"Orphan"...Dworphan

This is just gonna be a quick note. This is something that has been bothering me the last week and a half. I went to go see "Orphan" last Sunday night. I went with Allen and neither of us had exactly high expectations. We went just deciding to go to a movie. It was either that or "G-Force" and as much as I like guinea pigs, I'm not sure I could sit through a movie with strictly them as the cast. I know the guy from "The Hangover" is in it too (I know his name, but don't know if I can pull off spelling his last name without looking it up and I'm too lazy to do that right now) but I'm not convinced of it's quality because of him being in it.

When Allen and I saw this movie, we didn't really know how to take it. There were parts that were truly horrific (an 11 year old beating a nun to death with a hammer for one), there were parts that were truly funny, both intentionally and not. It was a well done mixed bag. (Mind you, this is a positive thing.) I really enjoyed every minute of this movie and that's not a hyperbole, I really did. It was a pretty simple concept done pretty well. The one problem that I do have with the movie is the fact that it didn't seem like the director had the confidence in his own style to just allow the scares to happen naturally. He was like one of those people that tries to tell al joke, fails and then is still nudging you endearingly, trying to get you to laugh. I know this type of person because I am this type of person.

But I digress. I am not going to ruin the ending to this movie because it is a really good twist. It makes sense, it's not forced and it pretty much comes out of nowhere. But comes out of nowhere in a nice way, not in a "Knowing" kinda way where it's like "Earth's fucked, here come the aliens that for some reason have an active interest in continuing the human race". Oh yeah, spoiler alert. The ending to "Orphan" is legitimate and surprising.

Now, this is my problem. This movie isn't exactly critic friendly. Roger Ebert gave it three and a half stars but it seems like lately Ebert has been giving anything that has the smallest semblance of skill attached to it four stars (a.k.a. "Knowing". Even though the ending sucked, it was a well done movie, I'll admit that. It just seems like the writer of the script wrote himself into a corner and was like, "Yes, aliens. Deus ex machina to the max!"). But here's the thing, some critics were actually saying that the movie's ending was obvious. To which I say to all these critics "You're all liars."

These critics want to make it seem like they're smarter than the average bear in saying that they "predicted" the ending. There is no possible way that one could do this without having some knowledge of the movie beforehand. If you go into the movie with a clean slate, you're not gonna be able to predict the ending. I'm sorry, you're not. And this is not a challenge (even though it may sound like one). This is just plain and simple facts like the sky being blue and the grass being green. Unless you know the writer, director or any of the people involved with this movie you will not be able to predict the ending.

This is just proof that most critics are dicks. And kinda me too. I'm bitching on my Facebook Note page hoping that someone reads this and is like, "Yes, go brother." As my father once said, "Opinions are like assholes and everyone's got one." The only reason these critics are even saying they predicted it is to make it seem as though the movie is worse than it actually is. The movie is a lot better than you would expect. It actually earns the star rating Ebert gave it.

As far as I'm concerned, "Orphan" is one of the better movies of the summer. It's certainly better than "Funny People", "Terminator: Salvation" and really even "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". So for anyone that's interested in going to see a two hour, fun, funny and scary horror movie, go see "Orphan". At the very least, you get to see Vera Farmiga.