I don't know what the people that rated this film a 5 or more usually watch but I have a fairly good idea. And perhaps if you see little else than MTV all day and catch a Horror flick every once in a while, this movie could indeed be appealing.
I can safely say that I have seen my share of stinkers but those movies didn't all fall short due to the lack of almost everything that makes a quality movie. Yet, Prodigy certainly seemed to spare no effort to try to fail on all counts although I admit there were some nice action-scenes and the premise certainly was interesting.
But the main question is: why make a movie and blatantly ignore directing it? I mean, the story was all over the place and none of the scenes seemed to blend at all. It was like watching a collection of scenes in a non discernible order. Any first grade film student would have surely done a better job in creating some cohesion.
Directing aside, what was up with the grainy footage, the constantly changing camera style (make up your mind guys) and the first-draft dialog? And don't even get me started on the 'acting' by some of the cast. I know this movie was obviously low-budget but for the love of God, you don't have to remind the audience of it in just about every scene.
This movie gets a lot of positive reviews and those reviewers give this flick a neat 4/4 stars. 'Bit suspicious considering that the weighted average vote isn't even a six, which is due to the fact that 36%! of the voters gave it a ten obviously without giving it much thought.
If you don't mind incoherent film-making, overlong scenes and an in-the-face feel of lowbudgetism, then, by all means, go see this and give it a 10 as well. Otherwise just avoid...
I can safely say that I have seen my share of stinkers but those movies didn't all fall short due to the lack of almost everything that makes a quality movie. Yet, Prodigy certainly seemed to spare no effort to try to fail on all counts although I admit there were some nice action-scenes and the premise certainly was interesting.
But the main question is: why make a movie and blatantly ignore directing it? I mean, the story was all over the place and none of the scenes seemed to blend at all. It was like watching a collection of scenes in a non discernible order. Any first grade film student would have surely done a better job in creating some cohesion.
Directing aside, what was up with the grainy footage, the constantly changing camera style (make up your mind guys) and the first-draft dialog? And don't even get me started on the 'acting' by some of the cast. I know this movie was obviously low-budget but for the love of God, you don't have to remind the audience of it in just about every scene.
This movie gets a lot of positive reviews and those reviewers give this flick a neat 4/4 stars. 'Bit suspicious considering that the weighted average vote isn't even a six, which is due to the fact that 36%! of the voters gave it a ten obviously without giving it much thought.
If you don't mind incoherent film-making, overlong scenes and an in-the-face feel of lowbudgetism, then, by all means, go see this and give it a 10 as well. Otherwise just avoid...