Le triomphe des innocents

This movie was a good one. I loved the plot line. The movie is about a father that works in law enforcement and his son is helping him track a serial killer of kids. The boy in this movie is portrayed as very intelligent. I found this movie to be very entertaining and thrilling. I give it a high rating. I remember when it was on cable years ago my young nephews loved the boy in this movie because he rode a dirt bike. The boy and his father were very close. This is a father and son action thriller. I would recommend this movie to everyone. There are some very thrilling moments. I rate this movie a 7 because it will have you using your mind to find out the killer. If you get the chance rent or buy this movie it was a very good one!

there is not a single thing about this movie that is believable. More plot holes than you can count. Scott Glenn is somewhat miscast as an FBI agent. Plus, the do-good mentality of the movie is somewhat a put-off. Finally, the female character, Lamar, is very odd. She does not dress like any federal agent has ever dressed, except perhaps at Holloween. Some weird clown-tie and overcoat getup. Whose idea was that? Beyond stupid. This was filmed in 1994. computers of that day could barely turn on, much less do what this movie shows. It is interesting to compare this to Crimminal Minds. Still, it is a one of a kind movie, and so should be seen just for that.

This film is so bad that it has to be seen to be believed. Basically it involves an incredibly annoying child who somehow tracks down a crazy serial killer before the FBI's finest, including his father, have gotten anywhere with the case. As you can see, realism has no place in this film. There are so many ridiculous things in this film, I don't know where to start. Why must all lunatic serial killers in bad movies recite passages from the Bible to appear mad? The ending to this piece of trash is a classic piece of movie stupidity. At least by watching this rubbish I will see all other bad films (including "Cool as Ice") in a new light as none are even remotely as bad as this piece of crap. Now I don't want to waste my time on this movie ever again.

This slightly violent thriller revolves around a serial killer who has now kidnapped a little girl. On his trail are the FBI and the twelve-year-old son of the agent leading the investigation. Although the acting is not too bad with the man playing the killer giving a very creepy performance, Scott Glen came off as being too cocky at times. On the whole, the film is quite enjoyable and stylish if you ignore the person making the most headway in the case is a twelve-year-old child!

The film's main downfall certainly has to be this kid, Jesse, who is far too perfect and intelligent to be credible (although he does make a pleasant change from the snotty, rude brats that often pop up in films these days). Also, he brings about plot holes such, as how can a boy of twelve be allowed to buy himself a plane ticket to traverse the continent, what kind of man takes his young son to a murder scene, why does the FBI give a kid access to their mainframe and why on earth is a grown man intimidated by this boy?

I think if you ignore the fact that there are many non-too-credible moments in the film, it does have the capacity to chill you. Certainly, the guy playing the killer is rather frightening. If not, you'll get a good laugh out of seeing the kid playing 'bad cop' as he tries to question a suspect, using fancy computers that are barely available now let alone in 1992/3 (his personal computer resembles something more suited to 'Star Trek') and solving the case while the grown FBI agents flounder around like incompetents.

I think Scott Glenn could have easily handled this serial killer movie by himself, and "Slaughter of the Innocents" would have been better off for it. The nepotism casting of James Glickenhausus's own son, into a script that didn't need him, is the main problem with this seriously flawed film. Everything involving the kid is totally unbelievable and an insult to the audience's intelligence. At times I don't mind suspending realism for sake of a story, but here it's ridiculous. A kid flies to Salt Lake City on his own, intimidates an adult zoo employee into revealing incriminating information, and manages to use his computer to locate the killer's hideout. There is never any clue how this boy wonder travels all over Utah, other than stealing a mountain bike. Sure the flying ark at the end is kind of intriguing, but getting there is a real brain drain of logic. - MERK