Archive for Evil Kids!

TRICK ‘R TREAT

Posted in Cinema Knife Fights, Evil Kids! with tags , , , , , on June 14, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: TRICK ‘R TREAT
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

FADE IN.

(THE SCENE: It’s Halloween night. The streets are lined with glowing jack o’ lanterns. The PEANUTS GANG, dressed in Halloween costumes, approach the front door of a spooky old house and ring the doorbell. The door opens.)

PEANUTS GANG (in unison):  Trick ‘r treat!

(A pale, bony hand reaches out and deposits candy into the various trick or treat bags.)

GHOST:  I got candy!

WITCH:  I got gum!

VAMPIRE:  I got a cookie!

CHARLIE BROWN (groans):  Awww, I got a rock.

(Suddenly, a huge boulder falls from above and crushes CHARLIE BROWN and his friends.)

L.L. SOARES (sticking his head out second story window):  No, what you had was a pebble. NOW you have a rock!

MICHAEL ARRUDA (sticks head out window and looks below):  You do realize you’ve just crushed one of the most beloved characters in American comics?

LS:  He had it coming.

MA:  Oh well. I guess it’s not all bad. Some people love crushed peanuts.

Anyway, today we’re reviewing TRICK ‘R TREAT (2008), now available on DVD. Although TRICK ‘R TREAT generated a lot of buzz in 2008, it never got a theatrical release and went straight to DVD. We’ll give our thoughts on why this might have happened.

Actually, I can tell you right now why this happened. Because TRICK ‘R TREAT is not a very good movie. It’s that simple. The better question, I think, is why it generated such buzz in the first place?

LS: I thought it was a mixed bag. But like you, I have no idea why it generated as much buzz as it did within the genre. This movie did not live up to the hype.

MA: The biggest problem I had with TRICK ‘R TREAT is its story, or in this case, its lack of story. There are actually four stories in this movie, so the fact that none of them work makes things even worse.

As you would expect in a movie called TRICK ‘R TREAT, the action takes place on Halloween night. After a pre-credit murder sequence, which I thought was predictable and unimpressive, the story jumps backwards to a time that is “earlier.”  The movie does this several times, and at one point, even jumps ahead only to jump back again. It’s all very confusing. While I applaud different approaches to storytelling, I like them better when they have a point to them, and in this movie, I failed to find the point of moving back and forth through time.

LS: It looked like it was TRYING to be like a horror movie version of PULP FICTION (1994), the way it played around with time. I didn’t mind it as much as you did, and I didn’t find it confusing at all, but it also didn’t really add very much to the proceedings here.

MA: TRYING is the operative word here.

But back to the stories. We meet Principal Steven Wilkins (Dylan Baker), an unsavory character who promptly poisons a young trick r’ treater before burying him alive, all while his young son talks to him from his bedroom window. Nice guy. This is supposed to be funny, and for a few moments it is, but it’s mostly ruined by muddled storytelling. I mean, who is this guy?  Why is he so weird?  Why is he doing these things?  I don’t know. And, as a result, I didn’t care all that much.

LS: Yeah, nothing in this story is very well developed. What is this guy’s story? He’s a school principal, for chrissakes. How is he able to do such awful things without repercussions. It’s not like he’s particularly smart about hiding what he does. And yeah, there are aspects of this story that are supposed to be funny, like the twist ending. But it doesn’t provide much in the way of laughs. It’s kind of a throwaway story.

MA: This story is interspersed with three others. There’s a group of trick or treaters who had gone to Wilkins’s door “earlier” who we follow to a rock quarry where they tell the story of a group of mentally challenged trick or treaters who were killed on a school bus when a plan by their parents to get “rid” of them went awry, and the bus on which they were riding crashed, killing them all.

Nice story, huh?  It’s an ugly idea, that of parents wanting to rid themselves of their mentally challenged children. It turned me off, to be honest.

LS:  That brings me to something I’d heard about why the movie never got a theatrical release. Supposedly there was some problem with the way children are victims of  the gruesomeness in the movie, and that’s why it didn’t make it to theaters. I have no idea how true this is, but if so, that’s a pretty silly reason for it not to get a chance.

MA:  Well, if you’re going to make children victims, there’d better be a good reason for it. This movie doesn’t offer a good reason, so it becomes superficial and in poor taste, and if the movie failed to earn support because of this, then it serves the filmmakers right for not seeing this issue ahead of time. Then again, they also could have gone out and made a more gripping movie. That would have helped.

LS:  As for the story about the children who die in the bus accident, I thought it was actually one of the better stories. At least it has spooky kids who come back from the dead. That’s always fun.

(The doorbell rings. LS opens door and a group of kids dressed in Halloween costumes shout out, “Trick or treat!”)

LS:  Trick.

KIDS:  Trick?

LS:  As in, I make you disappear! PRESTO!

(LS reaches up and pulls a string. A trap door opens and trick or treaters fall through and disappear with a loud cry.)

MA:  Who was at the door?

LS:  Just some trick or treaters. I took care of them. We ran out of candy, anyway.

MA: I wonder why.

(Close-up of LS’s face, smeared with chocolate)

MA:  I thought I heard a scream.

LS:  Kids always scream when they see me.

MA:  I know, but— I just thought, that maybe you were dropping boulders again.

LS:  Nothing so sinister.

(There’s another knock at the door. MA opens it this time. The trick or treaters, covered in dirt, jump up and down.)

KIDS:  Can you do that again?

LS:  Sure. (Pulls string. Kids scream in delight and free fall through open trap door.)  (turns to MA)  And you thought I was up to no good.

MA: Silly me.

There’s also a group of young women in search of dates, in the film’s weakest segment. This story is particularly boring. Meanwhile, there’s a mysterious masked killer on the loose, who may just be a vampire. After killing one young woman, the killer eventually crosses paths with the women seeking dates, and there’s a surprise twist, as the women aren’t who they appear to be.

LS: Yeah, yet another “twist” ending that wasn’t all that unexpected, or satisfying. I didn’t like this particular story at all, despite the presence of Anna Paquin (Sookie Stackhouse from the excellent HBO series TRUE BLOOD), who I like a lot, as one of the girls. I especially found the identity of the “masked killer” to be really annoying. He certainly deserves his “comeuppance” but it still struck me as very lame.

MA: The final story involves an old man Mr. Kreeg (Brian Cox), the town curmudgeon, who gets to be terrorized by a creepy little trick r’ treater kid in a scarecrow mask who has previously  appeared here and there throughout the film.

LS: I thought the story about Mr. Kreeg and the monster dwarf was easily the best segment in the movie. It’s also the most simple, straight-forward story.

MA: I found it boring. Eventually, the story moves backwards and returns to the opening murder sequence, and so this movie ends as it began, with a predictable and unimpressive murder. It’s a complete waste of an idea. If you’re going to do this, give us something new to chomp on, something we didn’t know before, something that changes what we saw the first time. Unless I missed it, that “something” doesn’t exist here.

TRICK ‘R TREAT was a very muddled movie. I thought the stories were all over the place, and as a result, I could never get into this movie.

Each story in the film had problems. While I liked weirdo Principal Steve, and while I enjoyed Dylan Baker’s performance, he’s not given all that much to do, and so we never really get to know who he is or why he does what he does. Still, for pure entertainment value, Steve was my favorite character. He was quirky and funny, but sadly, he was stuck in a story that was dull and as shallow as the grave he digs in his backyard.

LS: I like Dylan Baker, but I didn’t care about his storyline or his character at all. He was kind of aggravating.

MA: I thought the story of the girls looking for dates was horrible. The women were boring and superficial, and their story was even worse. The twist in their story was all right, but it shouldn’t have been how their story ended. It should have come in the middle of their story, and more should have happened afterwards.

LS: Yep, it was pretty lame.

MA: The story of the kids on the bus was just as bad. The biggest problem with this one was the characters who were telling the story, present day kids who were talking up the school bus tragedy as a ghost story, were boring as hell. I didn’t care for any of them.

LS: Yeah, I wasn’t too keen on the kids in “modern day” either. Although I thought it was slightly funny when they got theirs, only because they were so annoying.

MA: The final story wasted a talented actor like Brian Cox. As Mr. Kreeg, Cox got to go around in hermit get-up and act as if he were drunk or something. But the absolute worse part of this story was that it stole from other movies. The scene where the little scarecrow killer slices Kreeg’s foot is right out of PET SEMATARY (1989), and even worse, the scene where a severed hand runs across the floor to re-attach itself to the scarecrow’s body is INCREDIBLY similar to a scene from John Carpenter’s THE THING (1982). Cox’ Mr. Kreeg even utters the same exact reaction line, “You’ve got to be f***ing kidding me!”  Did they really think we weren’t going to notice these things?

LS: It must have been a “homage.” (laughs)

I dunno, the last story was my favorite. It definitely seemed derivative of things we’ve seen before, but I like Brian Cox a lot, and the little monster was kind of cool. It also shared a vibe with the classic African Zuni fetish doll segment in another (far superior) anthology film, TRILOGY OF TERROR from 1975. For some reason, the idea of a normal-sized person struggling against an evil dwarf creature never gets old.

MA:  I don’t know about that. It was pretty decrepit here. And I like Brian Cox a lot, too, which is why I think I didn’t like this segment all that much. Mr. Kreeg wasn’t much of a part for him.

(The doorbell rings and a kid dressed in a scarecrow mask is standing there)

MA (jumps back): Whoa!  (composes himself.)  L.L. it’s for you.

LS: Hey, it’s the little scarecrow kid from the movie!  Want some candy?

MA:  I wouldn’t get too close to him if I were you.

LS:  Calm down. He won’t hurt us. Will you little guy?

(LS bends down and puts some candy in the kid’s pillow case. The KID jumps on LS and starts pounding on his head)

LS: AAAARGH! Get this kid off me.

MA: I tried to tell you, but noooo, you wouldn’t listen. He won’t hurt us, you said. Let’s give him some candy, you said.

LS:  Will you just get him off me???

MA:  Stand still. I can’t grab him if you keep moving around!

(LS finally flings him off and he ends up in the rose bushes outside)

KID: Ouch! These thorns hurt. (Kid takes off his mask to reveal it’s DENNIS THE MENACE!)

DENNIS: Hey, you guys aren’t Mr. Wilson.

MA: You’re just realizing that now?  He lives two blocks over.

DENNIS: Ooops, sorry about that (runs away)

LS: Little jerk.

MA: As I said before, the action switches from “earlier” to “later” and then to “earlier” again. I liked the fact that it didn’t play like a traditional anthology horror movie, but the stories were way too weak for this movie to work. It really seemed like a screenplay that left the shop too early. It should have stayed for a couple more rounds of editing and re-editing.

LS: Do you mean like we do with this column? I think this is Round 8.

MA: Writer/director Michael Dougherty also wrote SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006) and X-MEN 2 (2003). While I didn’t love these movies, I thought they were okay, and they didn’t have the same story problems as TRICK ‘R TREAT. So, it’s not as if Dougherty can’t tell a good story.

LS: I actually thought SUPERMAN RETURNS was better than most critics gave it credit for. And I think X-MEN 2 might have been the best of the first three X-MEN movies. So I agree that Doughtery has talent. But like you said, this one is kind of muddled, and all four stories are definitely not of equal quality.

MA: I thought the movie looked good, and seeing all the trick or treaters and all the Halloween decorations, I was reminded of John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN (1978), and this was a good thing.

LS: Yeah, I will admit, the movie does look good.

MA: But nothing in this movie jumped out and grabbed me. As a result, TRICK ‘R TREAT isn’t even a mixed bag. It’s an empty bag. The only thing keeping this one from being a complete disaster is the fact that it looks good and it’s got some star power.

I give it 1 ½ knives, and I don’t recommend it.

LS: An empty bag? I dunno, there’s an apple at the bottom.

(LS reaches into a pillow case and pulls out an apple, which he eagerly bites into. However, a razor blade inside cuts his teeth)

LS: Ouch! I always fall for that trick!

MA:  So, it’s a bad apple instead of an empty bag!  Either way, it’s not worth your time.

(LS growls and throws the apple outside into the bushes)

LS: I think I liked it a little more than you did. I didn’t completely hate the story about the kids in the school bus. And I actually enjoyed the Brian Cox segment. So based on that, I’ll give it two knives. But it’s definitely not something to write home about.

(LS sighs) Another movie that did not live up to its reputation.

(The doorbell rings yet again.)

MA:  Ten to one it’s that little voodoo guy from TRILOGY OF TERROR. (Opens the door and sees a gigantic furry ape foot in the doorway.)

LS:  Is it that little bugger again?

MA:  Nope. Someone much bigger.

(CUT to KING KONG walking along the street, carrying MA and LS in giant-sized, transparent trick or treat bags in each hand.)

MA:  How do we keep getting ourselves into these predicaments?

LS:  It’s just the nature of the business. Anyway, think of the publicity!

(LS & MA start waving to the gathering crowd below.)

LS (yelling):Cinema Knife Fight!  Read Cinema Knife Fight! Tell all your friends!

MA (yelling):  King Kong loves Cinema Knife Fight!

Well, folks, we’re not sure where we’re going here, but when we get there, we’ll be sure to review another movie.

LS:  See you then!  Maybe we’ll get a tour of Skull Island!

FADE OUT.

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

This movie is currently available on DVD.

Michael Arruda gives TRICK ‘R TREAT - 1 and a half knives

L.L. Soares gives TRICK ‘R TREAT2 knives


ORPHAN

Posted in 2009, Cinema Knife Fights, Evil Kids! with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on February 16, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  ORPHAN
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

FADE IN

(THE SCENE: A classroom, with the desks full of kids. In the front of the room L.L. SOARES is speaking to them.)

LS: Okay, class, today we’re going to have Show and Tell! And our first student will be little Mikey Arruda. Come to the front of the class, Mikey!

(MIKEY ARRUDA squeezes out from the child’s chair and goes to the front of the room.)

LS: What do you have for us today?

MA (in little boy voice):  I drew a picture.

LS:  Can you show it to the class?

(MA unfolds picture and hands it to LS.)

LS (Eyes bulging as he sees drawing of nude woman):  Whoa, baby!  Let’s not show that to the class just yet. Good old Mr. Soares is going to put this away into his private collect— er, into the trash can. Naughty, naughty, little Mikey. What on earth were you thinking?

MA:  I was thinking about the movie we’re reviewing.

LS:  Huh?

MA:  ORPHAN. There are some drawings like this in the film, and I wanted to explain the connection between this gag—.

LS (rolling eyes):  For crying out loud!  Do you have to explain everything?  (Looks at camera)  Does he have to explain everything? (to Mikey) Can’t you just stay in character and let the gag play out?

MA:  It’s hard playing a little kid.

LS:  Quit your whining!  I played a baby in the last column!

MA (sighs):  Yup, playing kids is no easy task. It takes a damned village. Or is it a village of the damned? (grins devilishly).

LS:  Oh stop that grinning devilishly stuff!   I’m moving on with the review.

ORPHAN is the tale of little Esther Coleman, a delightful little girl who is nothing but peaches and cream. But her name isn’t Coleman right off the bat. First she has to get adopted by the nice Coleman family. There’s Momma Kate (Vera  Farmiga) who is so pretty, but sometimes she drinks too much when she thinks about  her third child, little Jessica, who was born dead (in a nightmarish scene that begins the film). There’s Daddy John (Peter Sarsgaard) who wants his family to be whole again. Then there’s cute little Maxine (Aryana Engineer), known as Max,  who is almost completely deaf and uses sign language, and sulky pre-teen Daniel (Jimmy Bennett) who seems to play Guitar Hero 24 hours a day. As Kate says early on, it’s like she had all this love to give baby Jessica, and she wants to give it to someone else instead, so they look into adopting a child from an orphanage.

And that is where we meet inquisitive little Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), who paints so very well for a child and who is quite mature for her age. It’s clear she’s an outsider, since she doesn’t run around and play with the other children. But it’s her very outsiderness that draws Kate and John to her. They seem to connect right away, and suddenly nervous Kate is very happy they considered adoption.

But, as is the way with these stories, little Esther is not the sweetheart she appears to be. That cute little Russian accent may have fooled us at first, but not for long. You see, bad things start happening, and some people even start turning up dead, and all of the clues seem to point to poor misunderstood Esther, which is most unfortunate.

Personally, I’ve always been a big fan of the evil kid genre, from the first time I was a tyke myself watching THE BAD SEED (1956) on TV—.

MA (interrupting):  Your biography.

(LS whacks MA across the forehead with a ruler.)

MA:  Ouch!

LS:  –ah, yes, I remember having a crush back then on little Patty McCormack, she looked so cute with her little Penmanship medal—up through classics like VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960), THE EXORCIST (1973), and THE OMEN (1976) – evil kids were big in the 70s – to more recent fair like THE GOOD SON (1993), the only Macaulay Culkin film I ever liked. And then there’s my favorite of this genre, the classic Spanish film WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? (1976), about a whole island full of murderous kids! Yes, I’ve enjoyed the cinematic exploits of murderous children. So I was looking forward to ORPHAN.

MA:  I could take or leave this little subgenre, though I’m also a big fan of THE BAD SEED, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED, and of course, THE EXORCIST. So, I had no major expectations coming into ORPHAN.

LS:  I have to admit, I thought it was pretty good. First off, the acting is above-average. I’ve always been a fan of Farmiga (you might remember her in Martin Scorcese’s THE DEPARTED and lots of other films), and Sarsgaard is an indie movie mainstay, who’s been in such great flicks as KINSEY. So right off the bat you have a married couple who’s slightly more interesting than is normal for these kinds of movies, just because of the people who are playing them. But the movie itself stands or falls on the shoulders of Isabelle Fuhrman as evil Esther, and she’s more than up for the job. Her performance is pretty terrific, and by the end she enters some very creepy territory.

The other kids are fine too, especially little Max, who Esther uses to her advantage (Max can read lips), and character actors like CCH Pounder as the nun who runs the orphanage, Sister Abigail, and Margo Martindale as Kate’s psychiatrist. All quite good.

As is usual for these films, Kate sees what is going on before anyone else, but because of her history of emotional troubles (between the grief over her dead child, her drinking, and marital woes), everyone is quick to dismiss her fears.

And what did you think, Little Mikey?

(MA sits at a table wearing a bib and eating cereal):  Mikey likes it!

LS:  MIKEY LIKES IT! HEY MIKEY! Er..the movie or the cereal?

MA:  The movie. The cereal tastes like cardboard.

LS:  That’s because it is cardboard, you dolt! You’re eating a prop.

MA:  Really?  Oh well. Gotta get your fiber somehow.

Anyway, I really liked ORPHAN. You know, you and I sat on a movie panel recently at NECON (a New England horror writers’ convention), and we were asked to name our favorite horror movies of the year, and I struggled to find a favorite. Had I seen ORPHAN before the panel, it would have been my pick. So, there you have it, I liked it so much, that it’s my favorite horror film of the year so far.

LS: Well, it’s no MARTYRS, but I enjoyed it quite a bit myself.

MA:  You hit the nail on the head when you talked about the cast. That’s a huge reason why I liked this movie. The acting was excellent. I do remember Vera Farmiga in THE DEPARTED, and she’s terrific again in this movie. And Sarsgaard is a fine actor who doesn’t disappoint here. One of his credits you probably want to forget is his work in another movie we reviewed  a few years back, THE SKELETON KEY, which I didn’t think was a bad movie, but I seem to recall you hated it. That’s going back a few years now.

LS: I think I have warmed a bit to SKELETON KEY over time. I still find Kate Hudson’s performance in that film incredibly boring – she’s just awful – and that hurts the film a lot, since she’s the lead. But I’ve always been a big fan of voodoo. And yes, Sarsgaard is good in that movie, too.

(CHILD in the back row raises her hand)

LS: Yes, little Mary!

CHILD (speaks in manly, Satanic voice): May I be excused. I really gotta go to the bathroom.

LS: But of course!

(CHILD walks past them, she looks up at Mikey)

CHILD: Your auntie eats slugs in hell.

(MA sticks his tongue out at her)

LS: Now, now, children. How about behaving?

(Hits MA across the forehead with a ruler again)

MA: Ouch! What did you do that for?

LS: Because I can. (laughs maniacally).

MA: Bully.

(LS laughs even louder)

MA:  Anyway, back to the review. I really liked CCH Pounder as Sister Abigail, and Margo Martindale as Kate’s psychiatrist was sufficiently frustrating when she was supposed to be.

And as you said, the kids are terrific too. Little Aryana Engineer as Maxine nearly steals every scene she’s in, and Jimmy Bennett as Daniel is also very good. Bennett was also in the new STAR TREK movie, in a brief stint as little boy Captain Kirk.

LS: I thought Daniel was kind of annoying, but that’s the point. He seemed like a real kid. And he sure was fun for Esther to torment.

MA: Of course, the main player here is Isabelle Fuhrman as Esther, and she’s phenomenal. She makes Damien seem like a Brady Bunch kid. Not that I’d want to attend a birthday party with Damien…

LS: I would. In fact, I have a present right here in case he invites me (pulls out a wrapped package).

MA: .. but in the OMEN movies he kinda stood back and let all the devil’s “helpers” do the dirty work. Esther does her own dirty work.

(Behind them, a birthday party scene, with lots of kids and party hats and cake and ice cream. DAMIEN and his friends throw ice cream at MA & LS).

LS:  Knock it off!  I’m not afraid of you!

MA:  Hey, LL, you might want to lighten up. It’s Damien, little Mr. 666 himself!

LS:  Big deal. We’re in good with his cousin, don’t forget.

MA:  Cousin?

(HELLBOY pops up with a can of beer and a donkey piñata):  Who’s up for a game of “Beat the Crap Out of the Donkey”?  (Children cheer)

MA:  It’s tempting to say that the kids, who are so good in this film, steal the movie, but it’s not true, because the adults in this flick are just as good.

While the acting is excellent, it’s not my favorite part of the movie. That would be the screenplay by David Johnson. He has written a script which could have very easily gone the way of cliché. Instead, he’s written an intelligent tale in which the people act the way they’re supposed to act. True, the script loses some of this intelligence towards the end, when the action takes over, and believability is strained somewhat, but by this point the film has earned its place as a smart thriller.

LS: Yes, it did lose its way a bit at the very end, and strained credibility. All I will say is that I found it odd how the characters all seemed immune to hypothermia.

MA: Good point!  I really liked the relationship between the husband and wife, John and Kate. I thought it was realistic. I liked the way they handled their family, especially how they dealt with the “F-bombs.”  This is important, because it makes their later arguments all the more painful to watch, and better yet, these disagreements unfold in a believable way.

LS: God, I hate wimpified terms like “f-bomb.” But you’re right. Their arguments didn’t feel forced. They seemed genuine.

MA: I also thought the Sister Abigail character was portrayed realistically. She was a character who could have very easily been written as a cliché. Instead, her reactions here are very real. Early on at the orphanage, she sees the parents interacting well with Esther, and she says as much. She doesn’t utter cliché dire warnings (“Nooo, not that child!) or act in a silly overly frightened manner. And later, her suspicions about Esther come off as real and authentic.

LS: We’re using words like “genuine” and “authentic” a lot, but I think what it amounts to is “good acting.”

MA:  But it’s more than that, though. It’s the writing too, as these characters, admittedly brought to life on screen by some fine acting, appear in situations that seem real, as opposed to some of the forced situations we so often see in horror movies. I don’t want to give anything away, but in a disturbing scene near the end involving Esther and John, I loved John’s reaction to her. It’s great acting, yes, but it’s also very good writing, having the character of John react in a way that’s believable. I kept waiting for him to give in to her and then be attacked because his giving in would have made him a creep, which would have been out of character for him. But this doesn’t happen.

And this movie earns its R-rating. While it’s not filled with one violent scene after another, the few it includes are powerful and heavy hitting. I thought the murder scenes were intense.

LS: Well, it earned its R-rating, but only slightly. There’s no nudity (Farmiga even leaves her bra on during a sex scene), and the blood is minimal. I thought little Esther’s acts of violence were a bit subdued for my tastes.

MA:  Well, yeah, for your tastes, ye who watches TOKYO GORE POLICE for fun. I didn’t find this movie subdued at all. I found it intense. I actually saw a couple of people sitting on the edge of their seats towards the end of the movie. Director Jaume Collet-Serra does a nice job building up the tension. I had a good time watching this movie. For those of you who like to be scared, this is a movie for you.

There are some truly great fright scenes. The road attack sequence when Esther attacks one of the characters with a hammer packs a real wallop (heh, heh). And I loved the scene when she pulls a razor blade on her brother while he’s in his bed. The line she utters to him— great stuff!  You gotta see this movie!

Sure, it has its flaws. I thought it was way too easy the way they adopted Esther. It was like, “we’ll take her.”  OK. All done. Granted, I think some time passes before they are allowed to bring Esther home, but it still seemed too easy. It takes more paperwork to adopt a dog from the pound these days than it did for these parents to adopt Esther!

LS: Yeah, that was a bit rushed. But we can forgive that because it was meant to move the movie along.

MA: And there were too many false scares for my liking, although most of these came early on in the movie. By the time the film really gets going, the scares are genuine.

LS: I found that irritating as well. But you’re right. That happens mostly in the early part of the film. I especially hate the way music is used to set us up for a scare that doesn’t happen. It’s a bit ham-fisted.

MA: I also liked the scene where we see Esther’s artwork on the walls of her room illuminated by the fish tank lighting. I thought this was a creepy scene.

LS: Yes, what was that? Ultraviolet paint?

MA: I’m not sure. But it reminded me of the paint used in some of the fun houses I went through as a kid.

I had little or no expectations regarding ORPHAN, and so I was more than pleasantly surprised. Right now, it’s my pick for best horror movie of the year. Go see ORPHAN!

LS:  Looks like one of the rare times that we agree about a movie. What can I say, except this one’s worth checking out.

Okay, little Mikey, Show and Tell is over. It’s off to detention for you!

MA:  Detention?

LS:  You draw dirty pictures in my classroom, you get a detention! (MA grumbles). Don’t worry. I’ll say so long to the folks for you. (MA Exits). Can’t have pictures like this in a classroom, that’s for sure. (Opens a door to reveal a room with purple fluorescent lighting and all sorts of sordid pictures on the wall). But a secret room hidden in the wall – that’s a different story!

Until next time—.

(CUT to MA sitting in detention next to Damien, Linda Blair, the Bad Seed and some of the  evil children from VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED).

MA:  Anyone have any gum?

FADE OUT

(First published on Fear Zone on 7/27/2009)

© Copyright 2009 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers