Prototype

Dreadful and woefully bad acting all done on a budget of £5. I liked the little girls trainers and I had hoped that "one" was going to strangle Roger with his own tie and then beat the hell out of Michael.

Just to get it over and done with!

Well, sure the movie's synopsis sounded interesting enough, and it was essentially why I sat down to watch the 2022 sci-fi movie "Prototype" from writer Sam Gurney and director Jack Peter Mundy. Sure, I hadn't even heard about "Prototype" prior to watching it, and I am not particularly keen on sci-fi movies. But the synopsis made it sound interesting enough.

And what sounded good on script and paper should perhaps have stayed on paper, because the transition from script to the screen wasn't a good one. The whole movie was just oozing with amateurish atmosphere. And it sort of held the movie back in a very bad way.

The storyline was okay, but not great though. I will say that the movie can be watched, and perhaps even enjoyed if you are a sci-fi fan and can get past the amateurish feel that flows from every single aspect of the movie.

The special effects and designs of the androids was just laughably bad. It was so painstakingly obviously just an actor wearing a synthetic latex face over his own. And no effort had been made to make a smooth transition from the eye sockets of the latex mask to the actor's own eyes. Nor had they even bothered to try to fuse the mouth of the mask and actor together in a seemingly meld. It was just painful to watch, and it made the movie feel even more amateurish and low budget than necessary.

This movie was a swing and a miss, even for a sci-fi movie. And this is definitely not a movie that I would recommend you waste your time, money or effort on, not even if you are a sci-fi aficionado.

My rating of "Prototype" lands on a two out of ten stars.

Its another low budget sci-fi. You shouldnt compare that kind movies with known sci-fi movies but there is things not about budget. Masks, lipsyncs, dialogs are very bad. Lighting and cinematography not bad but why always close shots, is this daily soap opera ?. Dear cameraman and boom operator, next time check reflective surfaces twice.

I have no idea who made that mask but it's the worst i've ever seen.

You can clearly see a mans eyes and skin under it? Why did they even bother?

You can't take any of this movie serious with that going on, besides that the dialogue is so ridiculous.

I can't rate this any lower than 1 but I wish I could.

SOOO BAD!

Oh my, where to start?

The acting: It's inexistant. It is clear and obvious NONE of the people involved in front of the camera - as you can see I refrain from calling them 'actors' - do have ANY knowledge of how to act .... or any skill to start with.

The filming: Someone mentioned an iPhone 6 being used to film this movie and I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the case. It's so amateurish I would say I have seen better cat and food pictures on social media.

The effects: Yes, I wrote effects, because calling them 'special effects' would imply they are any special .... which they are not. Someone thought it's a great idea to stick a Laerdahl ressuscitation doll's face on a human and call that an android. Believe me, there's more android in a Samsung Galaxy than in this stinker.

The plot: Yes, there is one, which is already more than the rest. Is it any good? Difficult to say because it's difficult to make it out under the amateurish acting, filming, editing and effects.

So why two stars you might ask? Because the cover is well done and actually tricked me into starting to watch this garbage.