IMDb RATING
5.4/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
A shy investigator assumes the identity of a small town murder victim in order to solve her gruesome death.A shy investigator assumes the identity of a small town murder victim in order to solve her gruesome death.A shy investigator assumes the identity of a small town murder victim in order to solve her gruesome death.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
White Orchid is a visually striking neo-noir that falls short of its potential. While the setup is intriguing, the story lacks complexity, with puzzle pieces fitting together too easily and a predictable resolution. The protagonist's transformation feels rushed and unearned, undermining the emotional weight of the narrative. Though the cinematography captures the noir aesthetic well, the lack of meaningful twists and moral ambiguity makes the film feel overly simplistic. Ultimately it's watchable but fails to leave a lasting impression. The film also overstretches the protagonists beauty focusing more on showcasing her body than meaningful dialogue.
Northern California - check
Crazy women - check
Hot women - check (debatable)
Psychological thriller - Check (debatable)
Hot Lesbian Love - Check (kind of)
Crazy cop - yes
Crazy doctor - yes
Crazy insane Italian sports car - check
Terrible dialogue - CHECK
Awful wigs/disguises - check
Confusing as hell story - check check check
Femme fatale buddying you with old lady - check!
You get the drift.
You get the drift.
White Orchid (2018) was written and directed by Steve Anderson. It stars Olivia Thirlby as Claire, an independent investigator who often works for the county department of social services.
A woman has been horribly butchered by someone. Of course, that's the job of the sheriff, not social services. However, in California, the law says that if there are no relatives, social services must investigate as well.
Claire takes the case, and travels to the site of the woman's death, and has access to the home she had rented. What follows next does, indeed, fall into the classic category of "girl detective." However, the way the movie plays out, there's much more to it than that.
The most striking part of the movie for me was how director Anderson and Olivia Thirlby managed Claire's transition from a quiet, almost mousy character into a highly feminine, desirable woman. Of course, Olivia Thirlby is strikingly beautiful, so the trick wasn't to make her attractive, but to make her unattractive at the beginning of the film. It couldn't have been easy, but they did it.
The movie is one of those films where at the end, you say, "OK--who was the dead woman, and who killed her? People walk out of the movie trying to make sense of it. Director Anderson was in the theater for Q&A, and he says that all the clues are there, but he wouldn't tell us the answer. (Of course he knows the answer--he wrote the script.)
OK--but even if you're not quite sure about the loose ends of the plot, the film holds your interest throughout. The California scenery is beautiful and the acting is excellent.
We saw this movie at the great Little Theatre as part of The Rochester High Falls Women's Film Festival. It won't work quite as well on the small screen, because you'll miss the glorious scenery. Even so, it's worth finding and seeing.
"What movie did they see?" This film has a terrible IMDb rating of 5.0, with 224 ratings. It's not a great movie that will be remembered forever, but it's much better than 5.0. I suggest you see it and decide for yourself.
A woman has been horribly butchered by someone. Of course, that's the job of the sheriff, not social services. However, in California, the law says that if there are no relatives, social services must investigate as well.
Claire takes the case, and travels to the site of the woman's death, and has access to the home she had rented. What follows next does, indeed, fall into the classic category of "girl detective." However, the way the movie plays out, there's much more to it than that.
The most striking part of the movie for me was how director Anderson and Olivia Thirlby managed Claire's transition from a quiet, almost mousy character into a highly feminine, desirable woman. Of course, Olivia Thirlby is strikingly beautiful, so the trick wasn't to make her attractive, but to make her unattractive at the beginning of the film. It couldn't have been easy, but they did it.
The movie is one of those films where at the end, you say, "OK--who was the dead woman, and who killed her? People walk out of the movie trying to make sense of it. Director Anderson was in the theater for Q&A, and he says that all the clues are there, but he wouldn't tell us the answer. (Of course he knows the answer--he wrote the script.)
OK--but even if you're not quite sure about the loose ends of the plot, the film holds your interest throughout. The California scenery is beautiful and the acting is excellent.
We saw this movie at the great Little Theatre as part of The Rochester High Falls Women's Film Festival. It won't work quite as well on the small screen, because you'll miss the glorious scenery. Even so, it's worth finding and seeing.
"What movie did they see?" This film has a terrible IMDb rating of 5.0, with 224 ratings. It's not a great movie that will be remembered forever, but it's much better than 5.0. I suggest you see it and decide for yourself.
Don't waste your time - not a worthwhile movie.
I can not figure out how this poor attempt at a "film noir" got such a high rating. It is short (1 hr 52 min) and wanders around at the beginning then rushes the ending with what the author must have thought was a plot twist. It is so rushed it leaves loose ends laying around.
The lack of a plot leaves me to believe that it was either the first attempt at a film or was on such a low budget the production could figure how to tie off the various open ends. The climax is so poorly constructed and rushed it doesn't answer what happened.
I started watching it because I went to Cal Poly; I wanted to turn it off after 20 minutes but my wife was doing the ironing and wanted to see if there were more shots of SLO,
I can not figure out how this poor attempt at a "film noir" got such a high rating. It is short (1 hr 52 min) and wanders around at the beginning then rushes the ending with what the author must have thought was a plot twist. It is so rushed it leaves loose ends laying around.
The lack of a plot leaves me to believe that it was either the first attempt at a film or was on such a low budget the production could figure how to tie off the various open ends. The climax is so poorly constructed and rushed it doesn't answer what happened.
I started watching it because I went to Cal Poly; I wanted to turn it off after 20 minutes but my wife was doing the ironing and wanted to see if there were more shots of SLO,
This movie is a slow burn but clever. The acting was good, it's filmed well and if you can embrace the pace of it, it will hold your attention. The script needed a bit of work but it wasn't unbearable. I've seen where some folks didn't care for the way it ended but I liked it. I'd suggest it to my friends.
Did you know
- TriviaBoth Olivia Thirlby & Rachel Taylor starred in another movie . . . The Darkest Hour.
- GoofsWhen Claire visits the Hotel Rex and orders a drink in the bar, she adds a redder color of lipstick after looking around at the other patrons. When she has a conversation with the bartender, her lipstick is back to its original pink color, then back to the red, a couple of times during their conversation.
- How long is White Orchid?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 22m(82 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content