Orphan (review)
John + Kate Plus Hate

Hoorah! It’s so rare that we get a genuinely funny sendup of horror movies, a satire of this overbaked and underimaginative genre that knows all the tired tropes -- the “scary” music and the “menacing” camera angles and the telegraphing every boo! -- and deploys them with such refreshing pointlessness, as if to say: “Gosh, this is all so ridiculous, isn’t it? And not in the least bit frightening. But here, enjoy this portentously and threatening, ohhhhh [camera seeks around for something that can be rendered faux-chilling, the more mundane and typically unthreatening the better], squeaky medicine cabinet!”
Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
Oh, how I wish it were true that Orphan was a knowing parody, instead of an unwitting one. That squeaky bathroom medicine cabinet? It’s for real here, part of the pretend ominousness that looms over the first half of this overlong flick: before it ever bothers to even attempt to float anything that might potentially be the stuff of a horror movie, it’s all throbbing score and lingering looks into shadows where there’s nothing at all going on but where director Jaume Collet-Serra would desperately like us to believe there might be something absolutely horrifying lurking.
“Look, it’s gonna be a horror movie: we promise -- just bear with us for a bit,” first-time screenwriters David Johnson and Alex Mace appear to be telling us for that looong first hour, and Collet-Serra joins them in their delusion. What they really have is an otherwise tedious domestic drama -- about John and Kate Coleman, who’ve lost a baby and are about to adopt an older child upon whom to shower that frustrated love -- that is saved by the considerable talents of Peter Sarsgaard (Rendition, Jarhead) and Vera Farmiga (Nothing But the Truth, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas), as the Colemans. They’re two of the most underappreciated and underutilized thirtysomething actors working today, and I’d love to see them in a drama worthy of their gifts.
But domestic dramas don’t put butts in multiplex seats: horror movies do. Even when they’re as monotonous, obvious, and predictable as this one. So enter nine-year-old Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), a precocious but gifted kid with a troubled past. Collet-Serra creeps her up with sinister camera angles and eerie music and worried looks from folk, but really, it’s just because we already know this is supposed to be a horror movie that we even have a clue that we’re meant to be frightened by her. (None of this should come as a surprise: the director’s previous horror movie, 2005’s House of Wax remake, was equally ridiculous and equally unscary.) It’s only because Collet-Serra hopes we have preconceived notions about cinematic demon children -- preconceived notions that have been pumped up by the film’s marketing, of course, which surely must be considered a character in this drama itself -- that every little perfectly normal childhood idiosyncrasy becomes “disturbing.” Esther doesn’t want to go to the dentist? What kid does? Esther is particular about her clothes? Many kids are. But, you know: BOO! anyway.
But wait! As if to make up for the desperately unscary first half, Orphan goes into preposterous overdrive in its second half, piling on absurdities (though never ones so wild that you won’t have already guessed the twists) and piling on the manipulation. It’s not enough that Kate lost a baby: she also had a drinking problem. And she lost a job she loved. And something bad happened to one of her other kids. Oh, and her husband cheated on her.
It’s still not much like a horror movie -- well, apart from some very graphic violence dished out with some very disturbing glee by Collet-Serra. It’s more like one of those overwrought “women’s” movies from the 1950s in which a bad mother is punished for not being a proper woman, with a lot of splattered blood and bashed skulls as set dressing. It’s all very much like a joke... but not a funny one.
[buy at Amazon (Region 1)] [buy at Amazon (Region 2)]viewed at a semipublic screening with an audience of critics and ordinary moviegoers
rated R for disturbing violent content, some sexuality and language
official site | IMDB | trailer | more reviews at MRQE













comments
posted by Frank from UF (Fri Jul 24 09, 1:27PM)
This is a witty and entertaining review, and the best part is that it doesn't just plot-summarize with spoilers like so many other movie reviews.
posted by Joe (Fri Jul 24 09, 1:39PM)
That's MAJ for you Frank, look up her review of the first Tomb Raider movie for a real laugh, still gets me today.
posted by bracyman (Fri Jul 24 09, 1:54PM)
Oh man! Tomb Raider was my introduction to the FlickFilosopher (thanks to Tycho from Penny Arcade).
posted by Frank from UF (Fri Jul 24 09, 3:13PM)
I'll check out her Tomb Raider review. This is the first review from Johanson I've read, and it sparked my interest. I find her picture and short bio to be humorously intriguing.
posted by Orangutan (Fri Jul 24 09, 3:44PM)
Oh wow, are you in for a treat! That Tomb Raider review was the one that introduced me to the site (also via Penny Arcade!), and I've been visiting almost daily ever since. :)
posted by SaintAndy (Fri Jul 24 09, 4:01PM)
I also think Vera Fermiga is criminally underused, and it seems Hollywoood doesn't know what to do with her combination of looks and brains, so I'll probably watch this just for her ...and because I think some kids truly are evil...
posted by Accounting Ninja (Fri Jul 24 09, 6:09PM)
Also funny: her Star Trek Nemesis and Armageddon reviews. They cracked me up.
posted by Accounting Ninja (Fri Jul 24 09, 9:18PM)
Sorry to double post, but can I nominate "Jon & Kate Plus Hate" as like, the best tagline yet?
posted by Victor Plenty (Fri Jul 24 09, 10:01PM)
That's a kickass tagline, most def.
posted by SaintAndy (Sat Aug 01 09, 1:27PM)
I finally got round to seeing it (for Vera Farmiga, really) and I feel like Hollywood has managed to squander another interesting premise. Sure, the evil kid plot has been done to death, but most of the times, the kids had some valid excuse: either they were possessed by the devil (Exorcist) or they were the kid of the devil (Omen) or they were cloned and had memories from some other evil kid (the preposterous idea was used in God sent ...terrible movie, in spite of De Niro and Greg Kinnear). Of course the kid in Orphan has an equally valid excuse, because it's very rare that Hollywood has the courage or the capacity to depict/analyze/investigate why and how children can be capable of gruesome things.
My point is I think the whole premise of Orphan was much better done *don't laugh* in Interview with a vampire. There is a girl who gets transformed into a vampire so as not to succumb to some epidemics which has already wiped out her family, and her development is forever stopped at age 11. Leaving aside the emo, vampire angle (thanks, Anne Rice, for making vampires so lame) we get an interesting, if secondary, plot line. So she - Claudia- looks perpetually like a living doll, but centuries pass ..and she grows increasingly frustrated ...and finally, all that anger, and frustration of being an adult trapped in a child's body explode ..with murderous consequences. (I also like her character because she kills Tom Cruise's character, but I digress).
Bottom line, horror film or not, I think Orphan would've been better if it investigated just a bit why Esther behaves the way she does ...It's like, as monstrous as the idea is, if you take Claudia's character and Esther's, you almost get a full view of the drama of being trapped in your own body.