The Bottom Line

Orphan

Directed by: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Isabelle Fuhrman, Vera Farmiga, Peter Sars gaard, Aryana Engineer, Jimmy Bennett
Rated: R for disturbing violent content, some sexuality, and language.
Parental Notes: This is not a suitable film for children or most preteens. There's plenty of graphic violence and some very effective terror-inducing sequences, not to mention moderately graphic sexuality.

"Orphan" is a clever blend of old-fashioned, atmospheric horror and modern, graphic, violent horror. It begins with a nightmare is so visceral and gory that it left one teenager at my screening whimpering that she wanted to go home, then proceeds with more subtle ways of building dread.

Kate (Vera Farmiga) and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) are struggling. Kate is a recovering alcoholic whose drinking lost her a teaching position at Yale and nearly had far more deadly consequences. They are both grieving a stillbirth, and seriously considering adopting a child. Their living children, Max (Aryana Engineer) and Danny (Jimmy Bennett), are charming, but they want to do something with the love they felt for the one who didn't make it. They meet Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman) on a trip to the local orphanage and are immediately taken by her quiet, mature manner and the detailed, creative paintings she does. They make the arrangements and adopt her.

At first, everything seems peachy, but it doesn't take long for Kate to get suspicious. Did Esther really push an unpleasant classmate off the playground equipment? What's up with the fit she threw at school when someone touched the strange ribbons she wears around her neck and wrists? Why won't she let them take her to the dentist? How is it that accidents always seem to happen around her? As Esther, Fuhrman does a brilliant job of walking the line, letting the audience see how Esther manipulates the emotions of those around her while making it understandable how many of the folks around her are taken in.

Among those taken in is John, and Sarsgaard does a good job of making him sympathetic in spite of his serious (and, in horror-movie-ville, unforgivable) flaws. "Orphan" is filled with familiar horror movie tropes -- the lone woman who sees bad things are on their way but is not believed by the other characters; the sociopathic child out to wreak havoc; plenty of others -- but they're familiar because they work.

Not everyone will like "Orphan," and indeed, there are already internet petitions decrying it for supposedly putting adoption in a bad light. The most effective horror movies, though, are the ones that take usually positive elements of life -- childbirth, marriage, adoption, love, homeowning -- and turn them into nightmares. "Orphan" is very effective, and whether you should see it or not depends on whether you find horror movies entertaining. This is a well-executed horrorfest, and those who can't handle graphic violence, children and animals in danger, and death should stay away. Horror movie aficionados looking for a rather new spin on familiar threads of story shouldn't miss it.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Jim Broadbent
Rated: PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality.
Parental Notes: This is a darker, scarier film than the previous ones, and may be too scary for youngsters. Teens and preteens should be fine.

There is a lovely moment in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," the sixth film in the Potter franchise. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) has brought Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) to a mysterious old house, and before they go in, he says, "you must be wondering why I brought you here." Harry chuckles and replies, "actually sir, after all these years I just sort of go with it." Viewers of the film are well advised to do the same. Fans of the book will doubtless have scenes they are disappointed didn't make it into the film. Those who have only seen the previous films and not read the books may find themselves a bit lost in spots. And those who haven't seen the other films... well, do yourselves a favor and see them first. Director David Yates takes the same approach he did in the last film, and removes nearly all exposition, so we are thrown into the middle of things from the start.

Things are not going well in the wizarding world. The evil Lord Voldemort (largely unseen in this film) has regained much of his power and his followers are running rampant through both the wizarding and muggle worlds. Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is an oasis of safety, but the dark times have tinged that place as well. Attempts are made on Dumbledore's life as he (with Harry's assistance) attempts to piece together Lord Voldemort's past in an attempt to learn the source of his power. Meanwhile, our heroes are now deep in the throes of teenaged romantic angst, which in the wizarding world has the added complication of magic.

This is a darker film than the previous ones, preparing us for the incredible grimness of the saga's finale, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" (which is set to be released as two films, one in 2010 and one in 2011). There's quite a bit of humor, but it mostly serves to highlight the darkness it briefly alleviates -- much like an early shot of the Weasley twins' joke shop, a lone brightly-lit and jolly place amongst shuttered and destroyed wizarding shops in a hidden part of London. The shadows are all the deeper for that small bit of light.

The film is a bit chaotic, with numerous subplots, but the main story is handled well, and the young actors have all come a long way since the first film in the series. That may have been an inevitability, given the fantastic acting chops of the adult cast. Gambon's Dumbledore is more serious in this film, no doubt in part due to the increasing darkness of the saga. Alan Rickman continues to impress as Professor Snape, particularly in the final sequences when he does a great deal with a rather rushed script. Jim Broadbent's Professor Slughorn balances cowardice with Slytherin ambition, and the actor holds the line well, making Slughorn at once reprehensible and sympathetic.

Whether or not you'll enjoy this latest installment of the Potter series depends largely on whether you liked the others. It's very much in the style of the previous film, since it's the same director. If you're a Potter fan, even a casual one, this is a must-see film. If not, well, it's probably not going to make a lot of sense, and your time would probably be better spent elsewhere.

Surveillance

Directed by: Jennifer Lynch
Written by: Jennifer Lynch and Kent Harper
Starring: Julia Ormond, Bill Pullman, Pell James, Ryan Simpkins, Kent Harper
Rated: R for strong bloody violence, pervasive language, some drug use and a scene of aberrant sexuality.
Parental Notes: The MPAA's rating notes are accurate. This is not a film for kids. At all.

There's a certain rough-edged charm to independent thriller films. They often avoid the cliches mainstream filmmakers embrace, and thus aren't always predictable. "Surveillance," the first film from Jennifer Lynch since 1993's "Boxing Helena," is odd, violent, and ultimately not about what it seems.

The film opens with a pair of sadistic killers beating a man to death as his wife flees the scene, then running her down with their car. We then cut to some time later, as a pair of FBI agents enter the local police station to take over the investigation. They've been tracking the killers for some time, it appears, and want to interrogate the three witnesses to the latest killing, a roadside massacre.

The agents, Halloway (Bill Pullman) and Anderson (Julia Ormond) are a bit punchy, as one might expect from folks working a case like this one. The witnesses are as different as can be -- there's Bobbi (Pell James), a strung-out drug addict; Stephanie (Ryan Simpkins), an eight-year-old who's holding together better than most of the adults around her; and Officer Jack Bennet (Kent Harper), a local cop who's lost his partner to these killers and is determined to see justice done.

The agents split the three witnesses up and begin interrogating them, Halloway watching via closed-circuit televisions as Anderson, the police Captain (Michael Ironsides), and two of the other police officers conduct the interrogations. As we listen to the witnesses' stories and watch their flashbacks, it becomes clear that nobody is telling the whole truth. Everyone is hiding something, and some folks' secrets are more depraved than others.

The performances are unusual but if Lynch was doing what I think she was, they're spot-on. There are long sequences where not much happens -- they let us learn more about the people in the story, but don't move the plot forward. Depending on how you like your movies, this either adds tension or adds boredom. There's a twist which is telegraphed heavily -- and that's kind of the point. The film works whether you spot the twist or not, because the fact that the clues are right there and nobody sees them is important. The only person who puts all the pieces together is little Stephanie, and even she takes a while to figure it out.

"Surveillance" is not a film for folks looking for a straightforward thriller. It's gruesome and unpleasant in places (almost unwatchable in a couple places, if you have a weak stomach) and comes together oddly. But it does gel, in its quirky, strange way. Lynch has come far in her film-less years since "Boxing Helena." If you're looking for something unusual, something that will take your expectations and tweak them -- sometimes playfully, sometimes cruelly -- "Surveillance" should do the trick.

Public Enemies

Directed by: Michael Mann
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Stephen Dorff, Jason Clarke, Billy Crudup
Rated: R for gangster violence and some language.
Parental Notes: Between the violence (which is graphic) and the rambling plotline, this is not a kid-friendly film.

"Public Enemies" is a strange film. It's got gangsters in it, but isn't quite a gangster movie. It's got FBI agents in it, but isn't a law-enforcement procedural. It takes place in the past, but isn't really a history film, either. It's a strange blend of all of these at once, with some other facets (romance and tragedy, among others) thrown in for good measure. If you can let yourself get caught up in the characters, it works, but it doesn't gel in the straightforward fashion of most modern mainstream films.

The year is 1933. The Great Depression is still raging, and crime is on the rise. Dashing bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and a cohort break the rest of their gang out of prison as the film opens, and start another run of bank robberies. J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) struggles to build a modern law enforcement agency with the FBI, and promotes the determined Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), sending him to Chicago to bring Dillinger and his gang down.

Director (and co-writer) Michael Mann is fond of stories in which we sympathize with the characters on both sides of the central conflict, and "Public Enemies" is no exception. Dillinger is hard not to like -- he's charming, smooth, and dangerous enough to be interesting without being too frightening. Depp brings his formidable acting chops to bear and gives us a performance worthy of a character study. His Dillinger comes across as a very real, very fascinating person.

Bale has a harder row to hoe as Purvis, who's no cowboy agent -- he's a modern, scientific-minded lawman. He uses the sorts of methods which are now familiar to consumers of modern police procedurals, but which were new and unusual in the thirties: tracking down the stores Dillinger shopped at, for example, and looking at the surrounding businesses for leads. Bale plays Purvis as a reserved, quiet guy whose frustration with his inability to capture Dillinger is about the only emotion we really see. We learn more about him from the things he doesn't do (like stop his underlings from torturing a captured gangster) than from the things he does.

"Public Enemies" has an odd pacing and has plenty of scenes which don't really seem to go anywhere. Ultimately, it probably works best if it's watched the way Dillinger lived: in the moment. There are scenes in which characters discuss heists which are never pulled. Things don't play out quite the way we might expect. Some of the sequences have a documentary feel rather than the look of a polished Hollywood film. The pacing falters at times, drawing some things out while giving others cursory treatment in a way that doesn't quite make sense.

If viewers try to force the movie to gel in a standard mainstream popcorn-flick mold, they'll likely be disappointed. The film is, like its characters, imperfect, but no less entertaining for its flaws. If all you want is a couple hours of brainless entertainment, look elsewhere. If you're looking for an intriguing, engaging film about complex people, "Public Enemies" should be right up your alley.