Mad Genius

My quick rating - 3,4/10. I have to save people from reading obvious "fake" reviews on IMDB. This movie attempts to try and fool you, and if you don't think for a minute in this movie, you will be fooled. Into being entertained that is. In an attempt to be weird, just for the sake of being weird, the movie is a complete mess. Unfortunately the plot itself doesn't lend a hand to the sub par actors and give them something to work with. Without giving anything away, a guy wants to "hack" (using that term very loosely) the human mind to save the world. In doing so, with the electronics you most likely dropped off last time you recycled electronics, he finds himself and his best friend (oh, big plot point, does he exist?) trying to solve this plan, again, hacking your mind. Now since this movie doesn't rely on any theory, science, computer knowledge, etc. you just have to assume he is doing something. But of course, the bad guy (no plural, budget couldn't afford that) wants to stop him. Then again, is there a bad guy. If you are going to make a movie that relies on wondering these things, please write in some part of it to explain. It isn't that this movie is confusing, it is just so poorly done and trying to rip off by far better versions of the "all in your mind" idea, that this just falls so flat. I am unsure the makers of this movie were even sure which way they were going with this. Do yourself a favor, and don't bother with this one, you'll end up just being "Mad" P.S. If you worked on this movie, good for you, but don't jump on here and write BS reviews praising this as the new coming of Fight Club, etc. It makes you look dumb, and not everyone can see through the nonsense reviews so quickly. I knew it was coming after the first 10/10, but after seeing a few back to back, I figured the crew sat in the same room and passed the laptop around in a circle to get them done.

'Mad Genius' did intrigue me. Despite it being very lowly rated, from personal experience quite a lot of film rated under 4 are rated low for very good reason, and with a lot of the reviews being tepid at best (quite a lot of them negative, with some passionate, overly so perhaps, defending), the advertising looked cool and the concept was quite intriguing.

Seeing 'Mad Genius', while not finding it a particularly good film it to me wasn't that bad. Have seen far worse recently, quite a lot of them higher rated, and far worse overall. Although the execution was severely patchy and quite a few elements are easily criticised, it didn't strike me as if those involved weren't trying, if anything there was somewhat of a biting off more than they could chew feel to me. Actually understood what they were trying to do and respect their efforts even if it was not my cup of tea, will not join the fake reviews conspiracy theory, something that has been polluting the internet to an out of proportion degree for some time now and although there is suspicious activity admittedly for quite a number of times it is getting really annoying.

Visually, was expecting 'Mad Genius' to be much worse than it was. Low-budget films with a higher budget than the one for 'Mad Genius' actually manage to be comparatively quite a bit cheaper. While finesse is not a strong suit and the effects are very hasty-looking, there was effort made here. It is slickly shot with some very striking angles that progress rather than distract and the sets and lighting are atmospheric, a world that is easily immersive.

Really did like some of the ideas conceptually and there were some neat video reactions and real-time social media comment touches sprinkled throughout. The acting is hit and miss, but Faran Tahir chews the scenery enjoyably and Scott Mechlowicz is likeable enough.

Chris Mason's performance is uneven, sometimes in command and amiable and at other times bland and unsure. Spencer Locke looks wide-eyed and frightened the entire time, pretty much the only notable expression in a role with practically nothing to it. The characters were very flimsy in development and the more interesting and better performed ones are on screen too little. A couple of elements are uneven, the fast cuts in some of the camera work could have been used less (the overuse became gimmicky) and the music while quite nice and groovy on its own intrudes a little too much and didn't always fit within the film.

Would have liked more clarity and tightness in the script, some of it felt rambling and muddled. The story had some great ideas but too many are not followed all the way through, they are not exactly new but intrigued but the film executed them too predictably and ordinarily for my tastes. Character motivations generally could have been much clearer, had the constant feeling of why is he or she doing this and what do they want, and the middle act is on the sluggish side.

Overall, a nice try but didn't do much for me on the whole. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Remember that 90's movie Hackers, remember how bad that was? Well you would think after over 20 years on the concept of young, drug fuelled, pretty looking digital geniuses wanting to change the world that it would have evolved by now but no.

Some trippy visuals, a Bond-esque villiain in training, faux science mumbo jumbo, teenage hormones and recreational drug taking is all this film really amounts to.

For all those handing out 10 star reviews here (movie marketing people) it screams of desperation and not believing in the product you've sent out into the world. We see through it, please stop !!

I give it a 3 cause I made it to the end and 2 of those stars are for me achieving that!!

I expected more but get less, plot is bad, they did not get into what saving means, acting wasn't bad but most scenes are boring. its a low budget film anyway.

This Movie does have strong language and it has drugs, smoking, sexual content, nudity were a backside was shown. And Technology torturer inflicted by another human. I feel like I've seen this Movie done before which made parts for me a little boring.

I loved the plot and the special effects, I think is was an okay Movie but I think that it would have been better if it was a TV show instead of a Movie. I think the Movie was explained well at the start with the voice over and I like how at the start of the Movie how it didn't just leave us and not having a clue what it was about. but as soon as that first scene was over, it lacked. The voice over got me interested in the Movie and then that part just vanished. I would of liked it more if it had the voice over though-out the Movie without making the scenes to easy to guess what would happen next.

I liked mason he was funny and I liked his style of clothing. I liked mason and finn scenes. finn is like mason's imagination hologram. Anyway I found finn funny too I liked the scenes that he was in.

I liked this Movie but I wanted more, I wasn't jumping up and down in my chair in suspense, I think if it was more engaging I would have been hooked. My number one genres that I love is sci-fi. And I just really wanted to love this Movie and at first I thought I would. But After the first few scenes it started to drag and I would of liked it more if we had more charter development and back story. Like how he got into all this and how he learn about it.