Prisoner X

I had this movie on my list-to-buy for a long time, just never got convinced to take the risk. There are no critical reviews for this movie and only a few hundred reviews on IMDB. And those reviews are wildly varied from low to high.

But, I finally took a chance on this movie today and watched it. I watched the whole movie from beginning to end, and I can honestly say it's a little sad that a movie this good seems to have been ignored by so many people, probably for the same reasons as I did.

After watching this whole movie, which I'm convinced most of the people who left low ratings did not bother to do, I can say this movie has one big thing going for it: pure science fiction. Not all the science is accurate, but it's much better than most movies that are considered sci-fi. Blended with the sci-fi was some decent drama. Together, they give this movie a very strong underlying story. This story is the kind of sci-fi story I can imagine paying to read.

The budget for this movie seems kind of low, but I expected that. And it doesn't really matter for this story. The acting was surprisingly very good considering I didn't recognize anyone in it, and I kind of expect poor acting in a low budget movie, but I saw no real sign of that. There were a couple of parts that had "OK" acting, but maybe only about 5 minutes out of the whole movie.

There were a few times during the movie when it seemed like it was getting predictable, like I knew where it was going and I'd been there before. But, that's the key with movies like this -- you have to take the whole thing in before making a judgement. In the end, it was not predictable, I didn't know where it was going until I got to the end, and I was very satisfied with that ending.

So, take a chance on this movie if you are a pure sci-fi fan and/or reader. Not only was it worth the money I paid to buy it, but I'll be watching it at least one more time. I honestly didn't believe I'd be saying that when I took the chance, so I'm very happy I took it.

I read a review by another user complaining about low budget production cost. I'll remind him, 'Twelve Angry Men', was filmed in two rooms, with no special affects. I have seen tremendously budgeted films that have sucked *alls, 'Battlefield Earth', comes to mind off the top of my head. This was a minimalistic film with the most recognizable actor being 'The Grim Reaper', from Supernatural. But I enjoyed the story.

1. Cheap effects; what few there were. Cheap production with basically everything filmed in typical underground concrete bunker type room and lots of quick videos & photos of humanity doing harm to itself. So old & overused. Tiresome; not original. 2. So cheap they have no subtitles coupled with poor English enunciation and poor audio level control.Not that it matters that much since the dialogue was created by scientifically illiterate writers to sound scientifically intelligent. 3. Acting was soooo scripted robotic - stereotypical prisoner and interrogation methods. 4. Dumb science: Time traveler here to warn humanity; shows up out of nowhere and convinces interrogators by listing location and times for astronomical events. Cost to show us such overwhelming time traveler advanced capabilities - a piece of paper and a observatory photo. That's it for a civilization so advanced to just show up.

Low level directing and bad actors. The idea of the movie seemed interesting, but the movie couldn't achieve its purpose: to execute it.

Scientific accuracy and persuasiveness: Despite its attempt at scientific use, this film falls short, offering a poorly researched and inaccurately portrayed depiction of scientific concepts.

Relatedness to the real world: The display of political intrigue fails to grasp the complexities and realities. The depiction of presidential and CIA characters lacks authenticity and fails to capture the intricacies of their roles in real-life politics and intelligence operations.

Acting and characters: Michelle Nolden. Horrible to watch. Being the main character, she's the biggest fail of the movie. If the given dialogue was bad, improve it. If she improvised, even worse. Great actors have great skills for acting. They have a high EQ and are skilled at character analysis, observation, psychological insight, subtext interpretation, and physicality. They master dialect and language, voice control, tonality, modulation, body language, improvisation, and adaptability. Michelle Nolden doesn't demonstrate any of this.

Michelle Nolden portrays her character with such inconsistency that it becomes unbearable to watch. Every scene with her in it will make you cringe and want to look away. Ultimately, she ruins the story and demolishes the potential of the movie.

Now, the other characters weren't great too, but that's what you can expect from a low tier movie. They're just good enough.

Recommendation: Warning: Do not watch.

It's not a recommended movie to watch. If you just stumble upon it and decide to watch it, you will regret it. You deserve quality, this isn't it.

Not your typical super low budget movie. You have to pay attention. It's a novel plot that I mostly couldn't predict. I liked it. My friend didn't like having to think. I'm going to give it a 7 for the novel plot, which is tough to find