Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

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.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

I rather liked Who Can Kill a Child. It relies a great deal on mood, suspense and strong, strangely frightening images. It is not a typical horror film, having a Picnic at Hanging Rock-vibe to its eery, daylight desertion. For especially the images are what makes the film with the excellent photography of surreal horror. That being said the mood is really what drives the film as little quality in the field of writing or acting shines through for the most part. Especially the writing suffers. The dialogue just doesn't flow naturally possibly because the scriptwriters were Spanish. Especially the wife character is given some truly cringe worthy lines besides not having to do much so as to advance the story. The husband, the protagonist for by far the most part, often acts eerily illogically. This occasionally results in unintentionally humorous moments because of both the writers' and actors' shortcomings. However this is mostly during the first half were the couple's banter is in focus. The other, being much more action oriented works much better and the couple is much more appealing leading to some truly distressing scenes. Perhaps this occurs because there is a better translation of themes (as fear is a universal feeling, whereas it is difficult to characterize the ordinary, but specific). As such it is a film the qualities of which surpass the anachronisms and general writing and acting problems. It is a very imperfect great film.

This movie succeeds at what so many other genre movies attempted but failed at. The movie by all means is just like any other genre entry from the '70's but yet it manages to excel and rise above the normal level of standard that is customary within the genre.It's because the movie gets basically everything right. Or at least its most important genre aspects. What makes the movie foremost work out as an effective one are its children. Over the years lots of horror movies featured children in it, that were supposed to be the movie its most scary and threatening aspects. This however only successfully worked out in just a handful of movies, which is mainly due to the children not always being the greatest actors or just not looking very threatening at all. But the children in this movie are surely threatening ones! You can basically see this movie like a typical '70's zombie flick, with as a difference that the zombies are being replaced by normal looking children this time around.They are really like animals, hunting down and tricking their preys. It's not a very gory movie, like basically none of the Spanish genre movies from around that time really were, especially when compared to the Italian ones but it's being effective in more other horror ways. It often uses a great build up and sets some of the sequences up nicely, in which the children all really come across as dangerous, even though they are all little, cute looking ones.It must had made the movie really controversial at its time, especially since it shows the children doing things you have probably never seen before in any other sort of movie. It can be a quite brutal movie, especially with its opening and ending.The movie opens with real news footage of children who were killed during wars, such as in WW II concentration camps by the Nazi's. Seriously, this is stuff we didn't even get to see in "Nuit et brouillard" and its being quite graphic to look at because you know that what you are watching is all real. I don't think this opening was really necessary to be put in the movie and it seems mainly put in for its shock value. It sorts of set up for the motivation for the children to become cold blood killers in the movie but it's not really something that gets build on or explored further. The movie just doesn't do too much with its story and it actually is all pretty standard stuff when it comes down to its writing.It's also a movie with plenty of slow moments in it. It actually isn't until half way through the movie that things really start to take off, when they finally get to the island and have their fist unusual and dangerous encounter. It's still a movie that does a lot wrong and also had a low budget working against it but in the end none of this really matters, since "¿Quién puede matar a un niño?" is a movie that works out surprisingly well within its genre.By all means, this shouldn't had been a movie that worked out but yet it all did. I think that is the biggest compliment you can give this movie.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Well, this is one of the early efforts in "the evil child" genre, and I really had looked forward to watching this. Unfortunately, this film was neither extreme nor a masterpiece, and it often moved at snail's pace. By all means, it was watchable, but the feeling of being unnerved in any way, was sorely amiss. How sensitivity, constitution and tastes differ. The positive aspects with this "golden" oldie, is the acting, and a fairly decent atmosphere, aside from that, not much to write home about really. Now, on to the power of suggestion. In true masterpieces like the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, this works very well, that film has such a nasty, fiendish, corroding atmosphere, that showing the slaughter in gory detail, would surely have devalued the entire experience. I wish I could say the same in this case. But no, this film surely is in dire need of "show, not tell." Literally every murder has already happened, and when the opportunity is there to revel in some sadistic, child's play, like with the woman snatched away from the switchboard, it is not exploited at all, and the camera turns back to the two protagonists. Now, how boring is that? The only extreme aspect of the film is the opening, talk about promising but not delivering. By all means, watch it, but in no shape or form expect something extreme and groundbreaking. I would go for The Children (2008) or Children of the Corn instead. Both are far superior films.

While on vacation, a man and his pregnant wife visit an island that the former knows from his past. They arrive to find that the place is not how he remembered. In fact, it appears to be quite deserted aside from several children. It isn't too long before they come across an adult. Pity the kids get to him first, killing him and stringing his body up for use as a human piñata. You see, adults are no longer welcome on this island. At least not if they're still among the living.For my money, "Who Can Kill a Child?" is a masterpiece of the genre. It makes other killer kid films look like jokes in comparison. Originally seeing it via the "Island of the Damned" cut, it's a very tense and unsettling film with some interesting socio-political subtext as relates to child violence. The likable main characters really struggle here, both physically and morally, in a picture as bleak as they come. It has such an impeccable mood and atmosphere to it. The closest comparison I can make is to that of Werner Herzog's short documentary, "La Soufrière". The isolated, disquieted feel of the island is very predominant.It's unfortunate that director Serrador faded into the land of television after this film. He clearly had a lot to offer the genre.