User Reviews (45)

Add a Review

  • "The past can define our future. But I won't let it."

    The opening scene of this sci-fi horror was promising. Even better, it was a snapshot that instantly caught my attention. A sublime and fascinating scene after which I snuggled in my cozy chair in anticipation for something magnificent. I was immediately convinced that this was going to be a hell of a movie. What did you expect? With a score like that on IMDb, this couldn't go wrong. The frozen image of a puzzled looking girl smeared with blood, seamlessly merged with a TV-show where we get the melancholic picture of a generation with no future. The education system needs to be changed so a new generation of intelligent young kids is being produced instead of a generation of obese and hopeless youngsters . The images looked futuristic with a suitable graphic design. And then the flashy google glass lookalike is introduced. A gadget we'll be watching through the rest of the film.

    Just recently I've seen "Jeruzalem" where they used the same kind of glasses. A disappointing film though. The only feat I was excited about was that high-tech device. Unfortunately this facet of "Let's be evil" became a rather annoying element to me. Even worse. I got so sick of it that I wanted to give up already halfway the movie. The rickety soundtrack was perhaps an omen. Admit it. If you want to create a futuristic movie, you shouldn't be using those stale Jean Michelle-Jarre polyphonic sounds. It felt as if I was watching a third-rate SF from the 80s. Unfortunately these weren't the only disturbing elements. When the end credits rolled over the screen I made my final conclusion. This was probably the worst thing I've seen this year.

    First, the overall picture you get to see almost the whole movie. The fact that it all happens in a virtual environment (the three selected candidates can only see by making use of the spectacles) was at first an exciting and interesting display. It all looked great and well-known (especially for those who sometimes sit behind a screen to have fun with some PC games), but it has one major drawback. After half an hour of hazy and swirling images, you gradually start to hate it. Biggest advantage is that a not so talented cameraman with virtually no experience gets away with it when some blurry and out of focus fragments appear in between. Combine this with a dark underground bunker where the lighting consists of pulsating lights in all sorts of colors and your irritation level is reached very quickly. It looked as if the whole story was set in a concrete submarine.

    And then you have the actors who were recruited based on some unknown requirements and who are participating in the Posterity Project. Judging from the conversations they have, the requirements concerning the level of intelligence needed for this job wasn't very high. Their ultimate function is to observe the group of teenagers that are also present in this underground facility (spending their days waving their hands in the air). And when necessary they accompany a lost teenager back to the group. Not exactly intriguing and exciting. The fact that the group of children organize a sort of artificial uprising afterwards in which they manipulate the electronic system in an incomprehensible way, was the start of a confusing outcome and a ridiculous denouement.

    Finally, the part that frustrated me the most. I had no idea what the theme of this movie was about. And in the end, I still didn't know it. Perhaps it's me getting older and a mild version of dementia sneaked in my system, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it. What was the opening sequence about and how did this correlate with the rest of the movie? And the end didn't clarify anything either. In a subtle way they tried to demonstrate the dangers of technologies and the way it's intertwined in our everyday lives. Kind of obvious. But eventually I still had a few questions about the film. Occasionally I like to watch a sophisticated film with a not so simple story line. But this was a level too high for me apparently. I suggest however that the creators of the IMDb website check their algorithms, because the score given to "Let's be Evil" is totally irrational. Or was there an artificial intervention by the makers of this movie? Well, that's a spooky thought!

    More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT
  • Seen this movie on Netflix it looked interesting. I came here to IMDb to find out a bit more info on it and noticed it's high rating and stupidly gave it a go.

    DO NOT BE FOOLED LIKE ME!!!!!! A lot of inflated ratings of 10 but this movie is rubbish. Basically the entire movie 3 idiots walk up and down a corridor with weird flashing lights and trying to act scared. I had no care if they lived or died in fact I wanted them all to die so this movie could finally end. Not really anything I can say that is actually good about the movie it had me somewhat amused for a while it's not scary and it is not even in the least bit thrilling or suspenseful.

    I can't believe I wasted my time watching this movie. I hope in writing this you will save yourself precious time and watch something worthwhile
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The artificially high star rating here can only be from family or friends of people who worked on this movie. Unfortunately, this film is as shoddy as the other written reviews here attest.

    The acting comes off flat (even when they're pretending to be frightened), but I'm not going to blame the actors for this-- that has to be the writers and director. The actors are given limited and cliché lines in the first place and then the shots are cut with unnaturally long pauses in between each actor's delivery, so that nothing flows.

    The overall 'cinematography' and disjointed story flow reminded me of one thing, but that one thing *exactly*: watching someone play a standard online PC game in POV. Right down to watching our character's POV as she hears someone scream, at length, in the next room over, and hmm-- Where is our character looking while this is happening? Top right corner of her room. Then top left corner. Then oh, look at the wardrobe for a while. Then at the wall. Back to the top right corner. Random, unnatural head swivels; just calmly gazing around in odd directions, bored and biding time until she feels like moving to the next step of this video game (though the voice-over is trying to convey panicked breath and confusedly calling out for the person who is screaming). Timing doesn't matter in this movie. Does she need to rush into the other room to see what's wrong? Nope, no rush! She can just wander around the rest of the facility wherever she wants (maybe smash a few pots Link-style), chat with another character, and when she eventually gets to the room-of-screams, that character will act like there was no delay on her part.

    At literally no point did this movie create tension for me. Like another reviewer said, the thin plot was dragged along so long I was HOPING for our protagonists to die so the movie could end. There are a few standard jump scares, which the movie broadcasts for you a good 20 seconds in advance so by the time you get there you're immune to any startle, and are just tapping your foot impatiently wondering when they'll get on with it.

    SPOILER: I couldn't help but laugh out loud when the man was lying on the ground, screaming as if in pain, when we could visibly see that the children were doing nothing but lightly patting him with their hands. It was like watching a man pretend to be killed by a pile of curious puppies who were barely touching him. /SPOILER

    Zero character development or emotional connection between audience and character. There's just nothing 'there', below the surface, of any character in the movie. They're nothing but moving mouths and hands for the words and actions they're given, and those words are *very* limited and uninspired, and the actions are *very* basic and often unnatural. There's just nothing and no one to connect to in this movie.

    I'll give them that the ending wasn't *totally* predictable, but it also isn't as neat as I think it thinks it is. I can certainly imagine a few scenarios that make sense of it, but it's left unexplained within the movie.

    There is too much wrong with every scene to give a blow-by-blow. Just... don't waste your time. At least, not based on the artificially high star rating on this site. Read the reviews first.

    PS: One personal gripe. There's a frustrating old toad of a scene in here (minor spoiler ahead) that is such an overdone cliché and seems to suggest that people who live in movie universes consider normal what most of us would consider brain damage. That is, when our protagonist tries to tell her coworker that she's seen specific, disturbing things (including a written message on a bathroom door), her coworker *immediately* jumps to the "Oh, you're in a new environment; it's perfectly normal for you to be having incredibly specific audio-visual hallucinations" write-off. ...WHAT? In what universe do dialogue writers live, that they think humans dismiss each other like this? These characters, in-universe, are wearing glasses that create visual projections, but the character doesn't even jump to *that* as an explanation (suggesting some kind of glitch, etc). She just goes straight to the old "You just have nerves, being in a new place and all" chestnut, as if that would ever be a plausible reason for someone to visually hallucinate a message on a bathroom door. If you think your coworker is hallucinating messages on bathroom doors, that's not a moment to celebrate that that's *all* it is-- that's a moment to help her seek medical help! But writers keep using this as if it's a reasonable human interaction, which it isn't, and it's aggravating.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know how this gets an 8.5. I looked a few weeks ago and it was 4 out of ten. It's terrible! Very low budget, awful cast and writing. The direction, well, it's poor at best. I'd urge everyone to watch this for as long as you can take it, then vote HONESTLY what you think about it. The vast majority of votes gave it a 10 out of 10. I just don't get it! There are far superior 'horror' movies out there's that struggle to get over 5/10 so I'm flabbergasted. This is literally one of the poorest attempts at horror or even psychological thriller out there. Not sure if this is a spoiler or not, but this movie sure spoiled my afternoon and robbed me of a couple of hours I won't get back!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Who, what, when, where, these are basic questions that a film must answer in order to make any kind of coherent sense. This film fails to provide adequate details, and no amount of beautiful lighting technique can fix that problem. The dialogue is terrible, the sort of dialogue a high school drama class might write during a class-room acting exercise.

    Three young-adults accept a job to supervise gifted children in an underground facility. The young-adults do not ask any questions about the assignment, as they need money, and all willingly accept a non-disclosure agreement. Upon entering the facility they use augmented reality glasses to see, as the facility has no lighting (with the exception of a predictably limited number of defective emergency flashlights). They are also provided with a virtual artificially-intelligent guide (that later we learn was constructed and controlled by the gifted children).

    For a brief portion of time it appears that one of the young-adults is having hallucinations but we soon discover that the vision their glasses provides is being interfered with by the gifted children. The gifted children attempt to frighten the young-adults and the young-adults attempt to escape the facility with one child whom they believe is not aggressive like the others.

    Eventually it is revealed (predictably) that the child they are trying to escape with is leading the others and has augmented reality contact lenses (the most unexciting twist I have ever seen). Two of the young-adults appear to be killed by the children. The remaining one seems to begin the movie at the start again, perhaps suggesting that the young adults were either VR AI or prisoners being mentally manipulated.

    Questions! Why are they children in the underground bunker? Corporate experiment, government experiment, this is just how the future of childhood will be, none of these answers are provided....Why does one of the young-adults return to the beginning of the movie? Was she an AI the children created as part of their augmented reality, was she a human prisoner being continually brainwashed to repeat the game..... What is the point of the children's play-time? Is this part of their training, is this part of their recreation, why choose that particular game instead of say tennis.... What time period is this set in? It's not the past, but that is about all we can assume.....Where is this set? In space, on earth, on mars, there are very few visual or verbal clues. We know that they are in a bunker, but if the adult characters are all VR then the location could be anywhere..... Where are all the adults (and do they know what is happening to their kids)? Do they receive false communications from their children, do they approve of their children's education, have they been forced to give-up their children to the boarding-school system, do the children even have parents or were they grown in a lab.

    Assuming that an audience will be able to infer the authors intentions without a sufficient amount of semiotic evidence, causes the audience confusion and frustration.
  • redbearsfu18 December 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know what the opening scene had to do with the movie, I watched the movie three times. I kept hoping that I had missed something. No, it was just a movie that had promise, but they didn't go anywhere with it. I liked how you could only see what was going on around you with the glasses on. It had like 1980's and 1990's computers, telephones and furniture. In one scene Jenny and Tiggs are in the dinning room, they are brewing some coffee, it was a coffee machine, but it had no coffee grounds or filter and the pot had a solid lid but there was the sound of brewing coffee. The movie seemed to go no where, the only clue that something was going on was the one little girl, Cassandra wasn't following the rules. None of the other children showed any sign that they were evil. I wouldn't have even known that they had played a trick on her if Cassandra hadn't said "Miss Jenny that it wasn't very nice the trick they played on you". A Locked door and black smoke? Scary! Not! I watch a lot of scary movies and this wasn't one at all. So many stupid things, she tells Cassandra "whatever you do don't let go of my hands". Then she leaves her alone in the dark on the stairs to look for Tiggs. When they go to look for Darby, I guess they were looking for him, I am not sure, they just showed up at his room. They were supposed to be scared but never ran. They open his door he is tied up and bleeding, do they rush over to check or help him? No they just stand there. When they help him up, he is only taped to the floor sitting on a chair. All he would have had to do was stand up. LOL stupid. Then there is this guy in the tunnel that is blocking the way out, a guy we have never seen or heard of. He catches on fire and I guess is blocking the way, why not put the fire out and leave? But no they go down deeper and then Darby gets touched by the kids. Really, they are just touching him, not holding him down, then the bag. No fighting, he could have fought off those kids. Anyway the end, "it's all about you Jenny, it's always been about you". Huh? What is all about Jenny?? Stupid, and I was stupid to try and find out what was so good about this movie. The score fooled me...
  • IMDb must find a way to quell these deliberately manipulated movie ratings. Find out how the rating system is being exploited and put an end to it before users lose all confidence in it. Those who cheat the system should know there's backlash, for every false 10...their film will receive numerous 1's, and neither fairly assesses the movie being reviewed.

    Is this an 8 star or higher film? In my eyes, no. A few may believe so, but I believe the vast majority of honest opinions would place it between 4-6. The premise is intriguing and executed moderately. The acting is mediocre. Mostly though, we aren't observing performances, but observing scenes and listening to the accompanying dialogue instead. Thus the editing, CGI and set are of primary importance and I believe the filmmakers did a decent job of it, earning a solid B-.

    It's primarily seen through the eyes of our protagonist. She's one of three young adults (in financial straights) who accepts a mysterious assignment to supervise a group of highly gifted children in a top secret advanced learning program. She enters an underground facility which is completely pitch and is given a set of glasses which operates much like Google Glass, only then is she able to see her surroundings and receive any information. This alone kept me questioning what was truly real throughout the film since technology of this nature can control ones perception of reality. It can be programmed and designed to manipulate a person so I was never certain who or what was really happening. The feeling was much like watching films like Black Swan, Vanilla Sky or Inception in that it is somewhat disorientating and one cannot be certain about what's experienced. To be clear, this film is absolutely nothing like the 3 films I've mentioned and it cannot compare; the air of disorientation and uncertainty is all that is in common. At its' core, this is the best thing about the film.

    Our protagonist soon realizes that the children are far from average. They are mentally and intellectually far more advanced than most adults who may be considered genius and these prodigy's only pause from their studies to eat a highly regulated diet and sleep a precise amount of time. She alone feels pity for them, voicing it by saying that children should be allowed time to be children, to have recess and play. Her opinion proves to be a critical point to the plot.

    I think that more tantalizing visuals and dialogue would have done absolute wonders for the production value of this film. The set was too claustrophobic and lacked ambiance. It reminded me a bit of the lower levels seen on the set of Ex Machina, except a bit more like (as one reviewer stated) "a concrete submarine" meets inner city raver nightclub. Some imagination, space, and attention to detail would have gone a long way since the set was such a critical part of the production. There's no background on the female protagonist nor her co-protagonists which leaves the audience with no concern about their plight. They are nondescript and we learn nothing about them, it didn't even benefit the story to have the co's present. A backstory and some amount of character development was critically missing.

    There were some tense moments, more of them would have made the film somewhat thrilling but the run time is fairly short and there's not much in the way of building suspense. One freak-out occurrence and our protagonist is already exiting the facility. She's compelled to stay however, then there's only the second occurrence which is our climax. Throughout the climax you are on a POV trip through darkness and confusion. Terror is intended, but it's mild since it's not conveyed as well as it could have been. I loved the ending. It was a bit confusing but if you're paying close enough attention and processing it then I think you'll appreciate it to. Is it brilliant? No, but it's satisfactory.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Let's Be Evil" is one of those movies with suspicious IMDb User Rating: 6.1 for this crap, with 2400 Rating 10? The "Tomatometer" indicates 22%, a fair rating for this garbage.

    The storyline is awful and senseless and the plot is a complete mess. There is no development of the characters, the location, the period of time, nothing is worthwhile in this terrible flick. There are basically three teenagers wearing glasses in a augmented reality and one little girl walking around in a walkways and in a corridors with flashy colored lights.

    Don't be lured by this false Rating and don't waste your time watching this thing. My vote is two.

    Title (Brazil): Not Available
  • SnoopyStyle13 February 2017
    Jenny (Elizabeth Morris) is struggling with money and caring for her bedridden mother. She gets hired along with Tiggs (Kara Tointon) and Darby (Elliot James Langridge) as chaperons in an underground facility. She is surprised to learn the subjects are little children being trained in a learning program with augmented reality. Everybody has to wear special glasses to see. There is the AI named Arial (Jamie Bernadette) to assist the newcomers. There are no other adults around. The kids communicate through the virtual reality and remains silent except for Cassandra (Isabelle Allen) who befriends Jenny.

    The movie is mostly filmed in the first person POV through those augmented reality glasses. As long as there are two or more people in the scene, it can switch back and forth almost like a regular movie. It's not until Jenny is alone that the movie is forced to be a solo camera affair. The camera restrictions and the glasses on everybody do distant the audience from the acting. I don't think the acting is bad but it is constrained. On the other hand, there is an opening rant that screams cheesy B-movie. The over-the-top acting there needs to be cut.

    One of the problem is that these are kids with no real superpowers. Nobody picks up a weapon, or even a stick. It's obvious the augmented reality could be compromised by the kids from the beginning. This is literally a horror that could be solved by a simple flashlight. It would be more compelling to have the augmented reality forced on them like an injected microchip. I kept thinking they should take off those glasses and light up the situation through another means. There is also a twist that is obvious from the start. It's completely expected and I simply waited for it to happen. The only positive is that the augmented reality looks fine especially if you compare it to the spartan bunker setting.
  • It bills its self as something of a augmented reality horror movie, getting to to mess with peoples minds.

    I'm not sure if the makers of the movie know what augmented reality really is, as its "use" in the movie is more of VR.

    The acting is decent but the story line is stretched thin to hit 1:22 running time, at least the version I saw. There's really not much there, only 4 actors on screen have lines, 3 of which you learn no back story and there for have little emotional connection to.

    It attempts to be a psychosis horror but anyone who has a few minutes of film training can easily see its a low budget set, in an abandoned building hidden by low light and lots of subtle color.
  • sgcim16 December 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    Somehow the makers of this film managed to get seventy six point three per cent of the voters to give this piece of crap a rating of ten. The Internet Movie Data Base's rating system must be deeply flawed for a movie like this to get anything higher than a two. It started off like it might be a decent flick, but after fifteen minutes you realized it had terrible acting, plot, dialogue, music, direction and writing, and you thank God that you had something better to do with your time than follow a camera flying down corridors, air shafts and whatever else, than watch this poorly made and conceived movie. Until I got Netflix, I didn't realize that the UK could make even worse movies than they make in the US.
  • This film has the best trailer I've seen in years, a good combination of lights, colors and funky music. Then as a British Horror enthusiast I was thrilled to see it was a British movie.

    The praise stops there.

    Three actors a mixture of talent, two good females one awful male actor, a warren of tunnels that are probably the same and the worst American accents ever. Everything was American, it was like it was pretending not to be a British movie, but it was.

    The story is very "damned" similar, but that's also where that ends.

    Unfortunately the story was just too awful, 45 minutes in I just couldn't go on, it was truly unbearable, boring and utterly tiresome. You could have slept through portions and not missed a thing.

    So sad it was so bad, it could have been so good.
  • Alanrad17 February 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie started out promising until the cast put on the VR glasses and it went down hill quickly from there. The next hour made no sense at all. What was the plot? I don't know. How did it end - both my wife and I groaned when the titles came up at the end. We looked at each other and were really angry that we had watched this poor effort of a movie for nothing. This movie cannot be spoiled by anyone, because they could not tell you the ending if they wanted to. I even searched the web for some understanding because I did not think it could be that bad - and that I had missed something. But unfortunately not. Poorly written, poorly and cheaply produced and a soundtrack that made us want to leave. I am angry to have allowed myself to be taken in by the star rating - but it seems like most of the other reviewers were too. Don't waste you time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A good idea gone wrong is in sum, the best way to describe this movie. Although the idea was filled with potential, the execution and also some of the parts of the idea itself were poorly thought out. From the very beginning, any viewer accustomed to this genre of film, knows exactly what's going on and how it all is gonna end. It definitely doesn't help that both the movie poster and the title already practically tells you everything you need to know.

    Then you got the cast. Newbies, but actually reasonable and sometimes good in their roles. Although we never actually feel attached to any of them. Because the movie doesn't allow you to.

    Then there's the obvious enemy. So predictable and so unbelievable, you can't accept what you're seeing. I mean, we're talking about adult people with the IQ's of a potato that let themselves be dominated and killed by children. Unarmed, defenseless children, which only weapon is that they can mess with what the characters perceive, because of the obvious tool being used to manipulate them.

    And yet none of them has the common sense to stop for a minute and think "Wait! It's the glasses. They're manipulating me and misleading me through the glasses. I'll make a torch with the materials available to me, take this glasses off and teach this kids a much needed lesson."

    If they were dealing with teenagers, I'd be more inclined to believe what I was seeing. But a bunch of kids that can easily take down a grown man, and he simply lets himself be killed... There's only so much one can see and accept.

    You can see this movie, but it will left you with the sense of wasted time. There's those movies you can simply miss and never see them, and you will not actually lose anything. This is that kind of movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The film started rather slowly but did have some promise. The acting was acceptable and special effects were adequate.

    However, by midpoint it became obvious this movie was "deteriorating" fast. The movie's ending leaves you scratching your head in total bewilderment and thinking "why the hell did I watch this film"? I thank the makers of my media player for the inclusion of a fast forward button.

    Also,the premise that a group of seven year old children being a physical threat (with no weapons) to three fully grown adults puts this film in the category of fantasy rather than science fiction.

    Do yourself a favor and avoid this film at all costs. Some rating on IMDb are skewed and this movie is a perfect example.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I thought this would have a lot of promise, I really did. But the whole thing did not make any sense from the beginning. Not one bit of story was tied to anything at all.

    Spoiler alert: Who are the people at the beginning of the movie, was it her father and invalid mother? Why have it in there if absolutely nothing is referenced during the movie, except for one dream scene?

    I had so much trouble trying to tie things together (which I couldn't) I stopped and figured that if I had come this far, perhaps the puzzle was solved at the end of the movie......It wasn't at all. In fact, there were more questions at the end that it was infuriating.

    Spoiler alert: Who was the man that was burnt alive? They didn't even try to figure that out. What was Cassandra referencing when she said "it's always been about you, Jenny"? WTF?

    This could have made a great story but they didn't bother. Just a horrible movie...horrible.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Where to begin, this movie is utterly a piece of garbage in almost every way imaginable. The only redeeming quality is the soundtrack, which has an 80s vibe similar to Stranger Things and It Follows.

    The Plot was incredibly disjointed, repetitive, uninteresting and plain boring. The initial concept seemed interesting at first but took a steep downhill, which it did not recover from. It took a lot not to shut it off after the first 30 min. I persisted and now wish I hadn't.

    It is not often a movie can annoy me like this movie did, as I could feel myself get agitated more and more throughout. The Room and Birdemic are far better movies than this. The CGI was decent for the most part, but the AI annoyed me, her voice was so low in volume you could barely hear her, and I believe it was done on purpose, for a reason I can't fathom.

    This is literally the worst movie I have seen all 2016. Avoid like the plague!
  • rumpsavage25 March 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    THIS MOVIE is a defiled piece of trash garbage. I read a review saying that it was one of those "see it twice movies" and seeing it once has put me in the ICU. I think the writers wrote this movie at the age of 13 after their teacher, Ms. Dumb Dumb, made them read the hit novel 1984. It was as if Ms. Dumb Dumb had asked the class to write a movie, and she picked the groups. Two kids got paired up and didn't know each other so they didn't work on it until they realized that it was due the next day so they had to ask their mom and dad to drive them to Staples so they could get some poster board and glitter in order to finish the project. They got an F. This movie is an F. I hope whoever thought this movie was a good idea to make realizes they wasted a lot of time and money on a lazy, uninspired piece of film poo poo.

    1/10 -Michael Douglas
  • Warning: Spoilers
    'Stupid' sums it up. I won't even waste time trying to explain why. It simply is. It was one of those films that I keep watching just in the hope that it will improve. In this instance, it didn't. I'd sooner re-watch Mill of the Stone Women or the 4-D Man.

    Eighty-two wasted minutes of my life I'll never get back. Really struggling to find anything good to say about it. Who sets up a research facility like that? (Don't want to include spoilers here.) This was supposed to be built around augmented reality. Can't say I thought they'd done even a poor job of it.

    Stay away. Just stay away.
  • gavin694211 January 2017
    Three chaperones are hired to supervise an advanced learning program for gifted children, who wear Augmented Reality Glasses to assist in their education. Contained within a secure, underground facility, events quickly spiral out of control.

    The film has received mixed or negative reviews, and I can absolutely see why. Even though the virtual reality parts look okay, the general appearance of the film is cheap. And much of the acting is awful (especially the really bad talking head in the opening). The concept is timely (something we might see on "Black Mirror"), but the film may be limited by its own budget.

    Worth a look? Sure. But not nearly as good as the sort of new releases we have come to expect from IFC Midnight. (Then again, you can't have a winner every time, can you?)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm so perplexed as to how this movie has a rating of 7/10 on IMDb. I have seen better movies with lower ratings.

    The movie starts out fairly promising. Jenny gets accepted to the Prosperity Project which is a mystery to her and the viewers. We later find out that Jenny along with Tiggs and Darby are chaperons to kids who are basically geniuses and use VR technology to further advance their knowledge. I guess the kids get bored and decide to take over the facility's programming. And one small note, you can only see all of this thru the VR glasses. Once you take them off, you only see darkness.

    One of my main issues with this movie is that it is based on the premises of advanced technology, however, the desktop computers are really really outdated. Then, you quickly realize that the Google Glass lookalikes are the the most advanced equipment in this entire film. The setting looks like an old abandoned warehouse where they added colored florescent lights (which actually gives it more of a throwback feel) and threw in some decent CGI to give it a futuristic vibe.

    All of this I could get past, but there is no attempt to develop the 3 main characters other than they are broke and need the cash. Then there's the kids. They are confined to this building which feels more like a prison, but you don't really understand why they decide to be little asses and mess with the adults. I must admit that I have 13mins of this film remaining so I don't quite know the ending yet, but I can say that if you're bored on a rainy Saturday, it's not the worst movie to watch, but if you have other options, don't even putting this on your list of things to do.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let's Be Evil contains very good ideas but bad developed. The main feature of the movie is that is shot in first person perspective, through the special glasses that the company give to everyone. Another thing that I really enjoyed are the visual effects and the lightning. Being a fan of the cyberpunk culture this is the only thing that I really liked.

    There's not much to say about the story: a group of people that has financial problem accept a job offer from a mysterious company to look after a bunch of high skilled kids that have been chosen for a new fast learning program. All the structure is managed by an artificial intelligence named Arial. At a certain point, you don't even why, kids are turning against the structure, take control of the whole program. The next half of the movie is based on wrong choices by the three tutors, that make everything possible to get themselves killed. The ending then, it's completely no sense: maybe the director wanted to do some kind of social complaint saying that technology make us live in some kind of loop from which we can't escape, but it's not really clear.

    The casting choice wasn't really wise. The three main actors are not really good, especially Jenny, the main character, is pretty annoying if you ask me. Darby and Tiggs are completely anonymous: when they have to convey fear or some kind of emotions, they made me laugh instead. Kids are not really scary and apart from a few jumpscares, which I personally hate, there is nothing else.

    This movie could have been nice: I really liked the idea to shot it for the whole time with the alternate first person persective of the three tutors, but that's it. I don't even know which genre is it, because for sure this is not an horror movie.
  • I am fairly easily pleased when it comes to movies, but this one became frustrating to watch with in the first 10 minutes.

    What is wrong with it? The story. Everything else about the film was OK like the acting etc. but the story was just plain stupid.

    When it started it was OK and logical, but it soon descended into a very poor storyline that seemed was financed because it could be made cheaply, regardless of content.

    Really you would be better off watching the commercials.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    They leave out any reasonable explanation...

    When they got the flash light, why not remove the damn glasses?

    info-16142. could you explain what was so good about the ending? I just didn't get it....

    Please someone can try and explain whats all about Jenny means? And how Cassandra knows about jenny's favorite stuff?

    I think it was very stupid idea that all of the facility was in the candidates control since the beginning but they chose to stay inside and not go out and play "lets be evil" outside...

    the only explanation i see is that the 3 heroes are really NPCs - not real characters that the children designed and programmed to mess with...

    but its not explaining the sentence with hunting and stuff, so why hunt people with childhood trauma?

    any thoughts about the end would be appreciated...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Like most reviwers, I was thoroughly confused by the end of the film and decided to watch it again. I still found it entertaining, and kept looking for clues and symbolism and have come up with a hypothesis.

    First answering some of their questions. In the break room scene before lockdown, they are heating coffee up not making it. Darby could not just stand up because he had no leverage; he kicks the chair away and stands after they remove the duct tape. He was also unconscious from his head wound till they found him. Going by the information on the screen windows, all of these children are "wards of the state," in short orphans. Some have deceased parents or no parents at all. Jenny's virtual apartment is in Los Angeles, so it's reasonable to assume the bunker is there too (also going by the pop-ups). Or at the very least it's in the United States. They could not leave past the burning man (who is actually the guy checking the "elevator camera") because the door was still locked. Lastly, in Darby's death scene, the children are holding him down not hitting him. It still looks like they aren't using any force at all, but it's at least somewhat more plausible.

    On to my hypothesis. I think the major problem in the writing/directing is that everything is rushed. There is no distinct time marker between various days, but I suspect they spent a decent amount of time underground (probably a couple weeks to a month). They tried to squeeze too much into the movie and ended up with an inferior product. For example, I feel that Tiggs is a reference to Antigone, or at least her name alone ("worthy of one's parents"), and Darby of John Nelson Darby one of the fathers of dispensationalism (the idea that God tests us differently throughout each period).

    The opening scene makes more sense if you accept the following assumption, Jenny is an orphan sent to this place back in 1980/90 (then the surroundings make sense), after essentially leading a murderer (her mother) to her father. I expect the VR room is the real exit and one of the ways to win (She would never leave if she visited her mother). The hidden portion of the bunker gives Jenny the transport experience and leads to the elevator. I believe Darby isn't real at all, rather he is a manifestation of her father that she continuously leads to his "death." Tiggs is her mother, whom she stubbornly trusts until everything is taken away (and who supposedly dies in a cell somewhere).

    The main problem here is that she shakes Tigg's hand and hugs Nina, something outside the scope of visual hallucination. Whether these are just strong suggestions or actors remains to be seen. But I suspect that at least part of Tigg's scenes aren't real either as we see her throat slit on one side of the air vent, and her dragged away on the other. The other way to win would be to actually follow the rules and not touch or interact with the children (people who do so are removed). As for why they punished her, I think she was probably one of the first students back in the 80's. Having failed and with smarter minds and new technology, she was an easy target for ridicule. The psychic communication allowed them to read Jenny's mind and discover her secret, demonizing her further. They bullied her more and more until finally taking control of the facility, wherein they delight in torturing her. After all, if she was smart enough, she (an adult) would pass the test!

    The most frustrating thing about this movie is that no one checks visual irregularities with their hands or ever takes off their visors. With a longer run-time or tighter focus, this movie could've been a lot better.

    P.S. There's also the possibility that each time there is a new real "Darby" and that she is literally sentencing someone to die each cycle.
An error has occured. Please try again.