The Orphan Killer

Matt Farnsworth is a hack. I haven't got a clue who finances his movies but my guess he has entered into a Faustian pact with Satan. Nobody in their right mind would give this guy money to make a film. If you think I'm being harsh then go check out "The Orphan Killer" then come back and tell me I'm wrong. It is incompetently written with a poorly defined story and no characterisation so ultimately we don't care about anything or anyone we see on the screen. Most of the ideas have been cribbed from far superior genre movies and the camera work is shambolic. We've all seen "Shaky-cam" is the "Bourne" movies, Farnsworth appears to have invented "unintentional shaky-cam" for the "Orphan Killer." It looks like it was filmed by someone on a home video-cam after they'd drunk 50 cups of espresso.

I wouldn't have bothered commenting only there is nothing worse than a film maker who goes out of their way to pull the wool over their potential audience's eyes. This is what Farnsworth has done here. This IMDb page is littered with fake reviews and fake comments appertaining to what a great movie this is and most of them have been written by Farnsworth and his cronies. If you listen to this con-man then "The Orphan Killer" is the next "Halloween" or "Friday The Thirteenth" when in truth it's the next DVD straight to the bargain-bin @ $1.99 in Walmart.

A man in a hockey mask, much like Jason from Friday the 13th, swings an axe over a scantily clad, screaming woman; and this happens before the opening credits. A man in a convertible drops off a hot blonde in front of St. Michaels Catholic School. Dressed in a mini skirt and revealing tank top, blondie forays into the adjoining church, kneels at a pew and crosses herself, bless her heart.

Next up, teeny boppers are smoking in the girls room, discussing the legend of the orphan killer. Shortly thereafter, a man in an alley is the first victim. The madman drives a large machete into his forehead. The swordsman then, for no apparent reason, places a photograph of Pope Benedict into a fire.

Back to the good catholic lass. She visits the locker room and has the good sense to remove her clothes and take a shower; cleanliness is next to Godliness, after all; and her headlights are on.

The masked mad man continues his murderous ways, using a wire to strangle a young en' at the school. A flashback to nuns beating a young boy provides clues to the reason for his violent personality.

The church is then the setting for a man receiving oral sex from a sister, and a priest is mutilated; the writer seems to have some serious issues with the ancient Roman religion.

Now to the basement, where Jason, jr. ties the hot blonde, Audrey, to the ceiling with her arms up and thus begins the real fun; sick, sick, sick, and sacrilegious at the same time. Much like the "Saw" series, don't look for any redeeming value in the orphan Killer, it's just another torture film.

The Orphan Killer can best be summed up as a mixed bag of a horror film. It has some great makeup effects, but bad camera work. It has some great scenes, but overall isn't all that good. It has an interesting concept for a story, but plot holes and unbelievability derail your immersion while you're trying to enjoy it.

The story is about two orphaned siblings, Audrey and Marcus. Audrey is adopted while Marcus is left at the orphanage. While Audrey grows up and apparently has a normal life, Marcus grows up tormented for most of his life by the nuns that run the orphanage, and is made to wear a mask due to the fact that he is dangerous to the other children, and the staff. He goes insane and wants to kill his sister, as she left him there, and film gives you enough back story to make it clear.

The movie has several flaws that include, but aren't limited to; camera work, acting, sound, too much fake blood (to the point that it's laughable), plot holes that are huge, and no real character development beyond Marcus. There is no doubt that the film is low budget, so a few of these things can be over looked, and there are some really solid moments in TOK which makes you wish that more time could have been taken with the story and some of the camera work.

The scenes between Audrey and Marcus, while they are in the basement, are done quite well in parts. The camera work, while they are on the roof of the building, is pretty well done as well. Unfortunately these moments aren't enough to make you look past the flaws, but it's worth checking out if you're really in the mood for some low budget slashing. If you're prepared to lower your expectations, when it comes to everything needing to make since, and you may just enjoy it.

5 out of 10

the film plays like a standard 80's slasher horror that tries to flesh out the character of the masked killer. the film is almost like a remake of John carpenters halloween with a heavy dose of Friday the 13th and whiff of nightmare on elm street.(creepy child singing the title over and over)though unfortunately not as good as any of these films that it is clearly inspired ripping off or a homage too.

the first act is a little too drawn out and has some truly terrible acting but has some fun kills. even if low budget kills effects are a bit ropey. the second act is where it becomes interesting and has some moments of discomfort but is mostly when we find out about what motivates orphan killer, unfortunately the third act becomes laughably predictable and badly thought out and hurts the rest of the film.

the film did have its moments and was not a complete waste of time and shows promise but largely has no new ideas and only cares in developing the orphan killer even the heroine is largely left without any depth or motivation other than trying to keep her extremely good looking body alive and in one piece.

A lot of hype on this one and that hype is a fabricated smoke-screen that hides a mediocre low budget slasher flick. The only "tour de force" is the methods that the film makers have undertaken to bring recognition to this not awful but not particularly original slasher film. It DOES NOT "defy classification" folks...it's a slasher flick. That's pretty standard stuff. The wheel hasn't been reinvented here. It also DOES NOT go any measure of length "beyond current trends in gore" nor does it "break open a new suffering genre of horror". That being said, it's not the steaming pile of rubbish many angry viewers have portrayed it as. There is A LOT of anger from users on here about this movie and it's justifiable. The film maker went out of their way to paint this as some sort of movie that sets the bar. As if this movie would be the new standard that we measure horror by. When a film maker puts that sort of unrealistic pressure on their movie then there's a lot to live up too. Unfortunately, this movie cannot stand up to a number of obstacles in it's path. Namely, acting, budget, special effects, score, and pacing are all very amateur. The pacing and cinematography are some of the worse I've seen in some time. The ending is certainly a theme recycled over and over and over... For a good laugh...go read some of the better user reviews that found this movie to be the next big thing. Then go read their comments on other movies. 90% of them only did one review and this was it. That's what you call guerrilla marketing folks....and that's where this movie succeeded very well at. Call it Blair Witch Part II...