There's nothing outstanding about this movie, but it's a solid plot with a gripping delivery. Some acting was jilted and/or support characters were shallow, but the main job between the prodigal girl and the psychiatrist was good.
88 Reviews
Surprisingly Good Low Budget Film
claudio_carvalho3 May 2018
The psychologist Dr. Fonda (Richard Neil) is invited by his colleague and friend Dr. Olivia (Jolene Andersen) to analyze the girl Ellie (Savannah Liles) in a military facility directed by Mr. Birch (Emilio Palame). Dr. Fonda is monitored by experts and must decide the fate of Ellie, who is the result of a failed military experiment. Soon Dr. Fonda discovers that Ellie is an intelligent girl and also a menace since she has powerful abilities and the military intend to destroy her. But Dr. Fonda foresees a chance to control her. What will be Ellie´s fate?
"Prodigy" is a surprisingly good low budget film. The storyline is tense and attractive but the conclusion is predictable. The plot is not original and there are many other films with powerful kids (maybe "Carrie" is the most famous) and Ellie recalls Carrie associated to Dr. Hannibal Lecter. But the conflict between emotion and reason is interesting. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Prodigy"
"Prodigy" is a surprisingly good low budget film. The storyline is tense and attractive but the conclusion is predictable. The plot is not original and there are many other films with powerful kids (maybe "Carrie" is the most famous) and Ellie recalls Carrie associated to Dr. Hannibal Lecter. But the conflict between emotion and reason is interesting. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Prodigy"
Quite entertaining
patrick-41311 September 2018
It's amazing what you can do with a low budget, solid script and good acting. There are some things that could have been better, mostly if the secondary characters had been given some more to do and had more interesting personalities. But the acting and especially the writing of the two leads (Neil and Liles) were the strong point, and made it an entertaining, if short, feature. Recommended if you like psychological thrillers with a bit of sci-fi. It won't change your life but it's a fun way to spend an hour and a half.
Short of brilliance
klondikeMIC27 August 2018
This movie was a mixed bag with hokey moments throughout, some of the dialog seemed a little forced and tried a little too hard to be intelligent. A couple characters seemed superfluous and could have been left out entirely. That being said, there are truly beautiful moments in this film. Particularly dealing with trauma and the way we cope, or don't cope with it. Unfortunately, the ending just fell short and although I wanted to cry, it didn't quite come together well enough to allow me the catharsis that came with the conclusion. Overall, this film was engaging, intelligent and at times beautiful. Definitely one of my favourite low-budget films, and everyone involved should be proud of what they've accomplished.
Not bad for a low budget
deloudelouvain8 July 2018
For a low budget psychological thriller it wasn't bad at all. It's not that I will remember it in the future, but to watch once it's good enough. Especially for the acting of the little girl Eleonore/Ellie played by Savannah Liles. I think she did a good job playing the creepy teenager, not only with her vocabulary but also with her facial expressions. It's a low budget, with only four different places where they shoot the entire movie, and with only a handful of actors, but you didn't need more to bring this story. A story of mind games and a bit of supernatural. Not exceptional but good enough to entertain you during 80 minutes.
There was a little girl...
S_Soma8 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Opening Scenes Preview:
PRODIGY opens with a series of video clips, intermixed with the opening credits, depicting the early lives of two different little girls. By the end of the credits we see that one girl is bedridden, either by illness or injury, and the other girl has turned into something... menacing.
When the first scene of the movie proper begins, we are in a park near the edge of a pond, and we see a somewhat scholarly-looking man, judging by his tweedy suit and ill kempt hair, playing chess with himself on a picnic table with his briefcase close at hand. We recognize the man from the earlier video clips as the probable father of the bedridden girl.
A woman in an ill fitting black suit approaches, and after some small talk, we are given to understand that they already know each other before the events of the movie. His name is Fonda; hers is Olivia. Fonda invites Olivia to coffee, but she says they don't have time, glancing at the "confidential" document resting in Fonda's briefcase.
In the next scene, Fonda is having a little difficulty going through a stringent security screen. Once that is sorted out, accompanied by some sort of military director named Birch and a couple of armored security personnel, Fonda is marched through the facility while being given a terse collection of do's and don'ts, mostly don'ts, by a gruff and apparently irritated Birch. Clearly Birch is not pleased by Fonda's presence, although we do not know why.
By virtue of the stringent security and the very rigid and excessive collection of don'ts described by Birch, we develop the understanding that whoever Fonda is here to see is an incredibly dangerous person.
Fonda is ushered into a sort of control room and introduced to the collection of staff working on whatever project this is. There's a technical director, a psychiatrist, a biochemist and so on. And, of course, there's Olivia. In the process of the introductions, we learn that Fonda is a psychologist. Apparently, Fonda is here to evaluate someone at the direct request of Olivia.
Olivia takes Fonda to be introduced to their subject. Just as Olivia and Fonda arrive at the door behind which apparently waits the subject, the door opens and some security personnel exit. They are heavily armored and have apparently delivered the subject to the interview room via a strapped handtruck. Attached to the handtruck is a black restrictive facemask. The view lingers on the truck and mask so that we may contemplate the implied fearful nature of the subject.
Fonda enters the interview room and finds... a freckle-face little redhaired girl. She's fully straitjacketed, chained to a metal chair, and completely bound.
Review:
There are a few good things to say about PRODIGY. Unfortunately, there's also a giant raft of things that are not so good.
Conceptually, PRODIGY has an interesting concept. There are several primary elements that contribute to making up a personality. Intelligence, special skills, maturity, knowledge and so on. What if we presuppose a young girl, around 10 to 12 years old, is possessed of both an incredibly high IQ and gifted with supernatural powers (at least telekinesis though perhaps more). What kind of personality would she have? What kind of person would they be? How would society react to such a person? And perhaps most importantly, how dangerous would they be?
Now imagine we take that interesting concept and turn it into a movie that is excessively low-budget and crafted by amateurish hacks across the board. That's PRODIGY.
Clumsy, low-budget movies appear to exude a certain kind of cinematic body odor. Wooden acting, uninspired music, hollow sound design, derivative scripting, cheap props, and so on. You'll find all of this in PRODIGY and more. To keep from working too hard or risking runaway creativity, let's just lift a collection of tropes from other movies. We'll "borrow" from JURASSIC PARK, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE FURY and maybe a little CARRIE (and about 10 dozen other movies about telekinesis...).
Ever since Nedry in JURASSIC PARK, the "technical" person has to be an unlikable, sloppy looking fat guy. And here he is in PRODIGY where his sole function, for the entire movie, is to throw a couple of switches and push a lever back and forth that is clearly a videogame throttle. Probably by Saitek.
How about the whole person-dolly and facemask bit, straight out of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? It's her HANDS that need to be confined, not her legs. And what's the facemask for? It's supposed to be for biters, and Ellie isn't a biter. Oh, I see. It's a style requirement. Pro forma and all that. Never mind that it doesn't make any sense in this context.
Additionally, the persona exhibited by Ellie is straight out of the Hannibal Lecter stylistic dialogue handbook. After all, she's a crazy super genius. She should talk like one. $1.95 psychoanalysis that "lays bare" her victims "inner selves". The only real difference is that we have a little girl saying the words. Although, to be fair, she does do a pretty good job of it. It's just disappointing that when she has to exhibit the crying, sad little girl persona at the end, the quality of her acting takes a terrible nosedive. This little girl actress does a better job of portraying a monster than she does a... little girl.
And so on.
I gave the movie 5 stars because the base concept was interesting. A 10-year-old super genius with powerful telekinetic abilities would make a pretty good monster. Maturity lags many years behind intelligence and innate skill; what sort of damage would such a creature do before they grew up? What would life be like around a little kid that could give effortless vent to their fits of pique? Sounds like a twilight zone episode, doesn't it? Hint hint...
This movie is a clunker, no doubt. If you're hungry for a little sci-fi or a bit of the paranormal, you might give it a watch but don't expect too much. Some of it is bad enough to make your eyes bleed. In terms of quality, the only positive thing I can say is that usually such movies made in such circumstances are even worse than this one.
PRODIGY opens with a series of video clips, intermixed with the opening credits, depicting the early lives of two different little girls. By the end of the credits we see that one girl is bedridden, either by illness or injury, and the other girl has turned into something... menacing.
When the first scene of the movie proper begins, we are in a park near the edge of a pond, and we see a somewhat scholarly-looking man, judging by his tweedy suit and ill kempt hair, playing chess with himself on a picnic table with his briefcase close at hand. We recognize the man from the earlier video clips as the probable father of the bedridden girl.
A woman in an ill fitting black suit approaches, and after some small talk, we are given to understand that they already know each other before the events of the movie. His name is Fonda; hers is Olivia. Fonda invites Olivia to coffee, but she says they don't have time, glancing at the "confidential" document resting in Fonda's briefcase.
In the next scene, Fonda is having a little difficulty going through a stringent security screen. Once that is sorted out, accompanied by some sort of military director named Birch and a couple of armored security personnel, Fonda is marched through the facility while being given a terse collection of do's and don'ts, mostly don'ts, by a gruff and apparently irritated Birch. Clearly Birch is not pleased by Fonda's presence, although we do not know why.
By virtue of the stringent security and the very rigid and excessive collection of don'ts described by Birch, we develop the understanding that whoever Fonda is here to see is an incredibly dangerous person.
Fonda is ushered into a sort of control room and introduced to the collection of staff working on whatever project this is. There's a technical director, a psychiatrist, a biochemist and so on. And, of course, there's Olivia. In the process of the introductions, we learn that Fonda is a psychologist. Apparently, Fonda is here to evaluate someone at the direct request of Olivia.
Olivia takes Fonda to be introduced to their subject. Just as Olivia and Fonda arrive at the door behind which apparently waits the subject, the door opens and some security personnel exit. They are heavily armored and have apparently delivered the subject to the interview room via a strapped handtruck. Attached to the handtruck is a black restrictive facemask. The view lingers on the truck and mask so that we may contemplate the implied fearful nature of the subject.
Fonda enters the interview room and finds... a freckle-face little redhaired girl. She's fully straitjacketed, chained to a metal chair, and completely bound.
Review:
There are a few good things to say about PRODIGY. Unfortunately, there's also a giant raft of things that are not so good.
Conceptually, PRODIGY has an interesting concept. There are several primary elements that contribute to making up a personality. Intelligence, special skills, maturity, knowledge and so on. What if we presuppose a young girl, around 10 to 12 years old, is possessed of both an incredibly high IQ and gifted with supernatural powers (at least telekinesis though perhaps more). What kind of personality would she have? What kind of person would they be? How would society react to such a person? And perhaps most importantly, how dangerous would they be?
Now imagine we take that interesting concept and turn it into a movie that is excessively low-budget and crafted by amateurish hacks across the board. That's PRODIGY.
Clumsy, low-budget movies appear to exude a certain kind of cinematic body odor. Wooden acting, uninspired music, hollow sound design, derivative scripting, cheap props, and so on. You'll find all of this in PRODIGY and more. To keep from working too hard or risking runaway creativity, let's just lift a collection of tropes from other movies. We'll "borrow" from JURASSIC PARK, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE FURY and maybe a little CARRIE (and about 10 dozen other movies about telekinesis...).
Ever since Nedry in JURASSIC PARK, the "technical" person has to be an unlikable, sloppy looking fat guy. And here he is in PRODIGY where his sole function, for the entire movie, is to throw a couple of switches and push a lever back and forth that is clearly a videogame throttle. Probably by Saitek.
How about the whole person-dolly and facemask bit, straight out of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? It's her HANDS that need to be confined, not her legs. And what's the facemask for? It's supposed to be for biters, and Ellie isn't a biter. Oh, I see. It's a style requirement. Pro forma and all that. Never mind that it doesn't make any sense in this context.
Additionally, the persona exhibited by Ellie is straight out of the Hannibal Lecter stylistic dialogue handbook. After all, she's a crazy super genius. She should talk like one. $1.95 psychoanalysis that "lays bare" her victims "inner selves". The only real difference is that we have a little girl saying the words. Although, to be fair, she does do a pretty good job of it. It's just disappointing that when she has to exhibit the crying, sad little girl persona at the end, the quality of her acting takes a terrible nosedive. This little girl actress does a better job of portraying a monster than she does a... little girl.
And so on.
I gave the movie 5 stars because the base concept was interesting. A 10-year-old super genius with powerful telekinetic abilities would make a pretty good monster. Maturity lags many years behind intelligence and innate skill; what sort of damage would such a creature do before they grew up? What would life be like around a little kid that could give effortless vent to their fits of pique? Sounds like a twilight zone episode, doesn't it? Hint hint...
This movie is a clunker, no doubt. If you're hungry for a little sci-fi or a bit of the paranormal, you might give it a watch but don't expect too much. Some of it is bad enough to make your eyes bleed. In terms of quality, the only positive thing I can say is that usually such movies made in such circumstances are even worse than this one.
worth watching
djrhom26 February 2020
Do these people get paid to write these bogus three-line reviews?
Snootz9 April 2018
The quality of the movie set aside for the moment-- the plethora of obviously-bogus short reviews for this movie is astounding. One has to wonder at the motive behind such banal hoax. Do the directors/marketers really think anyone is going to fall for this stunt and buy their movie? The number of "thumbs down" responses to such reviews should give these clowns a clue.
Now the movie itself. At the risk of others probably pointing out the same things: Jurassic Park technician. Typical military booger-head. Female high-command-but-mothering type. Good-guy psychologist (actually rather well-acted). Totally wooden-performance PHD. Token throw-in-another-race acting part, completely unnecessary to the plot. Hannibal Lector rip-off (do they really use such devices? Probably, dunno). Emotional yet poorly-directed climax.
Despite all that, fairly decent ending, again due to fairly good acting. A movie that has a decent ending can be forgiven somewhat for its flaws.
Basic problem: in several places the vocalization by the child actress and poor sound editing makes it very difficult to understand what she's saying.
Some rave about the young girl's acting. In reality, what does it take to quote memorized lines with an unemotional face? When it comes down to the real acting near the end her performance falls flat. I accrue that to the director, not the actor. The scene could have been directed and filmed in a more convincing manner. The actor redeems herself in the final scene, but just barely.
I give this 5 stars because while mediocre and cliche, it does remain entertaining throughout. Some of the more jaded and critical viewers are far too harsh on this (it is by no means SyFy channel bad). Many give it far too much credit; such reviews (as previously stated) are repeatedly unbelievable. It's an interesting watch.
Major thumbs down for the totally gratuitous singular F-bomb; that is a contrivance of writers and directors relying on schlock because they're concerned the movie isn't strong enough to stand on its own. I was unaware of the "TV-MA" rating before watching it. This singular use was the only reason for such; nothing else in the movie would rate it above TV-13.
It's not a good movie, not a bad movie. There are better. There a far, far worse.It was almost-decent... and that's the shame of it. With a little better directing and a bit less cliche it could have been much better.
Now the movie itself. At the risk of others probably pointing out the same things: Jurassic Park technician. Typical military booger-head. Female high-command-but-mothering type. Good-guy psychologist (actually rather well-acted). Totally wooden-performance PHD. Token throw-in-another-race acting part, completely unnecessary to the plot. Hannibal Lector rip-off (do they really use such devices? Probably, dunno). Emotional yet poorly-directed climax.
Despite all that, fairly decent ending, again due to fairly good acting. A movie that has a decent ending can be forgiven somewhat for its flaws.
Basic problem: in several places the vocalization by the child actress and poor sound editing makes it very difficult to understand what she's saying.
Some rave about the young girl's acting. In reality, what does it take to quote memorized lines with an unemotional face? When it comes down to the real acting near the end her performance falls flat. I accrue that to the director, not the actor. The scene could have been directed and filmed in a more convincing manner. The actor redeems herself in the final scene, but just barely.
I give this 5 stars because while mediocre and cliche, it does remain entertaining throughout. Some of the more jaded and critical viewers are far too harsh on this (it is by no means SyFy channel bad). Many give it far too much credit; such reviews (as previously stated) are repeatedly unbelievable. It's an interesting watch.
Major thumbs down for the totally gratuitous singular F-bomb; that is a contrivance of writers and directors relying on schlock because they're concerned the movie isn't strong enough to stand on its own. I was unaware of the "TV-MA" rating before watching it. This singular use was the only reason for such; nothing else in the movie would rate it above TV-13.
It's not a good movie, not a bad movie. There are better. There a far, far worse.It was almost-decent... and that's the shame of it. With a little better directing and a bit less cliche it could have been much better.
Emotions vs Intelligence
tomsawyer-018583 April 2018
Quite a nice movie this was.
Good acting, specially from the main actors. The girl, yes, the more you act cold, the more vulnerable you are inside.
This is a movie without action, pace, change of location, change of story. It's close to Morgan, but does not take its action path.
It could be played in a theatre. It kept me interested from start to end.
Not that it was brilliantly clever, as the girl was, it has its clichés of stereotype characters, but clever enough not try to tackle my intelligence.
So if you are a person of self-inspection, you will enjoy this movie.
Good acting, specially from the main actors. The girl, yes, the more you act cold, the more vulnerable you are inside.
This is a movie without action, pace, change of location, change of story. It's close to Morgan, but does not take its action path.
It could be played in a theatre. It kept me interested from start to end.
Not that it was brilliantly clever, as the girl was, it has its clichés of stereotype characters, but clever enough not try to tackle my intelligence.
So if you are a person of self-inspection, you will enjoy this movie.
79 minutes too long
makka-0095510 March 2018
A dreadful, pointless movie. Now I know I have to write some more text just to have this post allowed..... but it's not easy to find anything redeemable about this shambolic exercise in 'how not to direct or act. Normally, it's usual for there to be a weak link in the cast, as far as acting goes - despite the miniscule cast (below ten), In this instance, they are all equally as bad. The purpose of 'acting' is, I believe, to make the watcher believe that every word you say is real and spontaneous - this bunch of amateurs fail dismally in that regard. Every word spoken sounds like it is being read from a cue-card, for the first time. there is no emotion, no pauses, no mixed-dialogue, just robotic reading from a script. Is that the actors fault? or the director's? Either way, I would perhaps have expected this from a young girl, but the whole cast are equally as wooden. An incredibly limited script and story-line is bad enough! So the gripes about the acting and script aside...here is the premise of the movie. A young girl is imprisoned in a room in a straitjacket, although we are not initially party as to why. She is apparently super-intelligent, and knows it. It transpires that she has supernatural powers,although, incredibly, she cannot escape the bonds that keep her prisoner in the room. I only stayed with this movie, as I was hoping there would be some special effects...but....no. The cast have the chemistry of several strangers given the script two minutes beforehand; we never hear more than one person in dialogue at any given time and it's all completely emotionless. The majority of the movie takes place in said locked room and an adjoining viewing room - only once do we see the outside world. It involves a psychiatrist and a young girl in an apparent battle of intellect and the odd game of chess. I won't spoil the ending - the movie is quite capable of that on it's own. There isn't anything to recommend about this aberration, apart from staying well away from this movie. If you must waste 80 minutes of your life, go clip your toenails and then search for them, it will be so much more fulfilling.
Solid low budget movie
jhonnyphive10 March 2018
For a straight to dvd type movie, this is actually pretty good. Most of the acting is up to par and the special effects were better than a lot of indie movies I've seen. My biggest issue is the movie starts off slow, but eventually it picks up and the ending made it worth watching. Other than that, this was better than I expected from something so low budget.
Surprisingly Enjoyable
fay_star8 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't have much expectation for the movie as I had never heard of it when I watched it. I'm glad I didn't, as I was able just to watch and enjoy it for what it is: a low budget psychological thriller set mostly between 2 rooms and a few characters.
The main character is a 9 year old with an immense intellect and seemingly detachment from what it is to be human. Savannah Liles is nothing short of brilliant in her portrayal and carries a lot of the film.
The supernatural aspect isn't really explained further but that lends itself to the gritty view of the movie that it's essentially about the human relationships and connection.
Overall, I would recommend checking it out if you appreciate independent movie making and straight acting rather than special effects and taglines.
The main character is a 9 year old with an immense intellect and seemingly detachment from what it is to be human. Savannah Liles is nothing short of brilliant in her portrayal and carries a lot of the film.
The supernatural aspect isn't really explained further but that lends itself to the gritty view of the movie that it's essentially about the human relationships and connection.
Overall, I would recommend checking it out if you appreciate independent movie making and straight acting rather than special effects and taglines.
Wow.
miss_manners_627 March 2018
This movie is genuinely awful. Stilted acting, terrible script, predictable from the first minute. Even the camerawork is fourth rate. It does get two stars for reminding me that I liked the infinitely superior Morgan (2016). Watch that instead.
This Movie Is The Reason That I Don't Like Kids...
DrJarns17 February 2019
There are lots of movies with creepy or scary kids but this film is worse since the little girl is a Ginger. Watch the South Park episode titled Ginger Kids, season 9 episode 11 to get the full creepiness out of this little girl with deadly powers. All in all not a bad movie.
Not bad
carlita119-495-1546079 February 2019
Hysterically awful
elishevashanes3 September 2018
I actually made an account, after years of just reading reviews, just to review this. I have no idea how anybody gave this a good review. I went in expecting to like it. The dialogue from the very first scene was just awful. Stilted, horrible writing and subpar acting. This movie is so bad I honestly wanted to do a Mystery Science Theater 3000 bit with it. I'm not even talking about the story or premise or anything else. That's all bad too. But it's not even watchable because of how badly it's written.
Creepy Kid Movie
Foutainoflife2 September 2018
This was a decent movie. It is only an 80 minute movie and I think that took away from it. There didn't seemed to be enough character development. It just seemed to lack some depth. It was low budget and there were times when the acting clearly indicated that but the little girl did an amazing job. There was only one scene where she seemed to lack authenticity. Maybe I'm not the only one who noticed it.
For low budget this was pretty good. Check it out on a day when you aren't doing anything else and it will pass the time.
For low budget this was pretty good. Check it out on a day when you aren't doing anything else and it will pass the time.
Not a great film
slimecity-3866328 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Very predictable story and borderline acting from all the actors. This is obviously quite low budget and it shows. The backstory of the main character shrink is the usual "I lost a child therefore Im traumatised" stuff. The main kid actor isnt that convincing and ending is predictable as hell. There are "soldiers" and a "Colonel" in the movie, but they obviously couldnt afford uniforms so they are all wearing black turtlenecks and some surplus WW2 german helmets. Hmmmmm. Not sure where the film is aimed at (sci-fi, horror etc) but the end result is very mainstream cheese for those who cant deal with real horror or sci-fi. note that many of the early reviews were written by people who only reviewed this movie, or maybe 2 movies. Seems a bit suspect to me.
Worth watching, solid acting especially the lead girl!!
joiningjt17 February 2021
Nothing earth shattering great and really no scifi just a solid thriller with some drama and a phenomenal performance by the lead young girl. Its definitely worth watching but not bluray worthy to own. It was on Netflix so it's a no brainer to watch if you have Netflix. We watch 3 movies everyday so we are pretty good judges on what to watch. If you like an interesting story without the action, CGI, and effects but excellent acting then this is for you.
Low budget, bad acting
boudicagamer4 September 2018
Intense Psychological Drama
mrdogcare20 August 2018
Prodigy is a solid movie that happened to have a small budget. It has the feel of a theatrical play move than a big screen movie. Wonderful dialogue, some thrills and lots of emotion make this a must watch. A job well done by all involved in this production.
It's really a story of hope
steve-e-lim5 January 2020
Richard Neil and Savannah Liles carried the entire movie for me. The others, save maybe Jolene Andersen, blunt whatever edge the movie has in way of an X-factor. Top marks for script, especially the dialogue between the two principal characters. It is really a story of hope.
12-Yr-Old Girl Pretending at Hannibal Lecter. Doesn't Connect with Viewer.
snk200527 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Saw this on Netflix's line up and thought the plot sounded pretty interesting so gave it a watch. Dear GAWD I want that 80 mins back.
Is it low budget? Yes, but I didn't mind that. The fact that it's only shot in about 3 (4 tops) different spaces helped add to a rather tense and claustrophobic atmosphere which works. Was the acting great? Not really. :( Some were wooden, others overacted, while others still felt like they'd taken one-too-many sedatives. But still, I can let all that slide if I'm enjoying the experience.
So why such a low rating? The "star." The child. OH. MY. GAWD. I'm ashamed to say it but for the duration of the entire film (minus the last 5 mins--here I just rolled my eyes and said whatever), all I wanted to do was punch her repeatedly in the face. It was visceral and constant which in itself made me dislike this experience even more.
Firstly, it's like the director said watch Silence of the Lambs and then give us your best Hannibal Lecter. If you want to spend 75 out of 80 mins watching an 11/12 yr old (not even sure, nor do I care) be smug, bratty, insulting, obnoxious, superior and of course, "all psychic powerful" then you'll love this. Quite possibly the most unlikable child character I've ever seen on screen.
Secondly, it's one thing to have the 'baddies' that we're not supposed to like, but the director seemed to forget there was a redemption arc coming. Maaaaaaybe not the best idea to have the audience actively rooting for her to become a lab experiment instead of being let loose on society. Throw us a bone of some redeemable aspect! Instead, it relies on the psychologist to explain to us why she's doing what she's doing, what she's feeling, why this isn't her true nature etc. I couldn't feel any connection to her character that made me want to even TRY and understand, because she came across like a psychopath in the making anyway. Had there been a tiny break here or there in the facade, it would have changed everything.
Then the worst part was that in the last 5 mins, we get rushed redemption. The usual trope of "adult finally connects with hostile and troubled kid, kid breaks down and shows vulnerability, everyone sympathizes and sees kid's behaviour is only because of their hurt and trauma, kid is now actually good and not really demon spawn." If you're looking for Good Will Hunting feels after being subjected to the previous 70+ minutes of a PSA on why you don't want kids? Sorry, that won't be coming. You'd get more feels from The Omen. :-/
Is it low budget? Yes, but I didn't mind that. The fact that it's only shot in about 3 (4 tops) different spaces helped add to a rather tense and claustrophobic atmosphere which works. Was the acting great? Not really. :( Some were wooden, others overacted, while others still felt like they'd taken one-too-many sedatives. But still, I can let all that slide if I'm enjoying the experience.
So why such a low rating? The "star." The child. OH. MY. GAWD. I'm ashamed to say it but for the duration of the entire film (minus the last 5 mins--here I just rolled my eyes and said whatever), all I wanted to do was punch her repeatedly in the face. It was visceral and constant which in itself made me dislike this experience even more.
Firstly, it's like the director said watch Silence of the Lambs and then give us your best Hannibal Lecter. If you want to spend 75 out of 80 mins watching an 11/12 yr old (not even sure, nor do I care) be smug, bratty, insulting, obnoxious, superior and of course, "all psychic powerful" then you'll love this. Quite possibly the most unlikable child character I've ever seen on screen.
Secondly, it's one thing to have the 'baddies' that we're not supposed to like, but the director seemed to forget there was a redemption arc coming. Maaaaaaybe not the best idea to have the audience actively rooting for her to become a lab experiment instead of being let loose on society. Throw us a bone of some redeemable aspect! Instead, it relies on the psychologist to explain to us why she's doing what she's doing, what she's feeling, why this isn't her true nature etc. I couldn't feel any connection to her character that made me want to even TRY and understand, because she came across like a psychopath in the making anyway. Had there been a tiny break here or there in the facade, it would have changed everything.
Then the worst part was that in the last 5 mins, we get rushed redemption. The usual trope of "adult finally connects with hostile and troubled kid, kid breaks down and shows vulnerability, everyone sympathizes and sees kid's behaviour is only because of their hurt and trauma, kid is now actually good and not really demon spawn." If you're looking for Good Will Hunting feels after being subjected to the previous 70+ minutes of a PSA on why you don't want kids? Sorry, that won't be coming. You'd get more feels from The Omen. :-/
Great plot deserves a second chance at stardom
carlos-pires28 January 2019
This movie is worth a watch, despite its notorious low budget and evident flaws.
These flaws include:
a) An idiotic and uninspired musical score that makes itself noticed when it shouldn't, though it is just a sequence of long-sustaining and uninspired A and G notes;
b) A couple of blatantly wrong choices in the casting department (the girl does a great job, the guy delivers competently, but the rest leave somewhat to be desired, specially those two dried-up tree stumps that were mistakenly and miserably cast as the lady agent and the army colonel... and don't even get me started on the ridiculously appalling figure of that African biochemist who acts like a retired old janitor who had a few 100 Xanax pills too much, probably dropped by mistake in his jello dessert in some Florida retirement home);
c) Absurdly cheap-looking location: even I could have scrumbled a better location for less than $100.
A couple more plus point: 1. It features chess games, but at least these are pictured according to chess rules (unlike such films like "The Girl Caught in the Spider Web", in which the characters that play chess don't even know how the pieces are supposed to move). 2. The ending is really good.
Advice to big studios: secure the rights to this, then clean some of the BS, then get a real good cast, a great director and a few million $. The plot is solid gold.
A couple more plus point: 1. It features chess games, but at least these are pictured according to chess rules (unlike such films like "The Girl Caught in the Spider Web", in which the characters that play chess don't even know how the pieces are supposed to move). 2. The ending is really good.
Advice to big studios: secure the rights to this, then clean some of the BS, then get a real good cast, a great director and a few million $. The plot is solid gold.
Not bad at all
aramt-0793528 May 2019
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
