3 out of 5

Directed by: William Brent Bell

My initial thoughts upon seeing that there was an Orphan prequel match probably most peoples’, or at the very least, those found in the smattering of reviews I read: Why? and How? 

Nothing about the first flick looked especially remarkable to me, even once knowing its twist. I’m not sensitive to learning spoilers in most cases – I think the experience is what enhances it, often times. Regardless, there wasn’t anything I saw or read or heard to make me change my mind and see the movie. 

Given its flash-in-the-pan social zeitgeist vibe – Orphan didn’t seem like a horror classic, rather a right-time, right-place event – that it got a followup 10+ years on seemed bizarre in the first place (‘why?’), and as the movie has a lot of focus on the youthful look of lead actress Isabel Fuhrmann, that she’d be playing the same character only younger seemed, y’know, impossible (‘how?’) without some wonk CG. 

And while First Kill has its share of problems, it is not the answer to these questions. In fact, with its ‘answers,’ it achieves more of an enjoyable bonkers B-movie vibe, whereas the previous film couldn’t quite embrace that, aiming for something more studied at points,.. but while wearing fake glasses and using a faux accent. 

In short: Orphan’s adopted evil kid, Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman) had some hops, skips and jumps between her time in a Russian orphanage and living with an American family; First Kill is here to show us what happened during that time, and that’s actually prime territory for a prequel, if not exactly what prequels are food for. It’s a logical answer to ‘why,’ and director William Brent Bell and writer David Coggeshall have fun using our awareness of Esther from the previous movie to give weight and flavor to those foods: she’s the crazy kid; she finds a bloody way to escape early on in the flick, then masterminds her way into posing as a missing American child, securing her travels out of Russa and to a plush, rich-family mansion. 

And how? While a side-by-side viewing would easily make Fuhrman’s aging apparent, within the context of the movie, Bell mostly just employs doubles and camera angles to maintain her height, and makeup and probably some light tweaks – pupils, smoothing – to make her look younger when it matters most. There’s also a soft lighting style employed throughout that gives the movie a flashback vibe, which is a subconscious touch that, for me, works. So it’s done practically, and while we’re not fooling anyone, the spirit of the flick has a kind of mischievous glee that allows you to go with it; more importantly, none of this is distracting. And that’s impressive. 

There’s a further ‘how’: how do you make this film not just a retread? You can tell something’s up by the way the movie initially is checking off boxes from the first flick, albeit but with that mischievousness. When it turns a corner – when it shows off how it’s going to differentiate itself – it’s a brilliaint and bold moment that stacks on top of its churlish exuberance. 

Thereafter? Cue a lot of the boring horror norms.  

There are some puzzling editing choices throughout, where it’s clear that Bell prizes just keeping things moving. And once we hit our twist, and there’s no reason to delay anything, that pace is doubled down upon. Some of the more intriguing story aspects – Esther’s character development; interplay amidst her new family – are whittled down to one or two lines, and an attempt at commentary on high society is appreciated, but also pretty dang shallow. 

On the plus side, it moves quick; on the negative, after you’ve answered the above questions, there’s nothing new under the sun. 

The math adds up, though: this is a more consistent, more-willing-to-cut-loose flick than Orphan, slotting it securely into a “fun” ranking, which is not easy with horror.