Prisoner X

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

I don't understand the low ratings? Maybe it's because there's only 19 reviews? People probably won't watch due to the low rating... BUT YOU'RE MISSING OUT!

This movie is truly original. I've watched it twice now, and still found little pieces I didn't pick up the first time around. If you're looking for Hollywood effects - cars blowing up, and people shooting 30 rounds from a .22 revolver, this is not for you! If you are looking for something that stimulates the mind, adds suspense, creates many 'what-if' scenarios - this is for you.

RECOMMENDATION: Highly recommend watching if you are looking for a well-written intellectual semi-futuristic (near future) film that will hold your attention - THIS IS THE HIDDEN GEM OF THE YEAR!!!

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.

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.

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.