Filho do Bem, Filho do Mal

I guess if you are into the sci-fi and horror stuff it might be interesting. The acting was okay but not great. The two pregnant girls are supposed to be fifteen but are played by obviously older actresses who turned out to be twenty and twenty-one at the time. The plot is okay, but the story does jump around a bit, leaving one guessing whether you're in Boston or Pennsylvania. The priest seems to use warp speed between the two. The catholic church is portrayed as having a secretive sect for investigating events which only happen to those of that faith. What if the two girls had been protestant? Would the catholics of cared? Therefore some what contrived. Who knows, some day the catholic church might even learn what the Bible teaches. If you miss this one, don't feel you've lost anything.

Child of Darkness, Child of Light: Not one but two Immaculate Conceptions! One will be The Second Coming, the other The Antichrist! But which is which? The Vatican sends a priest to investigate. There is also have a Prophecy of The Virgin Mary which is only incrementally revealed. Teenage bullies, vicious crows, black clad assassins on motorbikes! Even a friendly pet dog is turned savage by the powers of darkness. Not great but considering that it's a TV movie from 1991 not bad either. Entertaining and worth watching. Showing again on the Horror Channel on Monday 4th January at 11.00 AM. 6/10.

I like this movie because it didn't need to be anything more than the story it was trying to tell. It has it's suspense and a plot twist at the end and the stars do their job adequately well. Personally, I like Sela Ward. She's pretty and looks good out of her nun's habit. Bottom line, when you have something of value... trust no one.

You'll only find this dull and bland if you think this is going to be like the Omen or the Exorcist. Not a bloated vehicle for overblown special effects and 'the world will end by midnight' mumbo-jumbo. I see one viewer was even FORCED to watch this, so he could share his comments with us. The poor poor thing.

I claim no familiarity with James Patterson's novel, but I'm very familiar with TV movies. I assume it's by adaptation into the television medium, and not a reflection of the novel itself, that this little flick is astoundingly direct in its storytelling. I mean that just not in terms of how the plot develops, but also in terms of what the film throws at us very quickly, with no evident rhyme or reason - beyond the scope of the underlying mystery - and with the apparent intent that we accept at face value what we're being told. This is a recurring issue throughout the film, for that matter: seen, for example, whenever protagonist Justin reads letters given to him, or a little less than halfway through when Justin returns to Italy and it's just flatly decided his initial investigation is done (it sure doesn't seem like it based on the story as we see it), or when the plot as it presents just jumps back and forth. And that plot as a whole, well, I'm supposing we just need to actively engage our suspension of disbelief, which I'm further supposing would be easier for those who adhere to some variety of Christianity. Moreover, presumably it's the quirks of adaptation that shred the characterizations into trite forms, and the scene writing into forthright curiosities.

I think there are actually terrific ideas here, firm foundation for a tale of supernatural horror - in the characters, in the scenes, in the story at large. In their root ideas the deepening chaos, violence, and madness make for sinister fun. In this form, however, the writing is scattered: sometimes seemingly jumbling its priorities, sometimes rushed, sometimes weak, unbelievable, or halfhearted, sometimes almost self-contradictory, and sometimes plainspoken to the point of stymieing the flow and credibility of the narrative. It's very noteworthy, for example, how the Vatican's assigned investigators seem to treat Margaret and Kathleen very differently, and the script also leans on one more heavily than the other. There's no reasonable justification for either disparity. Meanwhile, I don't think Marina Sargenti's direction is altogether bad, and it's possible she was also constrained by the demands of the medium, but the very orchestration of shots and scenes seems likewise scattered in some measure. Somewhat illustrating the point, the violence of the climax is executed rather sharply, yet the epilogue embraces a hokey, bare-faced, straightforward tack that stands in strict opposition. There's a lot to like here, but much to criticize, too.

Between the standards and sensibilities of television production in the early 90s and the difficulties of adaptation - presumably these more than any shortcoming on the part of those involved - the writing and direction feel troubled, and likewise the editing. And the rest of the viewing experience suffers in turn. There are some very recognizable and reliable names and faces appearing in the cast, and of both those I know well and those I don't, I see the acting skills that we know they possess. There's a bluntness to the performances here, however, and a feeling like the actors were restrained from wholly committing to the ideal vibrancy that any given moment should bear. With this in mind, and at least as if not more importantly, as the horror elements are ramped up in the latter half they similarly present with a frankness that dulls the intended effect. It's not as if 'Child of darkness, child of light' is a feature built on subtlety and underhanded wit, yet excepting the most bloody and gory splatter flicks, any given title still depends on a careful, nuanced touch to allow its best ideas to flourish and have impact. I don't think this picture is bad, but to have achieved meaningful success it needed a more delicate hand in most every regard.

Between the medium and the adaptation, maybe that delicate hand wasn't even possible here. Maybe I'm being too harsh; I did actually enjoy watching, and I want to like this more than I do. Other facets are more plainly admirable, like the stunts and practical effects (though post-production visuals are gauche). The production design is swell. I really do recognize that the cast are trying to do the best they can under the circumstances (however one wishes to define those circumstances). And I repeat that the underlying ideas of the story are splendid, primed for devious genre entertainment. Yet by whatever confluence of factors, the movie we got has a hard time passing muster, and can't entirely satisfy. I'm rather of the mind that this deserve a redo. Call it a remake, or just another adaptation, and bring back those cast members that we can, albeit in different roles. Heck, bring back the same folks behind the scenes. What this needed was the chance to be darker, more intense, and more full-bodied - exploring at will and without restriction all the small, insidious corners of the characters and their arcs, and the story ideas and their implications. As it is, 1991's 'Child of darkness, child of light' has worth - just not as much as it could or should have had.

This movie was pretty bad and took alot of effort to sit through. It's based on the book Virgin by James Patterson but only very loosely (the book is much better). As i understand it, this was originally a made for cable (USA network) movie..which explains alot. Not only was the plot pretty ridiculous, but i..being Catholic..found many of the scenes offensive. The premise sounds great (sort of a combination of Rosemary's Baby and The Omen) but the acting and the story were laughable. The only reason i sat through until the end was because i had read the book and wanted to see how far the movie deviated from the book. It deviated alot...and not in a good way.