KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

TheBlueHairedLawyer I hate remakes. The only remake I've ever decided was better than the original was John Carpenter's Village of the Damned. With The Bad Seed, I first read the play in the seventh grade and downloaded the film soon afterwards, and was shocked by Patty McCormack's haunting performance as Rhoda Penmark, an eight-year-old child who is a perfect angel but has a secret urge to kill within her mind. It was filmed in 1956 and was in black and white.With this more modern version, Rhoda's name has been changed to Racheal and the acting was terrible. The soundtrack was boring, and Racheal was just a spoiled crybaby and wasn't very convincing at all.I know it's not always fair to compare and contrast with movies and their remakes, but I think if the acting had been better this could have been very successful. Unfortunately it'll just never beat the original, which might not be a bad thing because I love the original all on its own.

deewitt The reviews of this new version of "The Bad Seed" were so terrible that I watched the DVD to see what went wrong. I saw the original film when it was released in 1956 and found it lacking--not in its story but in its acting and direction. Based on a hit Broadway show, which was inspired by a book, its origins were plainly visible. There was no attempt to adapt the play to the screen and give it movement and cinematic fluidity, and the cast, an ensemble of well-known and award- winning actors borrowed from the stage show, was still playing to the second balcony. The performances were so loud and over-the-top that they often made me wince. Even worse, the chilling finale of the play was altered due to the censorship of the times.This new version puts the play's ending back into the script, which is a vast improvement. A few changes have been made to the script but nothing that harms the basic story of an outwardly sweet but amoral little 8-year-old girl with no conscience--a "bad seed"--who murders to get what she wants. Contrary to other reviewers, I did not find this version to be that awful. Granted, it's not what it could have been and it does have a cheesy look to it, but the concept of the story still makes me shudder. I thought this new version would be more graphic, given the times we live in, but thankfully I was spared the grisly details. Unless you're a devoted fan of the original movie, I think you'll find this remake worth your time. It still has the power to shock.

noirprncess Why not leave a classic alone unless you can actually improve it? The little girl reminds me of a robot reciting her lines and lacks the believability of a "scary" murderous child. Additionally the changes in the script for updating purposes actually work AGAINST the story line not for it. For example, one of the charms of the original was the fact that any violence was left out of the view of the camera and to the viewers imagination. This version includes a visually graphic depiction of the little Miss Penmark's actions. Why bother to partially update the story instead of making a movie based on the original and using more "modern" and original ideas?

ratgirl I thought this was a good remake of 1956's "The Bad Seed." It wasn't as good as the original, though, but it was very entertaining.