup, I sure overused it there. Maybe next time I'll throw in 'formulaic' and 'contrived' to spice things up a bit. You'd have to read this review ten times in order to get to twenty uses of the word. And you're calling me a liar?
To which I'm guessing that you were referring to the fact that no one actually stated "She's evil. Nobody will believe me" in the entire movie, and you're correct--no one actually said those exact words in the entire movie. It's called a making a generalization, and in this case I was generalizing the mother's dialogue in the entire second half of the movie. Are you people really that dense or did you not learn to read past an eighth grade level?
Seriously...I'm sorry I didn't like a movie that you're so obviously passionate about. Next time I plan on offering an opinion that differs from yours in a review I'll be sure to dumb down everything I type to a manner in which you can fully understand it and let you know ahead of time when I'll be in your neighborhood so you can expect it when I show up on your doorstep to cancel Christmas, kick your dog (or cat if you're a cat person) and knock over your garbage cans. At least then you'll have something legitimate to be upset about.
I used the word cliche a grand total of...wait for it...wait for it...twice. Once in the body of the review and once in the summary portion. Yup, I sure overused it there. Maybe next time I'll throw in 'formulaic' and 'contrived' to spice things up a bit. You'd have to read this review ten times in order to get to twenty uses of the word. And you're calling me a liar?
To which I'm guessing that you were referring to the fact that no one actually stated "She's evil. Nobody will believe me" in the entire movie, and you're correct--no one actually said those exact words in the entire movie. It's called a making a generalization, and in this case I was generalizing the mother's dialogue in the entire second half of the movie. Are you people really that dense or did you not learn to read past an eighth grade level?
Seriously...I'm sorry I didn't like a movie that you're so obviously passionate about. Next time I plan on offering an opinion that differs from yours in a review I'll be sure to dumb down everything I type to a manner in which you can fully understand it and let you know ahead of time when I'll be in your neighborhood so you can expect it when I show up on your doorstep to cancel Christmas, kick your dog (or cat if you're a cat person) and knock over your garbage cans. At least then you'll have something legitimate to be upset about.
Matt wrote:
I didn't go into great detail about the giant holes in logic and poor writing here because I thought I made it pretty clear that my main problem with the film is with it's moral reprehensible actions as far as the child actors go in the third act; sorry if you missed that point.
I'm sorry, but this is a horror/thriller film, yes? They show horrific things on the screen. The reason you're hating the film is the exact reason I loved it. I applaud the filmmakers for pushing the boundaries, actually having kids in peril. You never see that in movies and the audience I watched it with were afraid, on the edge of their seats, waiting to see if the kids will survive the situations or not. That's called suspense.
Quote: In a movie like this where it isn't intricate to the plot it's a cheap and lazy device to get some shock value and I have a hard time reconciling that fact that the writers couldn't come up with another solution in its place.
Why would they do that? Wouldn't coming up with another solution make that also meaningless to the plot, as you say? Everything in here was necessary, to show who Esther really is.
Quote: I'm uncomfortable with seeing small children handling firearms in movies and find it morally wrong for filmmakers to employ it--if you don't have a problem with it that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
As you can tell, I'm a huge fan of the film so I read some cast interviews. If you read Fuhrman's interviews, she's old enough to know the difference between fiction and reality. She's actually 12 years old when she was in the movie so she knows the game that's being played.
Quote: Assuming that the family in the picture didn't adopt this girl off of the black market and adopted her legally from the state, Esther would have had to be given a thorough medical and dental examination by a state physician before being handed over to a family. The entire movie hinges on the fact that this never takes place. That's a plot hole big enough to land a 747 through.
It's a freaking movie. Sure, this excuse is getting old and tired but it's a movie. If the things you wanted to take place did take place before the movie occurred, there wouldn't be a movie in the first place. This is a popcorn movie. You shouldn't think too deeply of the process of what people do to immigrants who come in the U.S.
I didn't go into great detail about the giant holes in logic and poor writing here because I thought I made it pretty clear that my main problem with the film is with it's moral reprehensible actions as far as the child actors go in the third act; sorry if you missed that point.
I'm sorry, but this is a horror/thriller film, yes? They show horrific things on the screen. The reason you're hating the film is the exact reason I loved it. I applaud the filmmakers for pushing the boundaries, actually having kids in peril. You never see that in movies and the audience I watched it with were afraid, on the edge of their seats, waiting to see if the kids will survive the situations or not. That's called suspense.
Quote: In a movie like this where it isn't intricate to the plot it's a cheap and lazy device to get some shock value and I have a hard time reconciling that fact that the writers couldn't come up with another solution in its place.
Why would they do that? Wouldn't coming up with another solution make that also meaningless to the plot, as you say? Everything in here was necessary, to show who Esther really is.
Quote: I'm uncomfortable with seeing small children handling firearms in movies and find it morally wrong for filmmakers to employ it--if you don't have a problem with it that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
As you can tell, I'm a huge fan of the film so I read some cast interviews. If you read Fuhrman's interviews, she's old enough to know the difference between fiction and reality. She's actually 12 years old when she was in the movie so she knows the game that's being played.
Quote: Assuming that the family in the picture didn't adopt this girl off of the black market and adopted her legally from the state, Esther would have had to be given a thorough medical and dental examination by a state physician before being handed over to a family. The entire movie hinges on the fact that this never takes place. That's a plot hole big enough to land a 747 through.
It's a freaking movie. Sure, this excuse is getting old and tired but it's a movie. If the things you wanted to take place did take place before the movie occurred, there wouldn't be a movie in the first place. This is a popcorn movie. You shouldn't think too deeply of the process of what people do to immigrants who come in the U.S.
Gabe Powers wrote: Damien isn't possessed either. And neither is the kid in The Orphan (1979). And neither is the kid in The Good Son. Your statement was pure hyperbole.
Spoiler Was Daimen a 33 year old woman with a Gary Oldman disease that was a prostitute for wealthy pedophiles? Didn't think so!
Gabe Powers wrote: I see you guys aren't at all open to other opinions or interested in constructive constructive criticism here.
We're okay with people disliking a film, but when they lie about stuff that's not even in the film or use the same word over twenty times in a review, that's why we get pissed. Seriously, can Matt think of a better word than "cliche"? He seems to like that word. Even saying the film is full of cliches is inaccurate. If you watched the film, it only is inclusive to maybe three cliches- at the most. Also, the reviewer says, that in the movie a character says "She's evil. Nobody will believe me". When no one utters that line. Furthermore, people get more mad when critics aren't even open minded anymore. They immediately think either "This looks stupid" or "Not the next Godfather? It must be terrible".
Spoiler Was Daimen a 33 year old woman with a Gary Oldman disease that was a prostitute for wealthy pedophiles? Didn't think so!
Gabe Powers wrote: I see you guys aren't at all open to other opinions or interested in constructive constructive criticism here.
We're okay with people disliking a film, but when they lie about stuff that's not even in the film or use the same word over twenty times in a review, that's why we get pissed. Seriously, can Matt think of a better word than "cliche"? He seems to like that word. Even saying the film is full of cliches is inaccurate. If you watched the film, it only is inclusive to maybe three cliches- at the most. Also, the reviewer says, that in the movie a character says "She's evil. Nobody will believe me". When no one utters that line. Furthermore, people get more mad when critics aren't even open minded anymore. They immediately think either "This looks stupid" or "Not the next Godfather? It must be terrible".
I'm sorry but I disagree with this review entirely. I mean, I don't even agree one point you made. First of all, you say one reason you didn't like the film is because of the cliches. OK, I don't know if you haven't noticed but almost every movie ever created has a least 1% of cliches in them. It's natural. My second point is that you're making a hyperbole when saying it uses a lot of cliches. I saw this film in theaters last summer and counted like three scenes in the entire film that were cliched.
Also, to those who have no interest in seeing the film, there are clues that show this movie is great. First, it has a 55% on RT. Most horror movies can't even reach past the 25% these days. Second, Roger Ebert gave the film a 3.5/4. That speaks for itself. Third, in its second week, Orphan dropped a mere 43% than your usual 50%+ for most horror movies. Fourth, the great Leonardo DiCaprio was a producer on this movie. That also speaks a lot. Give the movie a chance. I personally believe it's the best horror film this year. It's freaking brilliant and it's original. The performances are bloody fantastic and Fuhrman deserves an Oscar nomination for her role in the least. And there IS suspense and tension throughout the film, something that has been missing in horror movies in a long time.
Here's my full review:
I just literally came back from a screening of ORPHAN and forgive me, I'm still soaking in what was in the film. Wow. This was a messed up movie. Really, some of the things in here are just flat out wrong and the fact that the filmmakers had the gumption to do what they did, from the twist to the taboos, I applaud them. ORPHAN has what usually most horror movies have, from the music cue waiting to have people jump out of their seats to the character who is clueless from what's going on. I believe the movie is self aware of itself and other horror films and uses that to its advantage to have fun with the clichés. However, what sets this apart from other films is that it pushed the boundaries. After the movie ends, you can't help but have an uncomfortable feeling lingering as you drive home.
But I won't say anymore about what boundaries the film pushed, because that ruins the fun. The film has a running time of barely over two hours, which is longer than most films these days, let alone horror films. Fortunately, this isn't a bad thing because the first half of the film was like a great character study. There is more character development in the first ten minutes of this film compared to all of most other horror movies. I was taken off guard. I appreciated that, making most of the characters people who you would root for.
Surprisingly, there is a lot of dark humor. I laughed out loud more than I thought I would and I'm sure the audience I was with was surprised too. When the film started, the audience was quiet, because they weren't sure how the film will play out. By the end, everyone seemed to have the time of their lives. I know I did. With its shares of dark humor, the film also produces some tense and unsettling scenes. This is mostly due to Jaume Collet-Serra, who directed the remake of HOUSE OF WAX, one of my favorite slashers. He sets everything up nicely, while using sound to make the audience uncomfortable. Be on the look out for him in the future. He has a big career in front of him. I know it.
The film has its strong performances...and I mean from everyone. Even the kids have strong performances, which is saying a lot. I didn't feel annoyed by them. A film like this must be carried well by the evil kid herself, and she absolutely rises to the task. Isabelle Fuhrman does such a fantastic job playing the evil Esther. After saying that, it still feels like an understatement. Remember Damien? You know, the Devil's child? Well, he seems like a nice kid now. The film is also supported by two great leads, played by Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard. Farmiga plays well as the sympathetic mother that nobody but herself believes while Sarsgaard feels like a clueless father and a great one at that.
The film also has a great score composed by John Ottman, along with some nice production values, which give the film a slick look. Overall, if you want to see an evil kid causing havoc, here's the movie. The film mixes the dark humor and tense scenes really well. There's also a twist in the movie towards the end which sets itself apart from other evil kid movies. The twist is not improbable at all, which is a great thing. The film is pure entertainment from beginning to end and it works because of the fantastic Isabelle Fuhrman. I can't praise her enough. Finally, all I have to say is this: Esther is just an evil little kid. Pity, because she's such a great well-mannered artist who can play Tchaikovsky flawlessly. 8/10
Also, to those who have no interest in seeing the film, there are clues that show this movie is great. First, it has a 55% on RT. Most horror movies can't even reach past the 25% these days. Second, Roger Ebert gave the film a 3.5/4. That speaks for itself. Third, in its second week, Orphan dropped a mere 43% than your usual 50%+ for most horror movies. Fourth, the great Leonardo DiCaprio was a producer on this movie. That also speaks a lot. Give the movie a chance. I personally believe it's the best horror film this year. It's freaking brilliant and it's original. The performances are bloody fantastic and Fuhrman deserves an Oscar nomination for her role in the least. And there IS suspense and tension throughout the film, something that has been missing in horror movies in a long time.
Here's my full review:
I just literally came back from a screening of ORPHAN and forgive me, I'm still soaking in what was in the film. Wow. This was a messed up movie. Really, some of the things in here are just flat out wrong and the fact that the filmmakers had the gumption to do what they did, from the twist to the taboos, I applaud them. ORPHAN has what usually most horror movies have, from the music cue waiting to have people jump out of their seats to the character who is clueless from what's going on. I believe the movie is self aware of itself and other horror films and uses that to its advantage to have fun with the clichés. However, what sets this apart from other films is that it pushed the boundaries. After the movie ends, you can't help but have an uncomfortable feeling lingering as you drive home.
But I won't say anymore about what boundaries the film pushed, because that ruins the fun. The film has a running time of barely over two hours, which is longer than most films these days, let alone horror films. Fortunately, this isn't a bad thing because the first half of the film was like a great character study. There is more character development in the first ten minutes of this film compared to all of most other horror movies. I was taken off guard. I appreciated that, making most of the characters people who you would root for.
Surprisingly, there is a lot of dark humor. I laughed out loud more than I thought I would and I'm sure the audience I was with was surprised too. When the film started, the audience was quiet, because they weren't sure how the film will play out. By the end, everyone seemed to have the time of their lives. I know I did. With its shares of dark humor, the film also produces some tense and unsettling scenes. This is mostly due to Jaume Collet-Serra, who directed the remake of HOUSE OF WAX, one of my favorite slashers. He sets everything up nicely, while using sound to make the audience uncomfortable. Be on the look out for him in the future. He has a big career in front of him. I know it.
The film has its strong performances...and I mean from everyone. Even the kids have strong performances, which is saying a lot. I didn't feel annoyed by them. A film like this must be carried well by the evil kid herself, and she absolutely rises to the task. Isabelle Fuhrman does such a fantastic job playing the evil Esther. After saying that, it still feels like an understatement. Remember Damien? You know, the Devil's child? Well, he seems like a nice kid now. The film is also supported by two great leads, played by Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard. Farmiga plays well as the sympathetic mother that nobody but herself believes while Sarsgaard feels like a clueless father and a great one at that.
The film also has a great score composed by John Ottman, along with some nice production values, which give the film a slick look. Overall, if you want to see an evil kid causing havoc, here's the movie. The film mixes the dark humor and tense scenes really well. There's also a twist in the movie towards the end which sets itself apart from other evil kid movies. The twist is not improbable at all, which is a great thing. The film is pure entertainment from beginning to end and it works because of the fantastic Isabelle Fuhrman. I can't praise her enough. Finally, all I have to say is this: Esther is just an evil little kid. Pity, because she's such a great well-mannered artist who can play Tchaikovsky flawlessly. 8/10
It's getting increasingly like that here. People are dumb.
For a second I thought I was on the IMDB message boards.
I see you guys aren't at all open to other opinions or interested in constructive constructive criticism here.
Ignore the reviewer
Because this movie kicks ass
Because this movie kicks ass
Xian Tianhan wrote: I never said anything against Matt's opinion. My argument is just that the whole review is completely redundant. He argues that a horror/thriller is "cliché" - this is a horribly redundant argument to make as ALL horror films EVER MADE are cliché. He also argues that the script in general is badly written, but yet gives absolutely no examples of said terrible writing. He argues that the film is over-long without making any kind of example about other films that are over-long but are regarded as classics. I could go on and on, but the fact is, this is a horribly written review. The guy complains so much about the writing of Orphan, without realising just how mediocre his own writing talents are.
I didn't go into great detail about the giant holes in logic and poor writing here because I thought I made it pretty clear that my main problem with the film is with it's moral reprehensible actions as far as the child actors go in the third act; sorry if you missed that point. If it had not been for a few instances of this film actually pissing me off, I might have written it off as a simply mediocre. I don't know about you, but I generally don't find much value in movies that are not only bad, but anger me while I'm watching them.
With that let me address the kids and guns problem you had with the review since you didn't seem to get that point either. In a movie like this where it isn't intricate to the plot it's a cheap and lazy device to get some shock value and I have a hard time reconciling that fact that the writers couldn't come up with another solution in its place. I'm uncomfortable with seeing small children handling firearms in movies and find it morally wrong for filmmakers to employ it--if you don't have a problem with it that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The implausible part to me is her actually firing the gun. If you know of a girl that age who could actually fire a revolver you've got some extraordinarily strong little kids running around your neighborhood.
If you want an example of the leaps in logic and the poor writing that went into this picture that I alluded to in the review but didn't think were important enough to get into and which nagged at me through the entire film I'll give you one. I reserved myself from writing about it due to the fact that it gives part of the movie away, but as they say you've forced my hand:
Assuming that the family in the picture didn't adopt this girl off of the black market and adopted her legally from the state, Esther would have had to be given a thorough medical and dental examination by a state physician before being handed over to a family. The entire movie hinges on the fact that this never takes place. That's a plot hole big enough to land a 747 through.
I didn't go into great detail about the giant holes in logic and poor writing here because I thought I made it pretty clear that my main problem with the film is with it's moral reprehensible actions as far as the child actors go in the third act; sorry if you missed that point. If it had not been for a few instances of this film actually pissing me off, I might have written it off as a simply mediocre. I don't know about you, but I generally don't find much value in movies that are not only bad, but anger me while I'm watching them.
With that let me address the kids and guns problem you had with the review since you didn't seem to get that point either. In a movie like this where it isn't intricate to the plot it's a cheap and lazy device to get some shock value and I have a hard time reconciling that fact that the writers couldn't come up with another solution in its place. I'm uncomfortable with seeing small children handling firearms in movies and find it morally wrong for filmmakers to employ it--if you don't have a problem with it that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The implausible part to me is her actually firing the gun. If you know of a girl that age who could actually fire a revolver you've got some extraordinarily strong little kids running around your neighborhood.
If you want an example of the leaps in logic and the poor writing that went into this picture that I alluded to in the review but didn't think were important enough to get into and which nagged at me through the entire film I'll give you one. I reserved myself from writing about it due to the fact that it gives part of the movie away, but as they say you've forced my hand:
Assuming that the family in the picture didn't adopt this girl off of the black market and adopted her legally from the state, Esther would have had to be given a thorough medical and dental examination by a state physician before being handed over to a family. The entire movie hinges on the fact that this never takes place. That's a plot hole big enough to land a 747 through.
"I could excuse Orphan for building its premise on and executing nearly every cliche in the 'Evil Child' genre as it's not like far better films haven't done the exact same thing."
Are you kidding dude?
This was great, it was scary. This made Damien look like a model child.
It is not cliche and the twist was a clever twist.
Are you kidding dude?
This was great, it was scary. This made Damien look like a model child.
It is not cliche and the twist was a clever twist.
Damien isn't possessed either. And neither is the kid in The Orphan (1979). And neither is the kid in The Good Son. Your statement was pure hyperbole.
Quote: Saying it's "NOTHING like the omen or any other evil child films" is ridiculous as the very premise is already SOMETHING like those films.
Well...Esther isn't possessed...so...
I never said anything against Matt's opinion. My argument is just that the whole review is completely redundant. He argues that a horror/thriller is "cliché" - this is a horribly redundant argument to make as ALL horror films EVER MADE are cliché. He also argues that the script in general is badly written, but yet gives absolutely no examples of said terrible writing. He argues that the film is over-long without making any kind of example about other films that are over-long but are regarded as classics. I could go on and on, but the fact is, this is a horribly written review. The guy complains so much about the writing of Orphan, without realising just how mediocre his own writing talents are.
Well...Esther isn't possessed...so...
I never said anything against Matt's opinion. My argument is just that the whole review is completely redundant. He argues that a horror/thriller is "cliché" - this is a horribly redundant argument to make as ALL horror films EVER MADE are cliché. He also argues that the script in general is badly written, but yet gives absolutely no examples of said terrible writing. He argues that the film is over-long without making any kind of example about other films that are over-long but are regarded as classics. I could go on and on, but the fact is, this is a horribly written review. The guy complains so much about the writing of Orphan, without realising just how mediocre his own writing talents are.
I haven't actually seen the film yet, but the basic plot has been used several times. There's actually a movie called...wait for it...The Orphan from '79 that has a very similar set up. Saying it's "NOTHING like the omen or any other evil child films" is ridiculous as the very premise is already SOMETHING like those films. I understand if you people disagree with Matt on the quality of the film, but this doesn't negate his criticism.
Also: The TRAILER says Esther isn't the sweet girl she pretends to be. That's how they make sure we know it's a horror movie. The freakin' tag line is "There's something wrong with Esther." It's not a spoiler if the film's promotional materials give it away. Don't be daft.
Also: The TRAILER says Esther isn't the sweet girl she pretends to be. That's how they make sure we know it's a horror movie. The freakin' tag line is "There's something wrong with Esther." It's not a spoiler if the film's promotional materials give it away. Don't be daft.
^^^ Agreed.
I love how everyone is attacking the reviewer for his OPINION. Not everyone is going to like the movie. Get over it.
This review was awful. Give the film some credit. It was NOTHING like the omen or any other evil child films. It was very original.
Wow. This is actually the very first terrible review I've seen on dvdactive. Seriously, unbelievably harsh.
First of all, "and starts to believe that Esther isn't the bright, sweet little girl she pretends to be." - Way to give away the ending o.O
Second, I really do hate it when reviewers hate a movie but are clearly struggling to back up their inane points, so they just mention the word "cliche" over and over again. Almost as if highly critiqued movies like The Dark Knight and Saving Private Ryan DON'T contain these "cliche's" you speak of. All movies contain cliches in one way or another. Complaining about them or critiquing against them is completely redundant, since you're essentially complaining about something that you already knew the movie would contain.
You also complain about the picture's running time CONSTANTLY. Why? Does that make the film terrible? No. Sure, it could have lost maybe 20-odd minutes, but obviously the film makers didn't WANT to lose those 20-odd minutes and I for one respect that. Too much are films cut down to size by their production companies, here is a film where the producers are saying a big F U to anybody who doesn't agree with the length of this film.
You also say the dialogue is terrible without giving any real examples, appart from saying "this child is evil and nobody will believe me" (which isn't even in the movie for a start). This leads me to believe that you actually can barely remember anything from the movie, maybe because you hated it so much. But correct me if I'm wrong, but if you can barely remember anything from the movie, you have absolutely no place reviewing it >.<
I'm sorry, but if you can't cope with viewing children placed into these situations then you have no place even watching this film, let alone reviewing it. Place yourself in the shoes of the main character, about to be stabbed by someone, whilst your own daughter has access to a gun at her feet...would you want her to pick it up and TRY to shoot the assailant? Of course you freaking would. It's either that, or the assailant kills you and then possibly your daughter. There is absolutely NOTHING unrealistic about any of the situations the children have been placed into. Are you seriously saying that a child getting shot at in a film is in seriously bad taste? Dude, how many films have you seen?!
What do you mean by "guns and kids in movies LIKE THIS just don't mix"? Dude, it's a THRILLER and their parents lives and their own are in danger. What in the hell do you expect the kids to do? If they have access to a gun, I'm pretty sure they are going to USE that gun. Do you honestly expect the film makers to think "Hhmmm, this kid's mother is about to be stabbed. There is a gun at the girl's feet but we can't let her pick it up, but the audience would see that as bad taste" It's common freaking sense that she WOULD pick it up.
The only thing I can agree with you on is that the surprise twist at the end (whilst pretty darn original IMO), is a little easy to guess if you have been paying full attention.
The final point that I'll get at is the fact that you call the film completely unoriginal. Well this statement is completely cancelled out by the fact that you find the film in bad taste and disgusting in it's nature towards it's child character. This, in fact, DOES make the film original. Whether you want to admitt it or not.
First of all, "and starts to believe that Esther isn't the bright, sweet little girl she pretends to be." - Way to give away the ending o.O
Second, I really do hate it when reviewers hate a movie but are clearly struggling to back up their inane points, so they just mention the word "cliche" over and over again. Almost as if highly critiqued movies like The Dark Knight and Saving Private Ryan DON'T contain these "cliche's" you speak of. All movies contain cliches in one way or another. Complaining about them or critiquing against them is completely redundant, since you're essentially complaining about something that you already knew the movie would contain.
You also complain about the picture's running time CONSTANTLY. Why? Does that make the film terrible? No. Sure, it could have lost maybe 20-odd minutes, but obviously the film makers didn't WANT to lose those 20-odd minutes and I for one respect that. Too much are films cut down to size by their production companies, here is a film where the producers are saying a big F U to anybody who doesn't agree with the length of this film.
You also say the dialogue is terrible without giving any real examples, appart from saying "this child is evil and nobody will believe me" (which isn't even in the movie for a start). This leads me to believe that you actually can barely remember anything from the movie, maybe because you hated it so much. But correct me if I'm wrong, but if you can barely remember anything from the movie, you have absolutely no place reviewing it >.<
I'm sorry, but if you can't cope with viewing children placed into these situations then you have no place even watching this film, let alone reviewing it. Place yourself in the shoes of the main character, about to be stabbed by someone, whilst your own daughter has access to a gun at her feet...would you want her to pick it up and TRY to shoot the assailant? Of course you freaking would. It's either that, or the assailant kills you and then possibly your daughter. There is absolutely NOTHING unrealistic about any of the situations the children have been placed into. Are you seriously saying that a child getting shot at in a film is in seriously bad taste? Dude, how many films have you seen?!
What do you mean by "guns and kids in movies LIKE THIS just don't mix"? Dude, it's a THRILLER and their parents lives and their own are in danger. What in the hell do you expect the kids to do? If they have access to a gun, I'm pretty sure they are going to USE that gun. Do you honestly expect the film makers to think "Hhmmm, this kid's mother is about to be stabbed. There is a gun at the girl's feet but we can't let her pick it up, but the audience would see that as bad taste" It's common freaking sense that she WOULD pick it up.
The only thing I can agree with you on is that the surprise twist at the end (whilst pretty darn original IMO), is a little easy to guess if you have been paying full attention.
The final point that I'll get at is the fact that you call the film completely unoriginal. Well this statement is completely cancelled out by the fact that you find the film in bad taste and disgusting in it's nature towards it's child character. This, in fact, DOES make the film original. Whether you want to admitt it or not.
Even though I still agree with Matt that Trick 'r treat is better, Orphan is not as bad as the reviewer says. In fact, I actually liked it. The performances were excellent, the execution was solid, and the finale was suspense-inducing. On a side note, there weren't as many cliches as you make out to be. There was only like 2 or 3 and those occurred at the beginning. It's inaccurate, to say the film was full of cliches when there was an infrequent amount of them. Although, I'm surprised people said Trick 'r treat is boring on this board. Even if people like Orphan, it's dishonest to say Trick 'r treat isn't better. Still, Matt, you are being too harsh on a film this good.
I agree with above poster, far better than Trick R Treat (or any other thriller/horror this year). I went in expecting something along the lines of Joshua (also starring Vermiga as the mother) but was completely caught offguard with how 'disturbing' this was. Great roles from the cast all around with a special mention of Furhmann ofcourse, who's nothing short of great.
Didn't mind the running time at all, Trick R Treat rounded out about 80 minutes and I remember looking at my watch a few times, which isn't a good sign, in opposition to this one, which pretty much flew by.
Didn't mind the running time at all, Trick R Treat rounded out about 80 minutes and I remember looking at my watch a few times, which isn't a good sign, in opposition to this one, which pretty much flew by.
This review is way too harsh. First of all no you would not see the twist coming from a mile away and yes Isabelle's performance is fantastic. The acting is good and the film is hardly a chore to sit through. If you think that Trick r Treat is a better film then your taste in horror movies is severely flawed (There is a reason that Warner did not release it theatrically). Orphan had great word of mouth at the box office and I would not even consider it horror. It was a thriller. The fact that you were predetermined to hate the film before you even saw it is also a joke. This was a great film and one that is sure to get repeated many times in my Blu-ray player. Go watch your horror direct to video trash.
I figured Orphan was as you say it is Matt. But all the people who talked about how Isabelle Fuhrman deserves an Oscar for her performance made me question my initial gut feeling. Your review reassured me. I'm taking this off my list.
It looked pretty bad, have no interest in this whatsoever
Haha, look what ad I got at the bottom of the screen after reading this...
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9626/11977591.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9626/11977591.jpg
Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
Disc Details
Release Date:
27th October 2009
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Blu-ray Disc
RCE:
No
Video:
1080p
Aspect:
1.85:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby TrueHD 5.1 English, Dolby Digital 5.1 English, Dolby Digital 5.1 French, Dolby Digital 5.1 Spanish
Subtitles:
English, French, Spanish
Extras:
Mama's Little Devil's: Bad Seeds and Evil Children Featurette, Alternate Scenes & Alternate Ending, BD-Live, Digital Copy
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Jaume Collet-Serra
Cast:
Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, Isabelle Fuhrman
Genre:
Thriller
Length:
123 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Award Winning
Godzilla Final Wars
UK - DVD R2
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The
UK - DVD R2
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
UK - BD
Doctor Who: Planet of Giants
UK - DVD R2
Lion King: Diamond Edition, The
US - BD
Past Reviews
Hunger Games
US - BD RA
Battlestar Galactica: The Plan
UK - BD
Sony Blu-ray Wrap Up
US - BD RA
Intruder: Director's Cut
US - BD
Forgotten, The
UK - DVD R2
Unseen Reviews
Doctor Who: Scream of the Shalka
UK - DVD R2
Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The
US - BD RA
Adventure Time: Season 3
US - BD RA
Killers, The
UK - BD RB
Gravity
UK - BD
Most Talked About
Oldboy (2013)
US - BD RA
Alexander: The Ultimate Cut
US - BD RA
The Wolf of Wall Street
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Shadow: Collector's Edition, The
US - BD RA
Grandmaster, The
US - BD RA
