Java_Joe This movie actually was the first to use the "Friday the 13th" title and the makers of the Jason version had to reach a settlement in order to use that name in their movies. The fact that those movies are remembered and this one isn't ought to tell you which one was better. The story itself deals with an orphan who's gone to live with his aunt after the death of his parents. There's contention between the two. The young man feels that something inside him is making him kill. She doesn't let him be a teenager. And then at the end there's toast. It actually plays a part in the whole movie. I can see what the filmmakers were trying for but it just wasn't good enough. The quality of the camerawork was good and it's obvious they were going for psychological horror. But in the end, it just wasn't good or interesting enough.

HumanoidOfFlesh After tragic death of his parents-the woman accidentally shots her husband and then herself-ten year old David is left in the care of Aunt Marta.His neurotic and soul-denying guardian lives a large estate mansion.She is a cruel woman.All the things David loved are gone:his hen,his dog and his relationships with African friend Akin and a servant woman Mary.David hates his Aunt and tries to destroy her.His sanity slowly deteriorates and he becomes a psychotic killer...Very sad and unusual horror film which offers plenty of psychological chills.The acting is uneven and there are only two murder scenes,so "The Orphan" is still neglected by horror fans.According to Stephen Thrower's "Nightmare USA" John Ballard's final cut was 110 minutes-the current version is missing around thirty minutes from the original cut.Fans of Bergman's "Persona" or "Fanny and Alexander" should give "The Orphan" a chance.8 orphans out of 10.

Coventry The best compliment I can possibly give to "Friday the 13th: The Orphan" is that it's somewhat the grim and zero-budgeted exploitation version of the timeless genre classic "The Innocents". Surely it's a lot less stylish and atmospheric (what did you expect?), but the themes and general creepiness of both films are definitely similar. The problem, however, was that I totally didn't expect this to be such a film! With the two typically horrific terms "Friday 13th" and "The Orphan" in one title, the last thing I was preparing for was a slow-moving 1930's drama with coming-of-age influences and lectures on African culture. Still I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this film to explorers of obscure horror/cult cinema, just because it's so odd and unusual. There's very moody music during the opening credits, depicting a collage of pictures of a happy and seemingly unworried family. Of course, knowing the title this is only intended to increase the drama-effect. And yes, straight after the opening credits, the young boy from the photographs – David – is forced to kiss his dead father on the day of his funeral, while the obnoxious cousin yells: "ha ha, now you're an orphan!". After the funeral of his parents, David's aunt Martha invites herself to take custody over the boy. The relationship with Martha does't go too well, but David at least becomes close with her servants and turns more and more to the sinister African relics that his father brought back from his many trips. As said already, "Friday the 13th: The Orphan" is a very slow-paced and overly talkative cult effort. The drama sequences are quite intense, like the funeral sequence and David's flashbacks about his father (for example, the scene where he learns that his father – and indirectly also his mother – died in a stupidly banal accident), but it takes ages before something significantly unsettling happens. The first authentic exploitation movie murder only occurs at about 68 minutes into the film! More than one hour wait for a gritty murder moment is just unacceptable and dull. And, sadly, that's exactly how I'll always remember this film: dull.

EyeAskance THE ORPHAN is a professionally wielded film with a few decent performances(the youngster in the title role most notably), and it certainly doesn't merit a critical belting in response to its basic efficiencies. What I personally found off-putting was its bland self-possession...this is actually less a horror film than a vague, drawn-out mystery with a lot of red herring "coming of age" infusion. It has something to do with a pubescent boy being put in the hands of his difficile, prohibitive aunt following the demise of his parents, and the gradual expedition of his potentially lethal hostilities. The proceedings are dusted with moments of fever-dreamy surrealism, and take place in a time around the Great Depression(stylistic details to that effect are surprisingly impressive). I wanted to like this film, and I did appreciate its inveigling directorial uniqueness, but it's so dull it couldn't saw through sand...there's a scant minutiae of bloodletting and scares, and frankly, it's not nearly as cleverly devised as it thinks it is. There's not much about THE ORPHAN which would classify as "marketable"...it's basically just a purposefully packaged and atmospheric dearth of what most people want in a horror film.4.5/10