'Mad Genius' did intrigue me. Despite it being very lowly rated, from personal experience quite a lot of film rated under 4 are rated low for very good reason, and with a lot of the reviews being tepid at best (quite a lot of them negative, with some passionate, overly so perhaps, defending),the advertising looked cool and the concept was quite intriguing.

Seeing 'Mad Genius', while not finding it a particularly good film it to me wasn't that bad. Have seen far worse recently, quite a lot of them higher rated, and far worse overall. Although the execution was severely patchy and quite a few elements are easily criticised, it didn't strike me as if those involved weren't trying, if anything there was somewhat of a biting off more than they could chew feel to me. Actually understood what they were trying to do and respect their efforts even if it was not my cup of tea, will not join the fake reviews conspiracy theory, something that has been polluting the internet to an out of proportion degree for some time now and although there is suspicious activity admittedly for quite a number of times it is getting really annoying.

Visually, was expecting 'Mad Genius' to be much worse than it was. Low-budget films with a higher budget than the one for 'Mad Genius' actually manage to be comparatively quite a bit cheaper. While finesse is not a strong suit and the effects are very hasty-looking, there was effort made here. It is slickly shot with some very striking angles that progress rather than distract and the sets and lighting are atmospheric, a world that is easily immersive.

Really did like some of the ideas conceptually and there were some neat video reactions and real-time social media comment touches sprinkled throughout. The acting is hit and miss, but Faran Tahir chews the scenery enjoyably and Scott Mechlowicz is likeable enough.

Chris Mason's performance is uneven, sometimes in command and amiable and at other times bland and unsure. Spencer Locke looks wide-eyed and frightened the entire time, pretty much the only notable expression in a role with practically nothing to it. The characters were very flimsy in development and the more interesting and better performed ones are on screen too little. A couple of elements are uneven, the fast cuts in some of the camera work could have been used less (the overuse became gimmicky) and the music while quite nice and groovy on its own intrudes a little too much and didn't always fit within the film.

Would have liked more clarity and tightness in the script, some of it felt rambling and muddled. The story had some great ideas but too many are not followed all the way through, they are not exactly new but intrigued but the film executed them too predictably and ordinarily for my tastes. Character motivations generally could have been much clearer, had the constant feeling of why is he or she doing this and what do they want, and the middle act is on the sluggish side.

Overall, a nice try but didn't do much for me on the whole. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Mason (Chris Mason) also know as Mr. Vix is fixated on saving the world. He wants to map his brain so he can be able to control mankind's destructive behavior...like plastic bottles. He hangs out at a hacker's/inventor's drug den. He has also created a person named "Phin" (Scott Mechlowicz) from his own mind, someone only he can see. Phin advises Mason for better and worse. He is up against a man named "Eden" (Faran Tahir ) who believe the planet would be better without people. And there is a girl (Spencer Locke) in the middle of all of this.

This is a film I that looks deeper than what it was. I am not sure what junk science it used to explain what happened. it didn't bore us with the labor pains, we just saw the baby without knowing how it got there. A film for the younger, hip, turned in crowd.

Guide: F-word, sex, and no she wasn't topless she was wearing a top that made her look topless.

Let's start with the visuals, though I won't stop there. For a low budget movie this looks amazing. The special effects are really good. But it's not just "shiny" without substance. It does have a story it wants to tell and there is quite a bit to discover. I saw it at Frightfest and it was one of the highlights of the low budget movies that played there for me. Of course there were other voices and it's always a thing of taste and what bar you want to set for a movie.

Does it have flaws? Could you criticize characters or some of the acting and the script/dialog? Yes, there is always room to critique something, even something many consider classics. I wouldn't go as far as calling this a classic (that's 9 or 10 for me),but for what it's worth and for the fact you can re-watch it and discover new things alone, this deserves the 8 fully. There are hidden messages and there obvious ones, that you will see through by just watching. And while not all questions will get an answer (not even from the director who was at Frightfest),it is for you to decide and decipher what you make of it. Stellar performances and a solid pace, make this a tense affair