everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I am thinking of the 2016 "Arrival" as I watch this beautifully crafted story in which the military believes it is in charge of the "miraculous"--for the questioning mind of Michael, the laboratory-created being,is sensitive and creative. He processes both literature and experience, and asks questions. During his first venture into the world beyond the laboratory he is sensitive to expectations, and capable of wonder--seeing the toy train and being mesmerized by "the little puffs of smoke". The laboratory has produced something which is in fact a someone, a new person. And, as in "Arrival", the appearance of something not understood elicits two kind of response--the need to control it, and the need to understand it. I recognize that we are stuck with institutionalized fear in our military establishment--and by "we" I mean humans. Still crawling forward out of the primordial ooze. And now I'm going to finish watching the excellent movie which gave rise to this realization.

I respect Christopher Plummer, playing against his typical villainous character, and he is very convincing as a concerned scientist. The supporting cast is very good also. The plot alludes to "Frankenstein" numerous times and is obviously hinged on that classic tale. There is no excitement in this movie. It is so laid back, especially Arthur Hill, Plummers adversary, that you begin to drift off early and often. Cerebral sci-fi doesn't have to be this boring (see "Enemy Mine"), and while the acting is totally acceptable, everything lacks excitement, and just drifts along towards a conclusion that was only a minor surprise. Not recommended. - MERK

But I was quickly reassured. From the moment Christopher Plummer shows himself to be a genuinely irascible old man and not your typical 'hero', and David Morse as the android, in his elongated pants and wide-open baby-face, made their first appearances, I was held. With its' plot -- professor wants to keep his invention out of the hands of the military -- this is nothing new in the plot department but it is written with care, and the cast (including the wonderful Frances Steenhagen as Plummers' feisty wife) and a good director, David Greene, make the most of it. The ending is a stunner, both clever and touching. On my list as one of those films I was expecting nothing of and was delightfully surprised.

That Terminator-like metal skull with the pointy teeth and glowing red eye has absolutely nothing to do with this movie. That was obviously just some ad executive's attempt to play on the popularity of "Ahnold's" film successes. Ditto for the tag line "The future is not friendly." Instead, "Prototype" is a thoughtful, well played drama about two character's struggles to understand and deal with the world around them. Christopher Plummer is on solid ground as the scientist who wants his creation to have a chance at life, and David Morse is spectacularly understated as the android prototype of the title.What makes this so compelling is the same thing that makes all of the best science fiction or fantasy work: The principle players take the situation and their part in it as real, without engaging in histrionics. As Michael, Morse indulges in neither the overplayed "childlike wonder" nor the hyper-mechanical stiffness so often poured into similar roles by lesser actors. Michael is "other" without being weird.Well worth a look.