Un avión de pasajeros, se estrella en lo más profundo del Amazonas. Los supervivientes deberán hacer frente a un mundo misterioso y hostil, habitado por escorpiones gigantes, dragones y un gorila gigante.

1
/10
Blatant Attemtpt to Cash In on Jackson's King Kong
Supposedly based on Sir Arthur's "Lost World", this film must have him spinning in his grave. The only resemblance are the character's names and the Amazon jungle setting. This lost world is best described as an episode of TV's 'Lost" as written by your local college frat house. The King, or giant ape of the title, is constantly referred to as he, or him, never by name. At one point Bruce Boxleitner asks who "he" is and one of the natives, who look like frat house refugees, replies "you can not speak his name." Obviously as doing so would have involved a lawsuit for copyright infringement. I should mention that for the entire duration of the film, all 75 minutes, the "King's" screen times amounts to approx. 2 minutes. The remaining 73 minutes are filled with endless babble from bad actors on how they are going to get out of the jungle. Additionally the SFX are on the same level as the acting. This movie needs to be permanently lost!

Útil
•
43

21

austincowboys9 dic 2005Enlace permanente
1
/10
Oh My God, The ultimate budget movie

If your going to produce a special effect movie, at least have the basics with which to carry it off. The Lost World was one of my favourite books as a child and previous translations to the big screen have been OK, at best. However although the acting was certainly acceptable, the budget for the effects must have been raised by a quick whip round of the stars and crew. awful doesn't even come close. The main creature (king Kong who wasn't featured in the original story anyway) looks like and moves like a glove puppet. Anyone over 7 who goes to see this is going to come away extremely disappointed.Bruce Boxleitner has appeared in many Sci-Fi TV series and movies and does his best to carry off this film but he is fighting a losing battle I'm afraid. With the technology thats available today for creating believable CGI effects, it inexcusable to release such a sub standard movies, especially when it seems to be released on the back of the New blockbuster "KING KONG". When low cost TV sci-fi's are being produced now, with quite acceptable visual effects, I fail to understand that those responsible for the graphic effects would deem this movie "Fit for human viewing"

Útil
•
28

18

aperfectmatch12 dic 2005Enlace permanente
2
/10
Even LESS then I expected... and I didn't expect much
I saw the cover. Obviously a cheep movie that is trying to make some money from the popularity of Peter Jackson's King Kong. Anyway - a huge gorilla in the lost world - cool! I knew it was going to be cheep, but I liked the idea. And the rating was still 5,8 so I thought it will be worth watching. I was wrong. Since it is the Lost World I expected some dinosaurs. Nope. Compared to this movie the TV series "The Lost World" look like a Hollywood blockbuster. No dinosaurs. Just a sloppy CGI giant spider, a couple of sloppy CGI giant scorpions, and a sloppy CGI giant gorilla, which you finally see for a couple of seconds at the end of the movie. I love B-movies, but not B-movies that pretend to be A-movies, if you know what I mean. If this movie was done intentionally stupid just for the fun if would be nice. Now it is just boring. And I guess a couple of days ago it had 5,8 rating because all the guys from the ending credits voted here.

Útil
•
27

20

beastwarsfan15 dic 2005Enlace permanente
5
/10
Bought it, and liked it/hated it!

Útil
•
8

1

redhead989827 nov 2007Enlace permanente
5
/10
Originally titled "Attack of the Blurry Ape"

The Asylum's "King of the Lost World" (2005) is a TV knockoff of Peter Jackson's "King Kong," released one day before that blockbuster during Christmas. While there's a giant ape and an island of colossal creatures, the similarities end there. This has more to do with Arthur Conan Doyle's fantasy/adventure novel "The Lost World" (1912) than "King Kong." The plot revolves around a group of survivors of a plane wreck who search the mysterious island; and clash with the giant creatures & primitive-type people that dwell there.

The movie only cost $1 million and the blurry CGI creatures look it. If you can get past that, there's quite a bit to like here for fans of comic book adventure flicks, especially of the lost on a deserted island variety. Imagine "Mysterious Island" (1961) if it was done on a miniscule budget, like "Planet of the Dinosaurs" (1977), and that's what this is.

The Asylum's "The Land that Time Forgot" (2009) is comparable, but that one had over double the money to spend, as did the 1974 film with Doug McClure. Another point of reference is those cheesy primeval flicks from Hammer back in the day, like "The Lost Continent" (1968) and "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" (1970).

If you don't appreciate Grade B (or Grade C) adventure fare like this I'd suggest passing but, if you can roll with it, the story and cast are decent, highlighted by curvy Sarah Lieving in form-fitting shorts, not to mention a couple others. The Southern Cal locations feature magnificent coastlines, lush jungles, cool caves and barren landscapes.

The film runs 1 hour, 20 minutes and was shot at Pikake Gardens, Valley Center, and San Diego County, California.

GRADE: C

Útil
•
4

0

Wuchakk21 dic 2018Enlace permanente
5
/10
Could have been a good movie
It looked like they were reading their lines from a tele-prompter. In the opening sequence when the plane crashed there was a big fireball, the scene then switches to the crash site where there is no signs of a fire. I can't really give a full review because I shut it off after 30 minutes. If the swearing was removed it could be put on TV. The special effects were weird, some kind of CG that looked really out of place. Imagine putting Sailor Moon cartoons in Toy Story, thats how out of place it looked. My wife and I had just previously watched the old King Kong movie from, I think 1933. We both laughed when we realized that the effects were better. Anyway, wait for it to come on TV. Don't waste your money.

Hope this helps someone.

Útil
•
16

10

lauroy817 dic 2005Enlace permanente
1
/10
Waste of Time

I actually went out of my way to find this movie because I love giant monster movies, especially King Kong related monsters.

The effects in this movie were so bad they were embarrassing.

It's amazing that there were better effects in 1933's King Kong compared to this...I take that back...there were better effects in 1903's The Great Train Robbery compared to this bomb.

It's tough to mess up a movie with giant monsters and decent looking girls...but whoever made this movie did accomplish this feat.

Anyone who is curious like I was about this film stay far away as possible. It is a total waste of your time.

Útil
•
26

20

dashro328 dic 2005Enlace permanente
2
/10
Only the opening scene and score are good here

King of the Lost World is not the worst Asylum movie out there, there are definitely worse. That is not saying very much however because it is still a terrible movie. The opening scene was fun and set the tone of the film reasonably well, and the score is both intense and catchy. That is it for the good unfortunately. Although I was not expecting much in my quest to see whether The Asylum are capable of finding a good movie(so far I Am Omega, #1 Cheerleader Camp and When a Killer Calls are their best, and they are only decent, mixed-reception and average), I was determined to take things at face value and enjoy it for what it was, but sorry it was just too inept to make me do that. Technically King of the Lost World is a mess. The editing is choppy that it doesn't allow you to appreciate the dully lit but non-amateur settings, while the special effects are just terrible, there is a fair amount of them and every single one of them are crude. The ape itself is more goofy in look and manner than it is menacing. The script is childishly written and painfully unfunny, while the direction is flat and the story is dull, predictable and a choc-a-block of ridiculous scenes that you'd be here all night and probably about 500-600 words over the review word limit. The characters you just cannot engage with at all, they are not developed at all and just annoy the heck out of you. The acting is atrocious from almost all of the cast with one exception which is Steve Railsback who isn't in it anywhere near long enough to save it. So all in all, one big colossal failure. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
5

2

TheLittleSongbird27 oct 2012Enlace permanente
Yawn fest
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I liked the TV show of the Lost World, but this just stunk. BIG time. The acting was awful, and I noticed that many of the actors are in a number of movies by this director. Low budget movies with low budget actors. 2/10. The CGI stinks, the acting is worse. Even the people who have made up the tribe can't act worth two hoots and a darn. I had to keep turning up the TV just so I could hear it. The only actor I know was Bruce. Heck I don't even know who the director is. I only watched it because I could not find something better on. I would have rather watched Golf over this, as I think that watching Tiger Woods hit a little ball into a cup would have had more excitement in it.

Útil
•
12

10

supermom-leigh2 sept 2006Enlace permanente
2
/10
It was just downright abysmal...

Where to begin...

This movie was the epitome of everything that is bad about movies from The Asylum. Sure, it should be said that The Asylum actually does spew out the occasional movie that is actually entertaining and worth watching. "King of the Lost World", however, was definitely not one such movie.

The storyline in the movie was such a scrambled and random mess of a storyline as it could be. It seemed that they actually just went in with 20 different ideas, shot them individually and then tied them together to make a movie. There was next to no red line throughout the course of this movie. And it didn't take long before my attention span dropped several levels.

The special effects in the movie were ludicrous. The CGI was phenomenally bad and it is hard to believe that something like that would actually pass as being worthy of making it into a movie even back in 2005. If you actually take the time to sit down and watch "King of the Lost World", you might want to wear protective eyewear just as a precaution.

What was up with the huge creatures that they crammed into the movie? Spiders. Scorpions. And some weird strange reptillian flying creatures. And of course the massive ape itself - which was so fake it was laughable to look at.

As for the acting in the movie, well let's just be honest and say you are getting what is to be expected from a movie such as this. But in defense of the actors and actresses, then they had nothing, absolutely nothing, to work with in terms of a proper storyline, a coherent script or interesting characters. So the acting performers were fighting a losing uphill battle.

I suffered through "King of the Lost World" so you don't have to. Take heed, and give this movie a wide, wide berth...

Útil
•
4

2

paul_haakonsen28 ene 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
Avoid like the Ebola Virus
This is awful - plain and simple awful. The CGI is pathetic, maybe we've all been spoiled as of late with Peter Jacksons masterpieces and some of the ILM work in the Star Wars films, but this takes the doggy biscuit. A film like this lives or dies by its effects, and quite frankly this film is dead! Add that to some inept acting and direction and you have a turkey thats big enough to feed your whole family for Christmas and beyond. Save your money and go to see Kong. I'm not even getting into the nitty gritty of plots and characters because quite frankly this movie doesn't even deserve my time, effort or your money! Don't take my word for it - look at the naff picture of the gorilla on the box! It doesn't get any better I assure you!

Útil
•
10

10

freshwayne28 dic 2005Enlace permanente
8
/10
a B movie must see
King Of The Lost World, a perfect B-movie classic. Extremely close to King Kong, both original and remake, but seeing as they all inspired by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book Lost World I can see why. Bruce Boxleitner is cast perfectly, in that is he a bad guy or good guy role. Rhett Giles, is another who I really enjoyed in the movie, he definitely has leading man qualities,I look forward to see him in his upcoming TV show Lost Colony. King Of the Lost World is a great Suanday afternoon movie for those of us who love cheesy films. Giant apes and spiders, Scorpions afraid of a camera flash, and man eating vines, a great way to waste 2 hours.

Útil
•
22

10

bigbadbrewcee12 ene 2007Enlace permanente
7
/10
Not quite B-movie nirvana, but close enough.

Útil
•
17

6

gtc837 sept 2006Enlace permanente
2
/10
Don't waste your money....

I can't say this is the worst movie I have ever seen, but it is definitely in the top 10. The premise of the story is sound enough, and that is what actually attracted me enough to rent this movie. Unfortunately, that is the only redeeming quality in this movie. The actors were given virtually nothing to work with, as the dialogue was absolutely horrible. Some of the lines sound as if they might have been penned by Ed Wood himself, until you consider that Woods' work at least had some naive charm about it. The acting was atrocious. Every single actor in this movie seemed to mail it in at the same time, and it was not all due to the poor writing. Finally, the CGI was extremely poorly done. There was no hint of realism at all with any of the computer work. The effects were cheap and lacked any sort of attention to detail, something the entire movie lacked as a whole. I have to be fair and say that like the previous reviewer, I only watched part of the movie. It turned out that the movie was dirty, and stopped playing after about 45 minutes. I decided it was not worth the time to clean the disc and try to find where it left off. My advice would be to miss this one completely. Don't waste your money renting it, and if it shows up on TV you can certainly find something better to watch.

Útil
•
11

12

sfenick2320 feb 2006Enlace permanente
Arthur Conan Doyle must be spinning in his grave.

Plane crash survivors in the Amazon battle exceptionally lame CGI critters in this dull, slow-moving tale, which bears absolutely no resemblance to the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story. The Asylum's "War of the Worlds" shows that they are capable of telling a decent story when they want to do so. They must not have wanted to do so here. This film is exceptionally bad. No dinosaurs, just scorpions, spiders, man-eating vines, and a giant gorilla so bad that it fortunate for the audience that we only see it for a few minutes. The special features reveal that this film was a rush job � no doubt to capitalize on the publicity for Peter Jackson's "King Kong." The reason they went with scorpions and such instead of the dinosaurs was because the special effects guy already had them partially created. At eighty-minutes, the movie drags. (Drags is the wrong word. It's like it's daring you to keep watching it. It was quite a battle, but I managed too.) I ultimately found myself wondering who this film was aimed at. There aren't enough monsters for monster movie fans. Not enough action for action movie fans. It was too boring to children, who shouldn't be able to watch it because of the language anyway. It was like an episode of "Lost" without the insightful writing and acting. Literally, the best thing about the film is the jungle location they found in a private garden. For that, I will credit the location manager, not the director, producer or writers, all of whom should be ashamed of themselves.

And don't get me started about the white native tribe in the Amazon�. Oy Vey! Ineptitude, you have a new name. And poor Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, he's spinning away in his grave somewhere.

Útil
•
9

8

moviemanic0728 ene 2006Enlace permanente
4
/10
Poor mans king Kong for 2005

Útil
•
7

6

dolifk11 dic 2005Enlace permanente
1
/10
The King was missing.

Útil
•
9

9

andyofne19 dic 2005Enlace permanente
3
/10
The worst 'Lost World' adaptation yet.

Útil
•
3

2

toastman199227 feb 2008Enlace permanente
4
/10
Not as bad as the others say.
I have seen 3 Sarah Lieving movies this week and this is by far the best of them. Of course the cgi is bad, you couldn't have thought it might be good, but the story, acting and dialogue are actually above average for this type of movie. The only thing I didn't like is that the "King" only shows up in the last 5 minutes and doesn't seem to be as powerful as we have been led to believe.

Útil
•
3

2

13Funbags25 jul 2019Enlace permanente
3
/10
"Nuke the mother f*cker." Bad, just plain bad.

Útil
•
4

4

poolandrews15 sept 2007Enlace permanente
1
/10
Another of Asylum's attempts to mislead - avoid!

Just like Asylum's version of War Of The Worlds, this film has the following characteristics:

Poor acting - Bad effects - Continuity errors all over the place - A few 'glowing reviews' that cannot possibly be real - Timed to coincide with the release of a similar big-budget movie


After the first 20 minutes I had to stop watching it, else my foot would have gone through the screen.

It's not the few dollars that I paid to rent this rubbish, but the fact that I feel cheated once again.

Remember the name: 'Asylum' - the movie company to avoid.

Útil
•
5

6

boblin2-17 feb 2006Enlace permanente
3
/10
Another Asylum dud

Útil
•
2

1

Leofwine_draca15 may 2018Enlace permanente
9
/10
I loved this movie

Útil
•
16

10

JonMoody828 ene 2007Enlace permanente
6
/10
Aims high but comes up short

"Before there was LOST... before there was JURASSIC PARK... before the was KING KONG... there was Arthur Conan Doyle's THE LOST WORLD" - That's from one of the trailers for this, so you can see what audience there trying to attract this time. You know the way there would be companies that would specialize in doing rip-off type films *cough New World Pictures cough* ? Well this has been the ground that The Asylum has staked out in recent years. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing as they have turned out quite a few commendable b horror movies of late, but I just wanted to point out for those not acquainted with them what they're about.

Yup, this is the latest b movie from The Asylum. This is probably their most ambitious film to date and for it they gather most of their regular actors, "The Asylum Players", including:

Rhett Giles (Mangler Reborn, Frankenstein Reborn, War of the Worlds, Jolly Roger, Legion of the Dead) Jeff Denton (Beast of Bray Road, Frankenstein Reborn) Thomas Downey (Shapeshifter, Beast of Bray Road, War of the Worlds, Dead Men Walking, Frankenstein Reborn, Jolly Roger, Shapeshifter) Christina Rosenberg (Beast of Bray Road, Frankenstein Reborn) Sarah Lieving (Beast of Bray Road, Frankenstein Reborn, War of the Worlds) Eliza Swenson (Beast of Bray Road, Frankenstein Reborn) Amanda Ward (Legion of the Dead, Way of the Vampire, Alien Abduction) and Leigh Slawner (Shapeshifter, Dead Men Walking, Frankenstein Reborn, War of the Worlds, Jolly Roger) who is also the director and has previously directed Beast of Bray Road and Frankenstein Reborn

Unfortunately there's no sign of Bernadette Perez, one of their regular actors who can usually be counted on to supply some nudity.

They've also added a couple of "name" actors, Bruce Boxleitner and Steve Railsback.

Okay, first off, this is not a monster movie. Yeah, there's a monster or two, but this is really more of an adventure film like Lost World. They also try to capitalize on the popularity of LOST (which I've never seen by the way) and of course the upcoming King Kong by throwing in a giant ape. And just for fun they add a touch of Lord of the Flies.

The story starts with a airliner crash on a beach somewhere that I guess is supposed to be in South America. A group of the survivors move inland looking for the front half of the plane, the radio, and any other survivors. Along they way they run in to some unusual jungle wildlife. The story is really straight forward and just an excuse for the jungle adventure. It moved along at a nice pace, so while the story was nothing special it wasn't boring.

The acting, as usual for The Asylum, is quite good. Rhett Giles, who I usually don't like, does a really good job here. I do think that he studied acting from watching early Clint Eastwood films as I have yet to see him smile in a role. On the other hand, Thomas Downey, who I usually like as a good guy doesn't play a jerk all that well. Jeff Denton does another good job as the main character. Christina Rosenberg is especially hot in her biggest The Asylum role so far. Special kudos to Amanda Ward who supplies the only (brief) nudity in the film.

Bruce Boxleitner does an acceptable but uninspired turn as the military guy with a hidden agenda. Steve Railsback puts in a day's work and collects a paycheck.

So the story is nothing special, the acting is pretty good, but a movie like this lives or dies by the F/X. Unfortunately that's where the movie fails. It's pretty obvious that this was rushed through in order to get it on the shelves in time to coincide with the release of King Kong (with a cover prominently featuring a giant gorilla).

As far as monsters it's CGI all the way. And not good CGI. We get a big spider, some big scorpions, some flying dragons (???), and of course the giant gorilla. The cgi critters are all pretty unconvincing and detract from the film. Also, there's just not much monster action, and most of what little there is takes place in the third act. The cgi gorilla, which we don't see much of at all, doesn't so much look like a cgi gorilla as it does a cgi man in a gorilla costume.

While the actors were commendable, they weren't enough to carry a film with a mediocre script and sparse yet unsatisfactory effects. For the scope of what they were attempting with this one the fact that it was really rushed is painfully obvious. Also, The Asylum, which usually comes through with some gratuitous nudity, let me down this time with just a couple of seconds of toplessness. There was a tiny bit of gore, but again, not enough to satisfy. I'll be generous and give it a 6/10 because the acting was good and I wasn't bored, but I wouldn't really recommend this.

Útil
•
18

9

mvario14 dic 2005Enlace permanente
1
/10
As bad as it gets.

King of the Lost World is one of those movies where I kinda knew what it would be like. I figured it would just be a cheesy adventure/survival film that is often on the SYFY channel. But this was way worse and did not entertain me at all.

The story is pretty old. People get stranded on an island and have to survive. There are also tribes of savages there and giant spiders, gorillas, and dragons. Yeah you read me right, there are actually dragons in this movie.

HorrorTalk found the movie to be one of the Asylum's best, stating "The bottom line is King is a fun romp through the jungle from beginning to end."[2]

Dread Central agreed it was a better work, but criticized the third act as convoluted, as well as lacking the titular ape.[3]

Debido a una maldición, una joven incuba en el interior de su cuerpo unas serpientes muy venenosas. Para poder desprenderse de ellas, tiene que viajar de Los Angeles a México en tren, para ver a un poderoso chamán. Pero durante el viaje un montón de víboras atacan a los pasajeros, quedando atrapados dentro de los vagones.

2
/10
Easily the greatest movie of all time.

Truly, truly awful. I don't even know where to begin. This is a perfect example of a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. I'm not sure I could even assign a category myself, except that I'm quite sure it's a slap in the face of everyone, every where. Even the unborn.

At times, I thought I was watching a parody, or some kind of farce. At times, just a bad B movie. But I kept holding out for the porno, which, I fear, is almost(but not entirely), non existent.

Some one advised skipping to the ending. I would definitely second that emotion. The last five minutes are intense, and certainly contain some of the best film making/cgi you will ever see, ever.

Ed Wood would be proud.

Útil
•
15

2

joughdonakowski13 ene 2007Enlace permanente
3
/10
Score for Asylum

Útil
•
9

1

TerminalMadness6 sept 2006Enlace permanente
3
/10
Snakes on A Train Lacks Venom
The movie starts in Mexico where a girl has been cursed, she spits on snakes thru green jello and her friend tries all these crazy spells to lift the curse. He does nothing but chant horrible language that does nothing, so they decide to cross the border get on the train to make their way to L.A. to see his uncle to lift the curse. Comic hilarity ensues. This movie has the same snakes over and over! It has garden snakes and pythons that will never bite. They all make the sound of rattlesnakes which makes no sense. The whole movie has some funny lines, some weak effects, but most important a great ending that leaves you like WHAM BAM WHAT THE HECK JUST HAPPENED!!!!! The whole movie is about a 1, but the ending is a 10, so by my crazy math it gets a 3 overall. When blockbuster has nothing else you want, grab this for mindless entertainment!

Útil
•
24

8

nonstopnonstop21 ago 2006Enlace permanente
4
/10
Fast forward to the end!
So I was energized during my Snakes on a Plane weekend, after the movie we craved some more. Why not Snakes on A Train? How bad could it possibly be, its snakes probably killing people on trains. The snakes were supposed to be rattlers. First off me and my buddies thought the snakes were harmless garden snakes and pet snakes with the same cheesy rattling sound clip. We actually sat through the entire thing completely ready to turn it off (we're too lazy to walk over and hit eject). Next thing we knew we don't know what the heck was going on but something amazingly funny happens at the end. It's one of those endings that you'll rewind a few times just to squeeze the laughs out, because you suffered for so long.

Last 10 min a "8", rest of the movie a 2.

Útil
•
46

14

kingofi8820 ago 2006Enlace permanente
1
/10
It frankly just has no redeeming qualities at all.

Útil
•
4

0

MechaWingZero13 feb 2012Enlace permanente
3
/10
Snakes On A @!$# Train!

Útil
•
6

1

RBlake7727 ago 2006Enlace permanente
1
/10
Seriously lame like the movie MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE.

While I was watching SNAKES ON A TRAIN I found myself thinking on more than one occasion that this was seriously lame, the only other film I felt that way about was MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE and that was lame, and when it came to the halfway mark I reckoned this is really getting annoying with this Mexican chic puking green goo and also a snake here and there and with her boyfriend reciting an incantation like "Walla Bella green buns, ditty bitty fish sticks and add some garlic." but when it reached the end I found myself sporting the people's eyebrow and going what the hell just happened here?.

I think I was less confused with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY than with this film, I've often wondered what was so scary about PA but now I find myself wondering who would green light something like this to go into production? I wonder if I send these people my own script if they'd turn it into a movie, if they reject it I could always sue them for discriminating between smart people and village idiots.

Overall, consider this this film a passer by, if you see it at your local DVD retail or rental shop feel free to pass it by.

Útil
•
6

1

jhpstrydom21 nov 2010Enlace permanente
2
/10
it barely qualifies as a guilty pleasure (mostly for its climax)

Útil
•
6

1

Quinoa198411 may 2007Enlace permanente
2
/10
Enough! I have had it of this motherf***ing movie on my motherf***ing screen!

Útil
•
3

0

massimofolci18 nov 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
A Waste of the Actors' Talent and My Time

Útil
•
3

0

bababear13 ago 2010Enlace permanente
The best part is reading people's negative reviews!

Útil
•
5

1

briangcb6 sept 2008Enlace permanente
9
/10
Awesome trash!!!!!!!

Útil
•
13

7

Jennifer_Gardner19 ago 2006Enlace permanente
7
/10
brilliant!

Let's get one thing straight, this gets an 7 out of 10 not on a normal scale, but out of the bad movie scale. this is the kind of movie you rent on purpose, where you intentionally walk in knowing that it is a horrendous knockoff and shun'd by everyone else.

I went in with one promise from the movie, that there will be snakes on a train, and it Delivers!

The gore itself is really good, and the characters have awesome roles. Come on, it has everything from stoned train pilots to teenage girls trafficking drugs, even a Electrical Engineer getting his pimp on! You get to see some topless nudity, explosions, snakes, gore, and a Mexican main lead running around curing his girlfriend by hitting his crack pipe and blowing the smoke in her face!! As I mentioned and many others have, the movie pacing is a bit off, but respectable nonetheless.

Movies like this keep our group tradition of banding together and all chipping in a buck or two to watch masterpieces such as this. There can be no better time spent then coming together to enjoy a good bad movie.

It could learn a thing or two from the likes of other such fine flicks as Alien Lock-down or Boa vs Python, but those are some big shoes to fill.

A solid 7 out of 10.

Útil
•
38

15

thebrandt7 sept 2006Enlace permanente
2
/10
Fundamentally bad and boring...

I happened to come across this movie by sheer blind luck, and of course this is a produced by The Asylum, who else would blatantly cash in on another movie with a similar plot, name and concept? After all, that is the trademark of The Asylum, is it not?

"Snakes on a Train" is, no surprise here, a low budget cash in and rip off on the other just slightly better movie "Snakes on a Plane", also from 2006. You know, the movie with Samuel L. Jackson. However, "Snakes on a Train" takes places on a train - doh!

The story is about two border jumpers from Mexico who are trying to get to Los Angeles in order to find a remedy for the ancient curse that is afflicting the woman border jumper. She is spewing out snakes, and these snakes turn rampart on the train, spreading havoc and mayhem.

I will say that the storyline, with its subplots and attempts to incorporate various themes, failed ultimately more horrible than the fail in "Snakes on a Plane". The story in The Asylum's "Snakes on a Train" was just all the more laughable and badly executed. And it didn't really help the movie along in any sense that the characters were as hollow and wooden as the acting skills of those attempting to portray them.

"Snakes on a Train" is bad through and through. And not for a single moment did I believe that the movie was actually taking place on a locomotive train. Not even once did you get to look outside the windows in the train to see the passing by landscape and scenery. All windows were, oddly enough, semi-glossy and non-transparent.

This movie is one to stay clear off, and it was a test of will to sit through this and keep watching it. I must admit that I eventually gave up and didn't finish the movie, because it was just that awful.

Útil
•
2

0

paul_haakonsen6 may 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
Better than the typical flick from The Asylum...

Útil
•
2

0

MJDMLQ30 abr 2012Enlace permanente
3
/10
These are not ordinary snakes.

Útil
•
3

1

michaelRokeefe22 ago 2006Enlace permanente
2
/10
So bad it's bad.

Útil
•
3

1

vengeance2030 jul 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Worse Movie Ever...

Útil
•
7

6

holy1233343226 ago 2006Enlace permanente
1
/10
Truly atrocious

Útil
•
4

4

timjhale29 dic 2006Enlace permanente
2
/10
Oh yes, this movie exists...why? I'm still not sure.

Útil
•
4

4

DeadSetMisawa24 ago 2006Enlace permanente
2
/10
TrainWRECK

Útil
•
4

4

Mappyman23 ago 2006Enlace permanente
8
/10
Great Fun Movie! I Really Enjoyed it!!

OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.

The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.

There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.

The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it!

Útil
•
12

9

james_holz6 ene 2007Enlace permanente
7
/10
Big shoes to fill

Snakes on a Plane was such a well hyped film that it was both inevitable and a little crazy to try to release another movie with almost the same title in the same year let alone the same week. Reading the other comments here I see the results. A lot of people are mad. Mad because it doesn't have the best special effects. Mad because it doesn't have a star cast. Mad because they wanted to see Samuel Jackson say "I'm sick of these M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Snakes on this M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Train"!

Well, this sure ain't the Samuel Jackson version. And maybe that's good.

After a massive earthquake in Tokyo, two American filmmakers document the true cause of the destruction.

2
/10
Interminably boring -- just an awful movie

The entire movie is two young women, attractive but nothing special, with rather flat and uninteresting personalities running around Tokyo during some kind of giant octopus attack. The special effects are not very special, the monster is never really seen other than partial glimpses, there is zero in the way of plot intrigue and plenty of annoying focus on the two characters. They cry. They get their faces dirty. They crawl around in the caves. They run the camera but it's hard to understand some of the shots since nobody is holding or controlling the camera.

This goes on and on. And on. And on. What were they thinking? Then, as if this vacuous mess were insufficiently annoying, every 30 seconds or so the "damaged film" effects kick in, disrupting the continuity and interfering with what little actual "action" there is in the film.

Actually making it through this movie is an exercise in futility. You keep hoping it will either get better or end. I'm about 20 minutes from the finish as I am writing this. It sounds like there is a battle going on but you can't see anything -- another "damaged film" special.

Yikes. Don't bother. Do yourself a favor and just don't bother.

Útil
•
19

3

rlange-311 ago 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
great idea - but terribly bad realization of it
If there is a thousand ways to disrupt a video feed in order to make it look like it's been badly damaged, these girls have now found 1200 ways. The cutting of the video feed had a purpose, I know that, but it was an annoying feature in this film. It almost made me go crazy, but I stuck with it just to see the rest and be able to give this film a fair judgment. The film (idea) itself is not bad at all. The acting has one or maybe two decent moments (although Erin is kinda cute (when she's not sobbing)). The script is just wonderful. It had the potential of being a new Orson Welles's 1938 radio broadcast The War of the Worlds, but unfortunately it just had the intention, but not the drive to actually make it. But honestly I think you should spend your 90 minutes on collecting navel lint instead. In the long run it'll do you much more good than watching this. I watched it - so you wont have to.

Útil
•
47

18

dari11218 ene 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
A monster movie without a monster

Okay maybe this is not a rip-off of Cloverfield, and maybe I should not have watched it a few days after said movie. But still, Monster is almost exactly the same with chicks (you could sell anything with chicks, right?), without a decent plot, acting, and sadly, without a monster.

We get two girls who are in Japan to make a documentary, when Tokyo is hit by an earthquake. And this is when the movie starts to get irreversibly bad and annoying. Because the two girls, however cute they may be, just cannot seem to use the camera. In the middle of a monster attack, *everything* is filmed, except for what is actually happening. When our heroines are staring with their jaws dropped at something supposedly terrible, the camera is well... showing them, their jaws dropped, staring. Then cut, or artifacts on the film (at every 5 seconds, or when something interesting is about to happen), and we go to the next scene. Rinse and repeat. In the end, we are given 90 minutes of artifacts, girls being scared and talking nonsense, running somewhere (filming each other's legs in the process), and just hanging out in Tokyo, obviously afraid of some tentacle monster that they always fail to capture with the camera.

Besides of not being able to make a point (it is hard when you point the camera at your sister instead of at whatever is happening around you), the movie fails to convey a sense of plot. We know where the girls are trying to go, but we just do not care if they ever get there, or what happens if they do. There is simply no drama, no excitement, mostly due to the bad use of camera, and the long talky scenes, and short scary ones (usually cut by artifacts, or simply, darkness).

I can't help but to compare this movie to Cloverfield, where you got a monster, and after some time, you actually got interested in where the group is going, and in the end, you cared. Monster could have been a great movie, even without showing the monster, if it manages to make you feel for the girls, but it sadly fails. It is not simply bad, but also an uninteresting movie.

Útil
•
9

2

Sznfctm21 may 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Top Notch

Útil
•
13

5

stymieu220 ene 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
Film Making's Nadir

Giving "Monster" a one star "awful" rating is wayyyyy too high. Without question this is the worst film I have ever seen. The tone was set with the first 5 minutes when the office of the Japanese Minister was smaller than my closet and the exact same sound effect was used 4 times outside the Ministry of the Interior Building.

The camera work was MUCH worse than Cloverfield and Blair Witch, mostly because even when stationery the objects on the screen were a conglomeration of the floor, the speakers legs, her breasts and mindless panning of the walls.

The plot was utter aimless with dialog to match - the inane banter was devoid of emotion and at the "scariest" moments the two wooden actresses sounded like Ben Stein lecturing on the economy! There wandering around the destroyed city was pointless to the story and lines like "it looks like it's going to be a beautiful morning" while overlooking the fake destruction made one want to throw a shoe at the TV screen.

The best way to describe this "movie" is Pointless waste of film! Another "Cloverfield" did not need to be made and this was a poor attempt at it anyway!

SOMEONE PLEASE!!!! TAKE THEIR CAMERA AWAY!

Útil
•
13

6

geraldjones195924 ago 2008Enlace permanente
3
/10
Watched because I was bored. Still bored at the end.
If I had seen this before Cloverfield, I would have had a better impression. But it is just a knockoff. If Cloverfield is "Blair Witch Godzilla" this is "Blair Witch Calamari".. And I don't like Calamari. Frankly I thought I was going to be sick from the camera work. "Camera Effects/Artifacts" were poorly placed. When the camera was still the "effects" were at the highest. When they were running they were at their lowest. I guess all that knocking around kept the camera working..LOL I liked the actors, kept the screaming to minimum. Only one part where the acting look forced. But my overall impression is still low.

Útil
•
19

11

myridom19 ene 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
Cloverfart

Útil
•
3

0

tmccull526 abr 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Laborious

You've probably all figured out by now that this is the straight-to-video knock-off of the much anticipated "Cloverfield". I was pretty curious about this, partly because it comes from The Asylum (their stuff is just addictively bad!) and because the trailer for it looked nearly competent. So naturally I rented it as soon as I had the chance.

The plot (ha!) concerns two women, a documentary crew, who fly to Tokyo to interview an official about global warming. Everything in the movie is filmed vacation-video style from the girls' hand-held camera (just like "Cloverfield"). During the interview the monster attacks and the city becomes a disaster area. Our heroes are forced to run for cover and try to find people who speak English while still documenting the monster's rampage.

I expected weak CGI effects and bad dialogue, but I was also disappointed to find that the hand-held camera wasn't hand-held looking at all (the making-of feature on the DVD betrayed their real techniques) and the down-time that fills out most of the movie happens in spots that look more like L.A. than Tokyo. Transitions are accomplished with unconvincing video distortion, an attempt to sell us on the gimmick that we are watching found footage. There's an attempt at explanation for the monster too, which was perhaps the worst aspect of this mess.

"Monster" may be The Asylum's worst. In spite of a good trailer, this will be forgotten especially because they chose a title already used for a Charlize Theron movie. "Cloverfield" has nothing to fear from this.

Útil
•
15

9

sexytail18 ene 2008Enlace permanente
5
/10
Reaching for a new medium ...

Útil
•
9

4

Poe-172 feb 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
Garbage
It starts out OK and has a decent premise to it. But after about the first 15 minutes it turns into a complete waste of time and do not waste your time by watching this.

Útil
•
2

0

gulchu30 jun 2020Enlace permanente
The Asylum film company strikes again!

This time around, The Asylum decided to rip off "Cloverfield". There is one positive thing I can say about this movie, and that it employs a lot of Asian actors, a minority that just about all Hollywood movies do not use. Aside from that, I can't think of anything else that is good about this movie. The movie is obviously not filmed in Japan, just using occasional stock footage of Tokyo in an effort to fool the audience. The sound is awful - there were large sections of the movie where I simply could not understand what the characters were saying. The visual look of the movie is equally bad, clearly shot with a low-rent digital video camera. The direction is horrible, with some things like characters in the background walking casually when the city is being terrorized by the monster. There is far, FAR too much talk, when a movie like this needs plenty of adventure and special effects. (The limited special effects are pretty cheesy, and never gives us a good look at the title creature.) And there is no real ending to this movie - the last scene ends in a way that makes you think the director said, "Okay, we've got enough footage to make this movie 85 minutes long if you count the slow-moving end credits!" The writer/director, as of this date, has only this movie on his resume. No wonder.

Útil
•
3

1

Wizard-818 jun 2010Enlace permanente
6
/10
not a knockoff
Perhaps one of you, eloquent commentators, could explain how "Monster" (on the market since January 18, 2008) can be a knockoff of "Cloverfield" (on the screen since January 16, 2008)? A great show of clairvoyance or a masterpiece of film-making and marketing? There are quite a few flaws in the movie (like why the recording on the first cassettes was OK and the distorted picture/sound effects appear at the same time the monster does - if the cassettes were found later together, damaged), but they are their own flaws. Oh, and stop wondering how one camera battery could hold for so long - the girls had a few batteries, as they indicate themselves at one point.

Útil
•
2

3

wbukato20 feb 2009Enlace permanente
5
/10
Well,Cant say they JUMP THE SHARK !

MONSTER www.Theasylum.cc with Sarah Lieving Okay, Lets get over the CLOVERFIELD connection, Move on nothing to see here. Got into the rhythm of MONSTER , By thinking it was like that BIGFOOT footage that has made the rounds. Makes one feel you are there and therefore its as real as your mind would allow.

Even the credits are done as if a REAL documentary, That's a stretch that may / may not pay off.

Lots of plugs for YOUTUBE, Guess this counts as another one. So, How did the camera battery last for 90 minutes let alone the days they supposedly filmed ? Great cover art and the few, Very few scenes of creature. The leads were really good, Considering they had to carry the films as Scared Talking Heads. Its funny to think most of it was actually filmed in Japan, Money could have been used to show the MONSTER some more.

Útil
•
11

11

guestar5726 ene 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
Something else...

Sisters Sarah and Erin hop the bigger pond, landing in Tokyo to film a documentary about global warming (though God knows why). In the midst of their interview with the Environmental Minister, havoc strikes. At first, it's assumed to be another earthquake. When military presence intensifies, terrorism is suspected. But all too soon, it's revealed to be...something else. Sounds a bit familiar, no? Just to get it out of the way, whether or not it's an unhappy accident of conflicting release dates, there's no getting around that this is "Cloverfield"-lite, with a few (very few) deviations. This is evident--from the distant explosion that marks the start of the action, to the overall concept, to splattering the camera with blood at least once. The monsters even roar as if they were separated at birth. To be fair, this film does have a few things on Cloverfield. The fish-out-of-water angle, namely placing the protagonists in an unfamiliar culture, was a great idea. It's difficult enough to survive disaster when most everyone speaks your language, but when they don't, the challenge is increased quite a bit. While the presentation of the global warming message is..."crunchy" at best, the not-so-subtle hint that global warming itself awakened the creature is another juicy notion. Honestly, there's no better place on earth to set your disaster than Tokyo, the world's capital of disasters! The biggest thing for me personally would have to be the logic of the beast itself. In this film, it seemed to cut its paths of destruction through heavily populated areas, as I believe an angry beast would, rather than conveniently following four scrawny twenty-somethings around, and even directly snacking on one of them, as New York's monster did.

Now that that's out of the way, even if Cloverfield never existed, this would still be pretty poor. The creature, a giant squid presumably, isn't actually seen doing very much to constitute a threat. Perhaps it could have actually picked up someone or smashed something, but all we're treated to is many angles of large, waving tentacles. One thing it makes you appreciate is how difficult disaster is to write. It seems that it's very easy to get so wrapped up in the turmoil of your story that you forget how people actually talk, particularly in the midst of emergency. Sarah and Erin (their actual first names, by the way; a bright-and-shining sign of non-actors) appear to struggle on the initiative to keep many of David Michael Latt's throw-away lines out of the production, but enough of them sneak in to become distracting. "I feel like we were meant to be here...", "It's so important to document this..." Sure. I realize they would have to invent reasons for our heroines to lug around an industrial-grade camera, but there must have been another way. Call me shallow, but I believe I'd find it difficult to think of what progeny will see someday when flaming debris is exploding all around me, and the street is caving in underneath my feet.

An additional note about the cast--in truth, considering the script, there's really no reason to have anyone American in it. The Japanese actors (and their characters) are FAR better than the American ones; particularly the high-schooler who lives with her half-crazed dad (and dad seems to know something of the angry creature) and the young doctor who just wants to get across town and make sure his son is okay. I wished the film were about THEM, or someone like them. Were I in Erik Estenberg and company's shoes, I'm sure I would have shot the entire thing with an entirely Japanese cast and subtitles. Couldn't the Japanese document their own disasters? They've had lots of practice.

So, maybe it's not so much a ripoff as it is just not good. Of course, consider that trailer for another Asylum treat, "AVH". As in, "Alien Vs. Hunter". As in intergalactic hunters with advanced camouflage fighting slimy aliens with elongated heads and teeth. Can't wait for that one, can ya? What? You've seen it? Of course you have...

Útil
•
5

3

Cel_Stacker6 sept 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
Please don't make me watch that again!
The title of this movie was the scariest thing about it. Not only was the acting HORRIBLY atrocious; the script, effects, and everything made me want to kill myself! Never mind the fact that the script was both insulting to the Japanese culture, but also made Americans look like absolute brainless wonders of nature. Thank God there was a reasonably attractive heroin in the story (if you can call it that) - but even she killed it the first time her and her sister had to "pretend" to be in a Monster attacked Tokyo; simply awful. Maybe they should try singing for American Idol instead. Intensive acting school is indeed of great need for these would be starlets - as well as many-many lessons in captivating screen writing. (5 burned-out stars, is how I would rate this "monstrous" failure.)

The few reviews of Monster that have been posted online are extremely negative.[2][3] In an audio review, Scott Foy of Dread Central parodied the movie's found footage premise, pretending that the abysmal film was slowly driving him insane. The review ended with Foy supposedly jumping out a window.[4] (He later said that some listeners believed he actually had gone mad.)[5] Foy named Monster the "Worst Direct-to-DVD Horror Movie of 2008" in a later podcast.[6] Other reviewers called the film's pacing "horrendous", and described the movie as "terrible" and "astoundingly dull".[7][8]

Un científico lleva a un equipo de los Navy SEAL al período cretácico para rescatar al primer equipo que envió en la década de 1940. Las cosas se complican cuando accidentalmente trae un dinosaurio gigante a Los Ángeles.

1
/10
100 million BC - the BC stands for bitchin' crap.

I, too, got sucked into buying this at Wal-Mart because of the cover art - the misleading cover art.

I watched the other flick, "Journey To the Center Of the Earth" first and thought it was putrid. Well, it was, but "100 Million BC" was even (new word) putrider. I can only conclude that everyone involved during the couple of days it took to put this s--t together were drunk.

As for Michael Gross, well, oh how the mighty have fallen. As for everyone else, may they fall off the face of the earth. The jokers who were advertised as "an elite military team" were scary. In spite of the pseudo-intellectual ranting they were thoroughly unconvincing as their characters and as actors.

Well, maybe, it was played for laughs, but it was neither humorous or even mildly interesting. Being a sadist I sat through the whole thing with the feeling that it had to get better.

It got worse. CRAP with a capital K. If you spot this in the Wal-Mart bin take it out and, as a public service, stomp on the damn thing so no one else will be taken in.

One hundred million zeroes for "100 Million BC."

Útil
•
19

1

froberts7327 ene 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Just...appualing
For a 21st century film, you gotta applause to how awful appalling the effects were. The dinosaurs were in bloody 2D god dammit! Not even sculptures were made to add some form of modern looks to these creatures but looked like a simple animation which was done using anim8or. This is by far the worst film I have seen in a long time. Not to forget the acting. No sympathy was shown when the soilders saw one of their men get taken away by these "reptiles", no thought was gone into safety of the soldiers when they were in a contested zone. This film was clearly done by a run-down production team and I really recommend you all not to waste a single penny or time for this film.

Hope this helped =) My Rating: 1/10

Útil
•
70

21

k-78614 abr 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
Machine guns, dinosaurs, and bad acting.

I was expecting a big, over-the-top action movie, and boy was I disappointed. This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. At first I thought, OK, the writing is kinda bad. And then, OK, the acting is actually pretty horrible as well. And then there was the cinematography. Some of the shots are so ridiculous and posed, that I found myself laughing at the stupidity.

As the plot progressed, I found myself questioning whether or not this was a serious movie, or some kind of spoof. Everything about it was just so bad. But if it was a spoof, then the humor was completely missing.

No, it turned out that this was an actual attempt at a sci-fi action flick. Do not waste your time with this movie.

Útil
•
51

16

shawn-4213 may 2008Enlace permanente
Don't waste time and/or money on this...

heyho!

im usually into these kinds of films, but this was really, really bad... extremely poor writing (navy base standard vehicle is a Hummer H2? WTF? and so on...)

poor sound FX (guns sound like paintball guns)...

poor movie overall...

well, i understand budget issues and all the likes, but this actually looked like a movie from the 90's....ok, the early 90's... I've seen some computer games A FEW YEARS ago, which had better/ more compelling stories and SFX than this movie..go and watch Primeval...much more fun and much more sophisticated... This move would be something for, lets say a 11:30 pm timeslot on German public TV....yes..it is that bad...

please don't waste your time! Felix

Útil
•
100

21

fhentschke8 abr 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
Another amazingly bad 'mockbuster' rip-off from The Asylum.

Útil
•
6

0

poolandrews10 ago 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
The only thing of any worth here is Marie Westbrook's smoking curves!

...and the unintentional comedy.

I watched 100 Million BC because I had nothing better to do so I thought I could give this dinosaur film a try, and the story seemed fairly intriguing, although unoriginal. Since it's a TV movie, my expectations were pretty low to begin with. Turns out the film was even worse than expected.

The CGI was appalling but that's fairly understandable for a low budget production. What really got me was the poor acting, and the terrible, terrible editing and sound. The directing was so bad that I think even I could have done a better job although I have no training in movie making. Also, my advice to the actors is to find another profession. How can they possibly be that bad? If the cast was random people picked up in the street, statistically they couldn't have been this poor. 100 Million BC was probably filmed in a few days and grossly sold off to cable channels that needed fillers.

I'm still giving it a 2/10 because the beginning of the film was mildly intriguing, and because Marie Westbrook (yes, I actually looked her up) is a treat for the eyes, the only one in the entire movie by the way.

Útil
•
5

0

Munin7531 mar 2012Enlace permanente
2
/10
Dark dinosaur
A gathering of old-timers, including Michael Gross, Chris Atkins and Greg Evigan, is the only reason I can think of for watching this badly made science fiction video. A group of soldiers led by a scientist is led back in time to rescue a group of scientists that was sent back to the same time period in the 1940s, via the Philadelphia Experiment (where's Michael Pare when we need him?). They get chased and some of them are eaten by dinosaurs, and the survivors end up inadvertently bringing along a large carnivore on their return. Much of the film is dark and hard to make out, and the carnivore loose in the big city is almost impossible to follow. The whole thing seems endless. Bad bad bad.

Útil
•
5

0

ctomvelu127 mar 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Philadelphia To Los Angeles By Way Of The Cretaceous Period

If anyone is expecting a remake of the Hal Roach classic with Victor Mature and Carole Landis or even the other version with Raquel Welch pass this Science Fiction channel special right on by. In fact passing it by on general principles might be a good idea as well.

100 Million BC starts in Philadelphia of all places with that famous and mysterious experiment that the city gave its name to in which a lot of navy personnel lost their lives and left no remains behind to tell a story.

Years later one of the survivors of the experiment, now grown a lot older and played by Michael Gross has been tinkering with the failed technology and believes what happened was these men and women had gone back in time, back in a lot of time it turns out to when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of the fifty navy personnel that went back in time only a few have survived as Gross and another navy team come to rescue them. Among the survivors is Christopher Atkins now way beyond his Blue Lagoon boy toy days.

Gross brings a few back, Atkins included through a time portal, but also crashing through the portal is a mean and hungry tyrannosaurus rex. He's not liking his new neighborhood which is 21st century Los Angeles.

Maybe one day we'll actually find out what the real Philadelphia Experiment was all about. I can't believe it was this however. The science leaves a lot to be desired, the human actors look like they just collected their paychecks and went through the motions. When the computer animated T-Rex gives the best performance in the film, you know you've got a Thanksgiving feast on your hands.

Útil
•
14

4

bkoganbing7 feb 2009Enlace permanente
3
/10
Good story, very bad movie

The CGI of this thing, Mr. Lucas did a better job back in 1977 when he created Star Wars. Not to mention the camera work. As awful as I have ever seen. Think Godzilla - the one from the fifties. Might be a budget thing.

The story however, I liked very much. I must admit I'm a sucker for this kind of s.f. (the kind that touches the current-day world). It's about a secret government project gone very bad. In WO II the US government experimented with a technology that could potentially make objects invisible. In stead, they stumbled on a way to time travel. On the first away mission, things went terribly wrong and the team got stranded about 70 million years ago. The scientist responsible for the project takes this failure personally and for the next 60 years he plans on getting them back. One day he gets his chance and joins a rescue team back into the prehistoric age. When they return however, they bring back more than they hoped for.

If you can see past the bad acting, bad camera work and very VERY bad CGI, you could well like this movie. I didn't and the 3/10 points it got from me are purely for the story.

Útil
•
21

8

jroefs7 abr 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
Is one out of ten really the lowest score I can give?

Quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in 45 years of watching movies. It's not even so bad that it crosses the line into humour.

Just plain pathetic. On every level. The only redeeming factor is that the worst actor in it gets eaten early on (by something masquerading as a dinosaur that is a disturbing cross between CGI written in DOS and a sock puppet). However, exactly who the worst actor is might have you guessing for a goodly portion of the "movie". Trust me, you do not want to waste 90 minutes of your life trying to figure out which one of the cast is stinking up the screen more.

The FX are not so much "special" as "papier-mâché". The camera work is distinctly amateurish and the plot, such as it is, has at least one WWII personnel carrier driven right through it. Really, yes it does!

Avoid at all costs.

Útil
•
31

15

mrwolfie14 abr 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
what was that?
mistakes rollover this non-movie movie...

it tells about a trip to 100 m b.c. but after that lots of practical mistakes ...

Direction is too bad , and the worst is visual effects , i mean in between frames shots to prehistoric animals , beside it does look like a 1960's dinosaurs movie , guys wake up we are in the 21 century .....

I mean at least be like Jurassic park Worst sound effects , story and actions are lame ...

I wasted 90 minutes in this nonsense and i hope it is never on the big screen

Útil
•
52

31

mmeeg11 abr 2008Enlace permanente
10
/10
Incredible film that changed my life and everyone's around me
This film is the epitome of what a film should be. Although skeptical at first, I have to admit that the quality of the acting, animation, etc. completely changed my mind. I laughed at times and I cried at times. Christopher Atkins will surely be up for the academy awards and I think best actor will be captured by him. The action in the film, done mostly through $15.99 airsoft guns and $45 worth of Windows Movie Maker add-ins, was exhilarating. The film was incredibly moving and gave me a whole new appreciation for life. I am really looking forward to the sequel: 101 Million BC.

It is a movie-buff must-have film. The DVD even has extras with the entire crew and cast (all 14 people) and commentary from the writer, Paul Gales. They even go into the extensive scientific research needed to recreate the time period. EVERYONE needs to see this movie!!!!

Útil
•
14

23

HobbesFly26 abr 2008Enlace permanente
6
/10
Good

Útil
•
13

10

Knollbang23 jun 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
LOL oh dear!

Útil
•
19

8

bgyoung8 abr 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
I've seen worse...
But in all honesty, is it really saying that much? I watched this out of curiosity as I make it a habit of watching these Syfy movies(most of which are really bad) when there is nothing else on. I have seen worse movies than 100 Million BC and there have been worse from SyFy, however this aside that doesn't stop it from being terrible. The production values are cheap and shot so darkly sometimes you can hardly make out what was going on and the effects look phony and the sound is both murky and lacking in authenticity. The music is canned, which can mean tacky and annoying, the case here, the story is badly paced often being dull and there are no thrills, suspense or tense build ups to savour and the dialogue is toe-curlingly bad. The acting not helped by some stock and clichéd characters is awful, Michael Gross tries but Chris Atkins is wooden and painful to watch. All in all, I've seen worse, but this was not a good movie at all. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
4

0

TheLittleSongbird28 jun 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Total crap!
Don't waste your time.

Unless of course you like poorly-acted crap, featuring characters you couldn't possibly care about, annoying music, and the filmmakers' inability to agree on just what the "dinosaurs" in this mess should be constructed of. As a result they gave us big rubber "crocs" (at least I THINK it was a croc), stop-motion animated "raptors", and the dreaded poorly-rendered CGI T-rex.

Ugh! What garbage.

A pity you can't award "0" stars. I LOVE dinosaurs, and gave this movie 1 star based entirely on that.

Útil
•
41

24

Madd_Mann11 abr 2008Enlace permanente
1
/10
Awful Movie
Please don't waste anytime watching this movie, trust me it is time badly spent. For a film of this day and age, the special effects were terrible, the Simpsons movie had better effects, and the acting was also better in the Simpsons as well. Poorly written and very predictable, I was hugely disappointed with the "movie" and it's overall story. The creators should watch Jurassic Park then get back to us with something a little less wooden. This film must have been made on a budget of about £10 because the so called dinosaurs were drawn and the guy playing Reno must have done his part for free as it was so bad. It's a straight to bin movie for me

Útil
•
25

13

lainy198229 may 2008Enlace permanente
4
/10
Silly fun romp with familiar faces and hot guys

Útil
•
8

2

ApolloBoy1092 sept 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
The Asylum's worst

Útil
•
3

0

Leofwine_draca18 mar 2018Enlace permanente
5
/10
Oh no! Not the big one!

Útil
•
3

0

mark.waltz24 ene 2021Enlace permanente
2
/10
I felt embarrassed for the Actors and Animators while watching this movie.

The Animations/special effects were very bad, I would say just lazy more so than an issue of budget. Very low quality and unfinished effects. There is even one Green scene shot where your view is behind the cast and they are looking at a Dinosaur running from right to left. You can see the editors did not even match up where the actors are looking to the creature added in that they are supposed to be looking at, Thats Just lazy.

As for the acting, Have you ever been to a show and seen someone try to perform but do very badly and you feel embarrassed just watching it? That is how I felt during most of the character scenes during this movie, bad acting, the actors come off awkward trying to pull off the scenes.

Often the actor is supposed to be happy or excited but they do not pull it off, Its like when someone does a fake smile and it is obvious it is a fake smile because the rest of the face does not match the emotion that the mouth is making? This is true in this film for most emotions from most of the actors, They either do not pull it off or over do it.

The bad acting and lazy CGI work keep pulling you out of the story, You can not get into the movie because you keep thinking wow that looks so fake, or wow, that was bad acting.

Útil
•
5

1

woodhousebuttler24 sept 2011Enlace permanente
Ready For Reuse

Watching this made me wonder. When a movie isn't good enough to keep me in the movie, my mind wanders to matters about the experience. I am free to explore the world surrounding the movie. Regular readers ask me why I bother. I seem to watch a lot of movies that I report as a waste of time.

Well, they are, and this one is. But this one made me think that we are not far away from the time that ordinary people can make inexpensive movies with effects, and have them be good. No, this one isn't good, and the effects aren't either. But what they've tried with apparently zero talent is pretty ambitious � and its impressive how far they got.

For me, what this indicates is that soon we will have films on the web that are pretty decent � perhaps as decent as much of what is in theaters and on TeeVee. Not you-tube cleverness, but long form compositions, which despite its other weaknesses, this actually pulls off. This all became possible because so much of the cinematic vocabulary is set, and we do use clichés and things much like them. This one dabbles in a few, but thankfully avoids a common one:

There are two women who are sent back in time, and who end up battle a dino. They aren't babes. They aren't stereotypical in any way. They are attractive in this context, despite being as bad at acting as the men. Because they are attractive simply because they are allowed to be human.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Útil
•
5

3

tedg21 abr 2008Enlace permanente
10
/10
an experience like no other
Immensely talent filled film. Shocking sfx so unreal! It was so out of the ordinary that we got to watch floating dinosaurs, unbelievable acting, a love scene between a 60 and 20 year old, and action like no other. Ah to spend twenty minutes watching a zoom panning of a puppet dinosaur stepping on a flaming car as if it were a can of soda. Not to mention that every single car was exactly alike from the helicopter's point of view down to every headlight! A whole new perspective indeed. This was especially wonderful when learning that this was not a 1960 movie but a 2008 movie. How advanced ! And you'd think that the fact that each character's costume design- lack of clothing- and fake tattoos would be a distraction from the levitating dinosaurs- but no! It was absolutely splendid. So in short I am thankful that I wasted 90 minutes on t h i s.

Útil
•
2

1

brownlieava19 abr 2021Enlace permanente
7
/10
Better than Most...Scary in the least !

With Michaeal Gross, Chris Atkins and Greg Evigan. This could be a sequel to Journey To The Center Of The Earth or a prequel ? Maybe that's not fair,This is supposed to be a bigger film and has more success already on Sci-Fi Channel. Great cast, Script has some true moments and plenty of special effects. Michael Gross( from TREMORS) has some sparks with a character that is allowed to breathe life into a mad scientist role. Greg Evigan(BJ & THE BEAR) I believe was filming two movies a t once, And is noticeably In/out Burger-ish. Christopher Atkins(DALLAS) has fun scenes and the major love interest for one of few females along for the trek. We are disheartened on two points-

Griff Furst ,WHY WAS your name removed as director ? The second, Saw these great behind the scenes on raptor and execution lacked, But T-REX was' freaking beacon of hope for kewl visuals'. Producers give more work to Stephen Blackehart , Geoff Meed and Eric Spudic ,'Wow' gentlemen !

Útil
•
7

8

guestar5726 jul 2008Enlace permanente
2
/10
This is not a total wast of time...But its close
If you take a pretty god director like Griff Furst and put it in to a blender with 2 million dollars and a promise to promote the upcoming actor Christopher Atkins you pretty much got the picture of this production.

The theme is something like a mixture of Jurazic Park and "The Gate". But in this case it really don't make it. Soldiers from a experiment gone bad are sent back in time and back to the present comes with them a TIRANIUS SOURIUS REX. Could ya believe it? This is a good movie to watch if your on a hangover and wants to fall asleep without loosing the contents of the movie. Like a Rambo nr5.

It's not a bad picture but I would pay more for the popcorn than I would do fore the ticket.

“Recomendación clara para los fanáticos de la basura, se recomienda a todos los demás que no vean esta película por preocupación por el bienestar de las pantallas inocentes”.

– Films-World.com [ 1 ]
“¿Qué se puede esperar de una película que, no por casualidad, alude en el título a “10.000 a. C.” de Roland Emmerich, que es al menos técnicamente mejor en términos de trucos y se estrenó prácticamente al mismo tiempo? Es mejor no hacer nada en absoluto, porque eso es exactamente lo que la película ofrece al espectador interesado. Si bien la trama inicialmente es comprensible, se desvanece cada vez más en un segundo plano y termina con un enfrentamiento confuso. Esto no juega un papel importante dados los pésimos resultados en todos los aspectos. Sigue siendo un misterio cómo los veteranos actores Michael Gross y Christopher Atkins (“La laguna azul”) pudieron perderse en esta risa de ciencia ficción en gran medida sin cerebro. Al igual que la cuestión de si los efectos especiales subterráneos fueron realmente intencionados en su increíble horror. Incluso en una película o serie de televisión de principios de la década de 1990, una época en la que la animación CGI revolucionó la animación, habría parecido extremadamente vergonzoso”.

– movieforum.de [ 2 ]

A huge iceberg calves that holds a megalodon (mega shark) and a giant octopus frozen inside it. Deployment of a LFAS (low frequency automatic sonar) unit causes it to shatter. The two behemoths thaw and return to life. The shark terrorizes the California coast while the octopus creates havoc things near Japan. A group of three oceanographers put together a plan to draw the beasts into a trap with pheromones.—G. Wiz

2
/10
I had forgotten movies could be this bad

I normally only watch the bigger budget movies with a few art house type sprinkled in, but I had heard about this title somewhere, so when I saw it at the video store I thought, what the heck? how bad could it be? The answer: Amazingly bad. Phenomenally bad. Utterly horrific. Not the worst movie ever, but close. When your movie wishes it was as good as Battlefield Earth, you know you have a problem. It wasn't even the good kind of bad, where you can laugh at the unintentional humor.

The good: Still trying to come up with something The bad: I know this is a low budget D-list movie, but come on - the effects and CGI were stunningly bad. They looked like they were done on my laptop over a weekend. They might have been acceptable in the early 90s.

To make it even worse, many of the CGI scenes were constantly repeated. Whenever the shark or octopus attacked, you usually saw it preparing or approaching for the attack several times using the exact same footage. Sometimes they even bothered to mirror image the scene to make it look different.

So many of the details were amazingly unrealistic. The dialogue was bad, the way people behaved and delivered lines, physics (as in what animals of that size could actually do), torpedoes were like firecrackers, etc.

Quality control was obviously lacking. When the shark approaches a battleship from the side, the ship is shown firing forward. Once, during a video call, for about a second a film crew member wearing a headset pops into existence beside the person on the call, and then disappears. The caller and those working in the background are obviously oblivious to this phantom man.

There was this laughably bad science scene where the main characters keep dumping vials of various colored liquids into test tubes of other colored stuff and then they all looked disappointed. This happened over and over for like 5 minutes. All without any dialogue or any clue as to what they were actually doing. We only knew they were looking for a "solution" to the problem of giant sea monsters. I guess dumping red goo into a vat of blue gunk and having it not turn a different color is not a solution to giant sea monsters. Gosh, I am glad they tried that, it might have worked! There was an embarrassingly bad romance side plot thrown in, and the build up to the final showdown was dull, and then that showdown was short and filled with repeats of the same footage over and over.

I almost never feel strongly enough about a movie to write a review, but for this one I had to. If I prevent even one person from seeing this movie, then I have done my job.

Útil
•
107

22

buckramega30 may 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
A masterpiece!

Útil
•
27

3

Jimmyp8913 oct 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Agonizing

Watching a movie for camp value is a risky thing. To be sure, there are many movies that embrace their silliness and play up their camp value, but sometimes the best campy movies are the ones that take themselves too seriously without realizing that they're completely absurd to begin with. After viewing "Tale of the Mummy," and finally recognizing the virtues of an "unintentionally funny" movie, my friend and I decided to try again, this time with a movie whose title, "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" is so lame that the movie could only be campy fun...or so we thought.

Putting it bluntly, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. No amount of alcohol or other substance can bring out any entertainment value from this piece of crap. The acting is awful, the dialogue is a waste of printer paper, the special effects are an embarrassment, and worst of all, the movie doesn't make any sense. We hardly ever get to see the headlining stars, and when we do, they're just crude CGI effects that are repeated over and over again.

I'd describe the plot, but there it isn't coherent enough to begin with. All that I can tell you is that an ancient species of shark, the Megalodon (an actual species of shark, and that's the only thing that this movie gets right) and a king-sized octopus (that looks more like a squid) were found locked in battle in a giant ice cube. Somehow, they escape, and start terrorizing Japan and San Francisco. Now, it's up to three scientists to stop them.

The acting is awful. 80's pop star Deborah Gibson fares the best, although that's hardly praise. Vic Chao is horrible as her newfound love interest. Surprisingly, this is the only plot line that is coherent, and judging by how much we hate these two characters, that's not a good thing. Lorenzo Lamas is the worst of the lot as the idiot military guy, who wants to blow everything away instead of listening to the scientists (which, judging by their plan, is probably the smarter thing to do, except the movie expects us to sympathize with the moronic scientists...I guess gung-ho military types aren't all that bad).

This is what happens when you make a 200 million dollar epic for less than a dime. Camera shots are obviously repeated (sometimes the monsters are left out of a shot when they're supposed to be destroying something), the acting is grating, and the dialogue is cringe inducing. Even the extras look embarrassed, and they don't say anything. One could argue that this film might have worked with a bigger budget. The truth of the matter is, however creatively bankrupt Hollywood is, no one in the right mind would read this script without first running it through the paper shredder and burning all remnants of its existence.

Words cannot adequately describe how awful this movie is. Physical pain is almost pleasurable compared to the agony that this movie causes. This movie is hard to find, but it should be impossible. This movie should have never been made.

Útil
•
10

1

moviesleuth29 mar 2010Enlace permanente
4
/10
Words cannot describe this awe-inspiring production

And you thought Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster was the greatest monster battle ever recorded on film.

This is ineptitude at its comedic utmost, with a Plan 9 from Outer Space result: you either laugh at its level of inane silliness, hate it for the same reason, or just fall asleep while watching.

The plot: what plot? This script is pretty much a stew of ideas from other goofy monster monstrosities with pre-historic creatures occasionally showing up, brain-dead military that ineffectively shoot everything they have, useless scientists who apparently got their degrees from an on-line certification service, panicky mobs with screaming extras, hokey effects, intentionally moronic dialog, and pathetically atrocious acting. The cast knows it's campy to the extreme, and play along.

60 million years from now, when another species does archaeological digging, they may find a DVD of this. What will move them emotionally the greatest? The sensitive portrayal of "scientist" Debbie Gibson and the Japanese scientist guy making out in a broom closet? The said same scientists experimenting with different flavors of Gatorade (what were they trying to accomplish in that scene, anyway)? Perhaps the five minute struggle between the enormous sea creatures (only seen in periodic choppy three-second out-takes), or that dumb ponytail that Lorenzo Lamas still has?

Also, which of these inspired performances will be awarded the Oscar? The high-flying mega-shark that can swim at 500 knots, or leap 5 miles into the air and snag a plane moving at about 600 miles an hour? Or the big octopus, that swims around aimlessly with such precision? Debbie Gibson's line chewing while constantly pointing her nose directly into the camera? The mono-tonal Japanese scientist guy? Or Lamas, who utters delightfully uproarious quips in your ears every 15 seconds? Words in the English dictionary simply cannot adequately describe the sensitive portrayals in this film.

I hope future generations will experience this landmark cinema and utilize it as an insight of the sophistication of our present-day culture. I'd also like to see the looks on their faces.

Útil
•
66

4

MartianOctocretr530 ago 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Only More Monster Footage Could Save a "Movie" This Horrible

This is one incredibly bad direct to video monster flick (though "bad direct to video monster flick" is probably a redundant term). It has all the classic earmark of the worst DTV has to offer--horrible screenplay, idiotic dialog, lots of talking in lieu of action, that incredibly annoying "avid fart" digital editing, bad grade z cast, Ed Wood level acting and directing, and GC effects that any grade schooler would almost be proud of. Now, this piece of S could have been entertaining despite the abundance of retarded MST3K-worthy acting, writing and direction if ONLY they had sprung for more than five minutes of footage featuring the title monsters. Imagine if King Kong V Godzilla had only featured the title monsters in short three to five second blips and the all out battle between them takes all of eleven seconds from start to finish. Now double how much that would suck and that would be the equivalent of this "film."

To sum up--and incredibly bad, incredibly amateur hunk of junk that would be moronically entertaining if it just weren't so damned boring.

Útil
•
44

15

curtis-824 jun 2009Enlace permanente
2
/10
Deficient Production, absurd script!!!

Útil
•
6

0

pscborges23 ene 2010Enlace permanente
5
/10
"It Rises!"

I'm sure that most of the people who have seen this film were suckered in by the trailer, which became an Internet viral-video smash earlier this year. How could you not want to see it after watching the clip of a gargantuan shark jumping out of the ocean and attacking an airliner? Giant Monster Movies have always brought out my inner 8 year old, and "Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus" was no exception. Is it a good movie? Of course not. But is it a fun movie? Oh, hell yes. For Z-grade direct to video aficionados like myself, this flick is manna from Heaven. I've read much about the notorious production house "The Asylum" (and its celebrated "mockbuster" ripoffs of more famous movies) over the past few months but this is the first film of theirs I've seen. I hate to admit it, but after seeing "Mega Shark" I am now curious enough to investigate some of their other works like "Transmorphers" or "The Terminators". (I must be in dire need of medication.) As you'd expect from a movie made on a six-pack budget, "Mega Shark" is not exactly a feast for the eyes. The special effects are minimal (done mostly in cheap C.G.I.), and the title monsters tend to look like bathtub toys swimming around in dirty dishwater. The human cast isn't much more interesting, although former '80s teen queen Deborah (a.k.a. Debbie) Gibson seems to be having fun with her role as a crusading oceanographer who is pressed into government service (by perennial Direct To Video mainstay Lorenzo Lamas) to help rid the oceans of the two monstrous creatures. Teamed up with her former professor (played by an Irishman doing what appears to be a low-rent Sean Connery imitation) and a Japanese colleague (played by an Asian guy doing an equally low rent George Takei imitation), the three spout a near endless stream of unintentionally hilarious dialog (at least I hope it's unintentional) to pad out run time between the too-short scenes of monstrous mayhem. Mega Shark devours a hunk of the Golden Gate Bridge in addition to his airliner snack, whilst Giant Octopus destroys an offshore oil rig, then the pair team up to destroy a few battleships and submarines full of overacting extras before they turn on each other in what is supposed to be a Battle Royale but in reality takes up approximately two minutes of film. A romantic sub-plot between Debbie and Japanese Scientist Guy is jammed in out of nowhere, apparently so that Debbie has someone to snuggle up with on the beach at the end of the film. Needless to say, I laughed my way through the entire movie. Now that I think about it, The Asylum probably should've teamed with Toho Productions to make this film -- I can only imagine what the "Godzilla" special effects team could've done with this concept. Basically, if you're a lover of bad monster cinema, you need to see "Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus" at least once. Otherwise, you're better off sticking with watching the trailer over and over on YouTube. All the best parts of the movie are in it anyway.

Útil
•
20

5

MetalGeek10 ago 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Possibly the worst film i have ever watched

When the name of the film is "mega shark vs giant octopus" you know that it isn't going to be a great film, but the unimaginative name is no preparation how awful this film is.

The script sounds like it had been forgotten till the night before there's certain lines where you think, "are they trying to be funny or is it just that bad" the first day of filming and the CGI looks like its from the early 90's not to mention that most the CGI scenes were repeated numerous times with slight differences but the fact the scene was repeated was more obvious than the differences.

It seems like they have decided to steal scenes from other films or footage from somewhere and throw it in the film. there's a scene when the "mega shark" attacks a battle ship from the side and the battle ships guns are still facing forward with flashing lights badly edited on the front of them which failed to create the illusion that they are firing anyway.

The thing that amazed me the most was the fact the film was made in 2009 when i first started watching it i thought it must of been made at the latest 2003.

If there's a film you shouldn't watch this is it

Útil
•
16

4

FictionalPulp26 dic 2009Enlace permanente
5
/10
Chock one up for the Asian scientist!

Útil
•
21

7

ElijahCSkuggs16 may 2009Enlace permanente
2
/10
Awful. Reviewed in 1 word...

Útil
•
5

0

Reviewafilm23 may 2010Enlace permanente
10
/10
A Scintillating Cinematic Masterpiece

Debbie Gibsons finest hour comes with a gritty, mesmerising performance in what has to be described as the film of the decade.

The plot, written by premier director Jack Perez, focuses on the age old undersea battle between the two aquatic giants of the sea, which, as we all know, is that of the Shark and the Octopus.

It was only after watching the film 8 times I was informed that the crisp special effects had been done using CGI......incredible! The shark is so lifelike i literally voided my bowels every time this nauseating monster came into shot Perhaps the biggest highlight, of this orgasmic blockbuster, is the romantic sub plot involving Gibson and Vic Chao. Thrown together in a time of world catastrophe the two scientists battle masterfully subtle feelings of sexual tension........now I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but lets just say there is a groundbreaking, red hot conclusion that will leave you shocked and stunned ;) The sequel, Massive Panda vs Quite Tall Aardvark, is due to hit our screens early in 2010, and, if this film is anything to go by, you will need to make advanced bookings at your local cinemas. During a private screening of the first rough cut, 31 people suffered crush injuries while fleeing in terror.

Útil
•
344

75

coburn-mark21 ago 2009Enlace permanente
6
/10
Trailer is way better than actual film
This is definitely the film to see drunk with a few mates. Yeah it's pretty lame but what the heck... it's also a lot of fun. Suspend all belief and go with the schlock. The effects are pretty woeful but that's what makes it fun. Unfortunately the editing of all the major action is done so quickly that you don't get a chance to revel in it's outrageousness. Just when the creatures do something really cool like bite the Golden Gate bridge the scene cuts to something else. I want more from my "millions of years trapped in ice giant monsters of the deep." You also get the feeling that all involved know exactly what a pile of B grade celluloid they're turning out. Two thing I've learnt however is next time i fly I'll be looking out for massive leaping sharks and never call an octopus a squid. Surprisingly Debbie Gibson is really good... not as an octopus but as an actor. I'm now a fan. I can't wait for the sequel. It rises...

Útil
•
44

17

thecomicbox17 may 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Intellectually insulting on every level... and complete crap

Útil
•
14

4

kiawa7729 ago 2009Enlace permanente
2
/10
With a title like this - how can you not be scared?

Yes, it's Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus I believe that true talent shines with this cast and leads of course with everybody's favourite motorcycle rebel - Lorenzo Lamas. Casting his sheer energy to sparkle across a screen, his charm and elegance emblazoned on celluloid forever.

With a script, story and production so tight, so in-depth and intricate, how can you not be involved in the battle between Mega Shark and Giant Octopus? I feel that this story is about how we - the people are being sucked and mauled by our government and we have no idea how to handle the problems that keep us down.

The government tries to come up with solutions, but they don't have a clue and we are helpless to fight until all we can do is watch in terror as we prepare to die.

The government is trying to keep u s down and this is a fantastic story that really defines how true that really is.

By destroying our Eco system and bringing up problems which we can never deal with, we are put into the hands of those who are supposed to have the answers, but don't.

When the best they can do is all the same things as before and they fail, we are left to the forces of nature to choke us and kill us in all their glory - maybe by some slim chance we will survive.

This is really the story behind this story.

Útil
•
4

0

vampyrecowboy13 may 2010Enlace permanente
Plan 9 of Today

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (2009)

1/2 (out of 4)

In the good tradition of the grindhouse era, if you make a great title people are going to pay to see it. That's pretty much what happened with this horrid film, which became a cult item even before it was released due to the trailer being posted on YouTube and quickly becoming a hit. Once again I was suckered into a rental but hopefully others will stay away. The movie has a prehistoric shark and octopus breaking free, causing destruction and in the end fighting to the death. Oh yeah, Lorenzo Lamas and Debbie Gibson (yes, that one) star. Asylum, the group behind this movie, are experts at ripping off other movies with titles such as THE TERMINATORS, THE DAY THE EARTH STOPPED and STREET RACER. This here must have been their shot at doing something "original" but no matter what they were trying to do the end result is a complete mess of a movie, which features horrible acting and some of the worst CGI effects I've ever seen. This is the type of "B" movie that should make you laugh and at least deliver a good time but instead I walked away from this thing highly mad. Why? Because the thing is so cheap that they don't even include full attacks. We will see the shark jumping out of the water and attacking a plane yet we don't see the aftermath. The octopus attacks a large station yet we don't see what happens. The shark goes after a Navy ship, we see one bite but nothing else. There's a scene where the Golden Gate Bridge is attacked but we don't see it. Even the fight between the two monsters is extremely poorly done and that includes reusing the same footage over and over! The only reason this film avoids a BOMB rating is because of the scene where the shark jumps out of the water and attacks the plane. The sight of this is so incredibly bad that I couldn't help but start laughing. The performances are all really bad and that includes Gibson who seems to be confused by what she's doing. There are plenty of good "when nature attack" movies out there and there are many good "direct to DVD" titles out there but this sucker fails on both levels. This is a complete waste of time but at least the producers were smart enough to come up with a great title to get people like me to lay down their cash.

Útil
•
30

16

Michael_Elliott7 jun 2009Enlace permanente
2
/10
I Give it 2 stars just for the title of the movie

As I am huge fan of Killer Animals movies, Spiders, Crocdie , Octopus, Ant, Birds, Dogs, Slugs/Worms, Frogs, you name it, I would like it

I was so looking forward to this movie since i saw trailer but this movie was HUGE let down for me

You will have to seat thought 75 minutes of really BAD acting, (The acting is so bad that it make want to turn the movie off ) for the first Fight scene and I am sure they use the same scenes over and over and over again in the Fight it self was unbeliever RUBBISH and even bigger let down the whole movie

However You do get to see the Octupus and Shark before the Fight scene at different times out of the water!

I would rather watch Octupus 2 (2000) again instead of this!

2/10

Útil
•
11

4

atinder10 sept 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
This movie needs 20 minutes to watch

This movie needs around 20 minutes to watch. The reason for that is, that you will hit the fast forward button every time when the scenes switch from totally stupid and boring to totally meaningless and very boring. This happens every two minutes.

80% of the movie is just cuts from some nature movies where you can see fishes and some water and ice. Between that scenes a few "actors" are talking without any motivation through a script which was sure written by a 8 year old kid.

There are a few scenes where you can see a shark eating a plane, a bridge, a battleship and a submarine and a octopus crushing a oil drilling platform and an other submarine. (thats the whole storyline, sorry for that spoiler) Well if you reproduce the same scenes with a few toy ships and a sock puppet painted like a shark it will look more realistic and much more amusing.

Do not waste you're live time with watching only one minute of that movie. This is not that kind of B movie which is funny because of all the logic failures in it. This movie is that bad, that it is affront of the director against the audience.

Útil
•
2

0

emphedokles9 dic 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
If you've watched the trailer (and I'm sure you have, otherwise you wouldn't be here), you can skip the movie
Like many other people, I saw the hilariously cheesy trailer for Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, and was plenty amused by it, so when I saw it was coming on the Sci-Fi Channel, I thought it might be hilarious all the way through. Boy, was I wrong. Once you get past the whole "it's Debbie Gibson playing a scientist who has to fight giant sea creatures" ironic humor appeal, there's absolutely nothing appealing about this movie. It's ridiculous, but not in a funny way, just in a dull, bland, generic, cheap CGI monster movie way. Lorenzo Lamas chews scenery, Debbie Gibson is about as believable as you might expect an aging teen pop star to be as a scientist, and the whole endeavor was a chore to sit through for 90 minutes. There's no reason to sit through the entire thing when you can just chuckle at the two-minute trailer.

Útil
•
2

0

johnnylongtorso-600-8585296 dic 2009Enlace permanente
4
/10
The title is good for most of my stars

Let's face it, you watch this movie basically because the title intrigues you. It's just one of those things, like Snakes on a Plane, or the Attack of the 50 foot Woman. You know everything if you know the title, so you're in for a search where the title explains itself in the movie.

The actors, if you can call them that, are probably paying to be in this movie and get their minutes of fame. The soldiers were so incredibly unrealistic that it makes me believe they're the comic sidekicks. It works, every now and then. The scientists are even more over the top. I wouldn't trust them to mix even a vodka with juice. Finally, the protagonists, two overweight fishies, come straight out of the seventies or the eighties, where they survived previous movies.

So what's good? Well, it's kind of nice to look at Gibson when she makes her seductive face. It's kind of nice to look at Lamas constantly wondering what he's doing there. It's kind of nice to see some actors actually trying to say their lines without bursting into tears.

Special effects are missing, shots are reused, the plot is like Swiss cheese, but I'm happy that I watched it. Really. And even if only for the title, this movie deserves a place in my collection.

Útil
•
9

7

supernick-34 jun 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Anyone who says "so bad its good" is a liar

Útil
•
3

1

clarkedwardobrien10 nov 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
I think I might have discovered the surefire cure to insomnia

I think that sitting down to watch "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus", a torturous experience I shall never go through again, I knew right from the start that it was going to be bad. Not only bad, but really bad. Any person with half a brain could tell that by the title. Why did I see it? I guess just to see how bad it really was. And take my word for it, it's even worse than what you're expecting. For a long time, I thought "Python" (2000) was a surefire contender for the worst of the low-budget monster flicks that I've seen on the sci-fi channel. But no. This 'movie' is so bad that it makes "Python" glow like "Citizen Kane" (1941) by comparison.

The plot's more or less the same than what you'd expect. Maybe less. You know, giant prehistoric monsters escape and wreck havoc for no particular reason, because that's just what giant prehistoric monsters are supposed to do. This time, a giant megalodon shark that can swallow the Golden Gate Bridge and an octopus that can sink a sea-based airfield platform have escaped from the frigid ice of the north. A cast of hammy actors start reciting monologues about how 'special and dangerous' these things are, how they must be captured for research, and when they cannot be caught or destroyed, it seems there's no better solution that to pit them against each other in a fight to the death.

The 'film' defies logic. Even low-budget monster-on-the-loose movie logic. For example, in a scene that had me laughing for nearly a whole minute, the giant shark swallows a passing commercial airliner by jumping approximately thirty-five thousand feet straight up into the air. And I also wonder just what possessed the fifty-million-year-old carnivore to take a bite out of the Golden Gate Bridge when there's plenty of big humpback whales and other marine animals to snack on. I guess the filmmakers had it in their minds that it was to be cool. Well, the Golden Gate Bridge was pulled down by a giant octopus in the film "It Came from Beneath the Sea" from 1955 and while I didn't think that movie was enormous impressive, it was still worlds better on entertainment than this. How can artillery shot into the air go underwater and simply explode in the general area right around the giant creatures? How can a creature who can snap a battleship in half with one bite have so much difficulty breaking a small submarine in two? Why would you try to bait giant carnivores by creating a pheromone signature using Gatorade when a big heap of fresh meat would do? Or perhaps an airplane, since they seem to like those. And also, if these two giant monsters were frozen in combat and want nothing more than to kill each other than anything else, why is it that when they're released simultaneously, do they go their separate ways? Making up? As good as guess as any, I suspect. Maybe I missed a piece of dialogue that explained this. I was falling pretty deep into slumber during this.

Of course, lots of movies defy logic. But even if this film made sense, which it does not, it would still be bad. The cast stars actors who have been good before and may be good again someday, but were just awful here and I think it's because they're aware that they're in an awful film, the big projects are given to the big stars, they don't have to put much of an effort because they know it'd be for nothing, and they just take the paycheck. Lorenzo Lamas, for example, has never been so mediocre. And he looks flat out absurd as a government agent who's dressed to look like a cross between Tony Montana and Steven Seagal—whose career I think his' is starting to resemble.

And CGI effects for the monsters whom we seldom ever see? I've seen worse and better on the sci-fi channel. But as poor as the effects are, it would have been better to see more of them than just more monologues and ridiculous love scenes and pacing by the bland, impersonal characters who don't interest us for a second.

Take my word for it. Those of you who want to test the movie to see if it's as bad as it sounds, do not. You will regret it. When I sat down to watch this film, I found myself inevitably riffing it like our heroes from "Mystery Science Theater 3000" because in the past, that sort of unlabored the burden. Here, not even that helped. I made jokes at everything I saw and still, I was suffering. In fact, I was so depressed and appalled by this atrociously bad excuse of a film that immediately after viewing it, I had to pop in my DVD of Hitchcock's masterpiece "Vertigo" (1958) just to remind myself of what a *true* motion picture is.

However, there may be one good thing going for this movie? You know that chronic sleeplessness called insomnia? Well, I may have just discovered a cure for that. Perhaps if you can't sleep and this piece of garbage (I seldom use that when describing a movie, but I had to here) is on, maybe it'll help put you to sleep. However, you may still wake up in a depression and regret what you did. So, you have been warned. Those of you who have not seen this movie, I envy you. I really do.

Útil
•
4

2

TheUnknown837-129 ago 2009Enlace permanente
10
/10
Greatest story ever told

Útil
•
60

22

kattes13 jul 2009Enlace permanente
6
/10
Grade B Sci-Fi still lives and proliferates
A few of us like a good sci-fi laugh and this one has me laughing hard. This genre was meant to amuse not be taken seriously as possible but to be laughed at and entertained by it. This movie ranks high compared to the grade B that some of us grew up with that was all Black and White. It was not ever meant to be taken seriously. The one real part is how the shark attacks the plane though the height in air was a bit unreal in extreme. The bigger sharks do attack from below and emerge from water. If a viewer wants serious then there are other movies out for that. Most viewers are looking for entertainment and escape. The place that this movie lacks most is balance between the shark and octopus though Geographic showed us that Octpus can kill sharks near same size. if the shark cant move it will die. Viewers that want a good laugh will get a few from viewing this.

Útil
•
18

7

sknt29 ago 2009Enlace permanente
3
/10
...SHOCKINGLY....! - Bosley Crowther

Útil
•
4

2

Bmovie29 ago 2009Enlace permanente
1
/10
Watch at your peril

This film is so bad it's errr. BAD.

The best acting comes from the shark and octopus.

Debbie, I would suggest you just keep trying to "shake your love", it worked in the 80's, it's sadly missing in the noughties

Is there a sequel in the wings, the ending may seem to show that possibility.

The theatrical trailer released in mid-May 2009 became a viral hit, scoring over a million hits on MTV.com and another million more on YouTube upon launch, prompting brisk pre-orders of the DVD.[1] This film is also notable as one of the very few American films to feature an Asian American male as a romantic lead as Vic Chao's character Dr. Seiji Shimada, serves as a love interest for Debbie Gibson's character, Emma MacNeil.

The film was met with mostly negative reviews, with an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an average score of 3.34/10. The consensus reads, "With shoddy FX, acting and directing. This isn't so bad it's good. It's just so bad it's terrible."[2] Peter Whittle of The Sunday Times gave the film one out of five stars and considered it "Unwatchable, almost unreviewable, this stupid monster movie makes the Béla Lugosi swan song Plan 9 from Outer Space look like a masterpiece."[3] Philip French of The Observer said in his review that "The risible special effects and the clumsy acting recall not Roger Corman productions but the ineptitude of Ed Wood, though the result is far less endearing."[4] Kim Newman of Empire magazine gave it two out of five stars, calling it "Daft, plain daft. With a few daft but spectacular stunts."[5] Scott Mendelson of The Huffington Post also gave the film two out of five stars, saying that "the actors are all appropriately terrible and the story is completely absurd."[6]

Bill Gibron of PopMatters gave the film an 8 out of 10, saying that "Schlock may be an acquired taste, like caviar, foie gras, and Arby's, but it's hard to see how anyone wouldn't enjoy this extremely tacky dish." He also praised Gibson's performance in the film.[7] Despite criticizing the overall film quality, Stephen of The Three Rs gave the film a 7 out of 10, calling the plane attack scene "the epitome of monster awesome."[8]

Un gigantesco grupo de feroces pirañas mutantes escapan del Amazonas y se abrirán camino hacia Florida arrasándolo todo a su paso. (

1
/10
Wonderful in it's badness

If you are a fan of really bad movies, and I am, this is a must. I think it was conceived and written by a bunch of teen aged boys who aren't into women yet (no T and A). It has everything else that they love. It has lots of car chases in exotic locals, with big shiny American cars racing down dirt roads, lots of stuff blowing up, lots of shooting and a lot of really, really big fishies.

The dialog is what you would expect, also conceived by a bunch of little kids. The scenes along the river are just plain stupid. Why, when you know that the big fishies are able to jump for unknown distances, would anyone stand on a river bank.

It is doom from the word go...in every sense of the word.

I am 70 years old and have seen some really badly conceived plots and dialog, but this one is a keeper.

Útil
•
94

9

mexicoms10 abr 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Doubling in size every 2 days IS exponential...

Well, folks...Syfy has done it again. Another sub-B movie churned out in the same tier as Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. I normally get a laugh out of this sort of flick; the purple prose script with cheesy delivery, the absurd plots with more holes than a screen door and the shockingly bad cg are all fodder for mocking and jeering with friends. Still, these movies can only achieve the rank of risibly bad classics if the writers, actors and directors are completely oblivious to just how terrible a film they've unleashed upon the world. Syfy originals seem to exist for the sake of being entertainingly awful, and it is that bent-on-wrecking-this-train mentality that makes this and many other movies lame.

The movie follows the same formula that plagues the made for TV nature-horror scene. Follow these steps and you too can be a Scifi writer! Take some normal animals that aren't much of a threat and make them huge/super strong/intelligent (pick any super-animal attribute. It really doesn't matter). Science creates then tries to control the bastard chimeras, but of course scientists are nerds, so they should fail. This is usually because the military/some evil corporation ruins everything with snafu after snafu. This step is important because it serves as a diatribe to meddling scientists, overconfident military leaders and corporate America. Your script now has depth and you can tote your worth as a writer that cares about the issues. Insert the big, bad protagonist. He should be able to punch and kick his way through hordes of monsters that have ripped through countless crewman number 6s and still look damn good doing it. You can also add a strong independent and flawlessly attractive girl to the script. The more independent you make her, the more substance the script has. It is important to acknowledge that women are every bit as amazing your beefcake hero and your creation will be so revolutionary that even a feminist won't scoff at it(you'll also have a slightly better chance of scoring with the lead lady). You now have the tools to start your own script. I don't want to flood the market with great writers, so you'll have to figure out the end for yourself. Use a lot of fake blood, clean up obvious plot holes with single lines like, "Yeah, well things change," and insert as many bikini-clad women as your budget will allow and I'm sure everything will be fine.

This movie works on many of the same levels, and it is sure to be one of the most critically acclaimed thrillers of this or any year. Just remember: regardless of whether a piranha is doubling in size every 2 days or 36 hours, it is growing exponentially.

Útil
•
47

5

Unhappysmile-110 abr 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
My God!!! There are piranhas as big 747s jumping out of the river and landing on buildings and exploding!!
Mega Piranha is on, right now on the SciFi Channel (I refuse to call that channel what its actually been renamed; that's just bloody stupid). There are piranhas as big as jumbo jets jumping out of the river and exploding on impact. Some bad-ass martial arts dude just used some mixed martial arts to kill some baby piranhas which were as big as refrigerators. Anyway, I was just talking to a buddy of mine. Years ago back in junior high, my friends and I used to come up with stupid ideas for movies to pass the time away in school. Well, one of those ideas were about giant piranhas as big as Godzilla terrorizing some city. We were kids and we knew that was frig gin' stupid. But Asylum Films, they're laughing all the way to the bank. I went hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get a master's degree to teach English Lit. to kids who don't even give a crap when I could have taken all those stupid ideas for movies way back in the day and made them for the SciFi Channel. Jesus! I am an idiot!

Útil
•
73

12

jrice7310 abr 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Amusing at first, but then tedious in its awfulness
Everyone loves a bad monster movie, right? There is a great charm in the so-bad-it-is-good film, and for a while Mega Piranha delivers the goods. Alas, but then the unremitting awfulness wears you down due to endless repetition of scenes and CGI that is so bad that it can't be unintended (I hope). Add the unlikely return of a really rubbish villain (flying a helicopter that seems to be able to circumnavigate the whole world), and a truly bizarre finale that suggests that everyone just got bored and pulled the plug, and you just have ultimate tedium (well, for me, at least). Still, it is not everyday that you get to see Tiffany playing a hydro-biologist, and I'm hoping to see Britney Spears as a Navy Seal in 'Mega Shrimp' and Ke$ha as the US President in 'Monster Manatee' vs. Giant Gecko' some time soon.

Útil
•
18

2

By-TorX-124 feb 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
yeah wow...

Útil
•
10

1

kizzakirk7 mar 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Syfy moves getting worse with each new "original movie"
This is one of the worst movies I have seen on SyFy. Their ability to make good movies decrease with every new "original movie" they make. While the location shots were great the film itself was one of the worst I have ever seen. Paul Logan was the only good actor in the movie. It was hard to see Barry Williams diminish his star quality by doing such a low quality picture. Tiffany proves she has no acting skills at all. She could not deliver lines while doing anything else. One scene she was running from danger, had to stop, deliver lines and wait for someone to give her a cue to run again. The extras were just as bad! Doesn't look like they were given any direction in what to do. One scene they go to arrest the hero and he's not there. They just stood there and looked around, no movement just stood in look. I would only recommend this film to film students wanting to know what to do to make a quality film.

Útil
•
18

4

Talonrock30 may 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Quite dreadful but hilariously funny!

Útil
•
11

2

chipsfr3323 ene 2011Enlace permanente
5
/10
"Try shooting its tail fin!"

I had too much fun laughing at this to vote it lower than a 5.

Piranhas are already pretty fearsome creatures. So naturally, some scientists genetically mutate them. Things go wrong; the creatures escape into a Venezuelan river, and start to "grow exponentially." So a big guy on steroids named Fitch is sent to aid Venezuelan soldiers to fight the menace. They look like Castro impersonators, and end up chasing him around, for whatever reason.

When the Sec. of State looks like a Brady and is named Grady, you know the "Asylum" movie makers are just "winking at the audience." The action-film meets sci-fi motif is played with over-the-top gusto: look for piranha jumping high into the air and slamming their victims down like a sledgehammer. I didn't know they could do that. Even mutated ones. Steroid Fitch kick-boxes an entire school of piranha senseless in a great Jackie Chan moment. The super-sized creatures crash themselves into Key West hotels. Battleships get turned into Fish Filet sandwiches. The TV news reporter doing play-by-play of a piranha attack, the bit about tail fins, Col. Valdez inexplicably showing up in Florida; hilarious.

Most of the time it makes absolutely no sense what's going on, with absurd scientific plot holes everywhere. There's no intent for this to be taken seriously; and taken at face value it's classic B movie silliness.

Útil
•
23

8

MartianOctocretr511 abr 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Wow! Just unbelievable!

Alright, this movie is bad. B, A, D! Bad! I had an expectation that it would not be a super great movie, being a SyFy movie and all, but wow! This was beyond anything I had imagined or could imagine.

First of all, they kept showing the same scenes over and over and over and over and over... And those scenes were not even nice to look at. Already here the movie was starting to go downhill.

The effects in the movie were laughable at best. There weren't a single moment in the movie that were above mediocre.

As for the acting, well it was strained and hard to digest. But at least they gave it a shot! This movie is good for one thing only, and that is cheap laughs. I am going to make my friends watch it, because it cannot be put into words how bad this movie really is.

"Mega Piranha" is a movie that should be avoided if you are a movie-lover. Or if you are going to watch it, do it solely for the super cheesy effects and the lack of everything else!

Útil
•
21

7

paul_haakonsen25 may 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
I wanted to like this movie....
I was looking to a wonderful day watching the SyFy channel. DinoCroc and other silly, stupid movies. But, this movie was the worse. Bad acting, bad writing, bad cinematography, bad special effects....bad, bad, bad. I just can't accept a leading actor that makes Arnold seem like a linguist, piranhas the size of 737s (albeit, with slightly shorter flight range), and Greg Brady as a secretary of...? Of what? I love these movies, but not this one. I can't believe in this day and age that the special effects (especially the huge fish flying and swimming out of the water) could be sooooo bad. My GF said said "if you didn't like it it, it must have been the worse". It was. It is.

Útil
•
17

9

jvliberto12 abr 2010Enlace permanente
10
/10
A Cinematic Masterpiece
A brilliantly executed story. This movie has it all: a genius script, fantastic actors, playful cinematography and stunning CGI. After watching this film, I actually wanted to become a movie producer. But I gave up after realising I could never create something as beautiful and amazing as Mega Piranha

Útil
•
9

2

darth_juggernaut14 oct 2019Enlace permanente
7
/10
Just as Epic as You'd Expect

James Cameron can rest easy ... someone has finally made a piranha movie that's even more ridiculous than his legendary directorial debut, "Piranha II: The Spawning."

The mad scientists at the Asylum, home of "Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus" and seemingly dozens of "mockbusters," have hit a home run with their latest masterwork, "Mega Piranha." It's got everything we have come to expect from an Asylum film -- a ridiculous plot, hilariously awful dialogue, cheap CGI special effects, and acting roles filled by has-beens from days gone by (gaze at the wonder that is Barry "Greg Brady" Williams as the US Secretary of State, and former '80s teen pop star Tiffany as a government scientist!). But then, no one goes into a movie like this expecting "Gone With the Wind." I'll go out on a limb and proclaim "Mega Piranha" to be a better film than the aforementioned "Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus" -- of course, that's not saying much, but at least "Mega Piranha" keeps the action flowing at a quick pace, while "MS vs. GO" got bogged down at times with too many scenes of dialogue. The story is negligible of course -- the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela mysteriously disappears during a boat excursion on the river, leading the state department to send in a lone G.I. Joe type to investigate what happened. Terrorists are suspected, but the truth is even worse - that the ambassador's boat happened into a portion of the river ruled by mutant piranhas the size of Great Danes. The fish were part of a failed experiment conducted by Tiffany and her laboratory crew, who thought they'd all been destroyed. You have to wonder why anyone would think that messing with piranha DNA till they're bulked up bigger than Mark McGwire would be a good idea in any context, but that's neither here nor there. The local military leader believes that the fish are part of an American government plot to take over his country, so he orders an air strike on the natural dam that keeps the piranha contained to one part of the river. Predictably, all fishy hell breaks loose from there. Not only are these piranha nasty, but they grow "exponentially," meaning by the time they reach civilization they're the size of Winnebagos and are jumping out of the water, crashing into buildings, swallowing people in one gulp, and causing mass mayhem as they head for the open water of the ocean. Will G.I. Joe and Tiffany succeed in stopping the fishy menace before they reach American waters? I will leave it to you to watch for yourself and find out. In case I haven't made myself perfectly clear, "Mega Piranha" was a 24 Karat hoot. In addition to the usual gallery of "killer creature movie clichés" present throughout the film, we get the added bonus of an international intrigue subplot and the action movie clichés' that go along with them. I got a kick out of the endless scene changes that were accompanied by a "Swoooooosh!" or "BAM!" sound effect, and the occasional split-screen trick ala "24." Now that I think about it, G.I. Joe Guy plays his role as sort of a low-rent Jack Bauer, monotone voice and all. You know this guy's a bad ass because he only needs his K-Bar commando knife, or a series of well placed kung-fu kicks, to defend himself against the killer sushi. Now I guess there's nothing to do but sit back and wait for the inevitable "Mega Piranha Vs. Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus" crossover film that Asylum is probably already writing as I speak. Can the B-film world handle the acting chops of Tiffany AND Debbie Gibson in the same movie?? Either way, I'm betting my money on the piranhas.

Útil
•
23

17

MetalGeek12 abr 2010Enlace permanente
2
/10
OMG this is so BAD

Where do i start, this movie is not in the same class as Piranha which is a cult classic. Mega piranha is such an amateurish production and direction, each seen lasts a few seconds with a bang here a flash there just like the rubbish George Lucas dished up more recently. Everything is kinda explained to camera as if the viewer doesn't understand the plot. Our hero Fitch can't speak the local lingo so shouts at the locals and they fully understand and speak back in spanish to him. This movie could be a drinking game as such.

1. Camera Flash = Take a shot 2. Caption = Take a Shot 3. Un-nessacary Caption = Take a shot.

4. Stock footage = Take a shot 5. Actors waiting for their que's to say their lines

You will be blind drunk in under 15 minutes.

Útil
•
3

0

edwardrevans20 abr 2021Enlace permanente
2
/10
delightfully bad

Útil
•
5

1

chadcf2 oct 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
how can killing one kill them all

Útil
•
5

2

meaty09724 ago 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
A ruthless eating machine

Devouring everything in its path with ruthless efficiency, wiggling a bloated swollen tail to propel itself from one disaster scene to the next, can anything stop the menace of the Fat Chick Who Ate Tiffany? We could consider the other merits of the movie, but it has none. None at all. It's a SyFy quota quickie, with the usual collection of embarrassingly awful CGI, an utterly nonsensical script made from scraps of coffee stained paper found in community film college trash cans, and a cast harvested from the rejects of daytime soap extra auditions.

So instead let's just cut to the chase and talk about the Name in this disaster of a disaster movie: Tiffany.

God damn, SyFy has made some bizarre choices in female leads. The criteria is simple enough: take some washed up has-been like Traci Lords or a desperate wannabe like Felicia Day who will work for cab fare and catering, shove them in front of a camcorder and film whatever they feel like shrieking. But at least with the like of Lords or Day, you probably kinda woulda, maybe. But Tiffany looks like she passed on the cab fare and just ate the catering. And everyone else's. And the caterers.

Granted, you can't complain about the quantity of T&A on screen, but the quality leaves a lot to be desired. She's about 2 supersized lunches away from being comedy fatso material, only without the laughs.

To be fair, if you're into chubby chasing, Tiffany has quite a soft milfy look to her pudgy face, and if SyFy had squeezed her into a corset and filmed her carefully, they might have made something watchable. But making her wobble and waddle from one shoddy location to the next must surely count as cruelty to the disadvantaged.

Útil
•
9

7

RogerBorg4 abr 2011Enlace permanente
4
/10
What a great, cheesy movie!

Totally unashamed of its own cheese factor! Absolutely the only competent aspect of this movie is the pacing, which is super fast. You only have a second or two to share a wink with the producers, then it's on to some other absurdity.

The fish are the main attraction (of course), but there's plenty else to enjoy. All the actors really camp it up. You'll probably find yourself thinking, "Hey, I would gladly have done Tiffany when she was 18, but now she looks like my Mom and it would be really weird...." As far as non-human characters, the super-fish are GREAT! I'm surprised that the scriptwriters didn't have them start building nuclear weapons or making prank phone calls.

Harmless fun. What's best, it cost virtually nothing to make, leaving more money for developing movies that are actually good. Recommended for bad movie lovers everywhere.

Útil
•
8

6

innocuous2 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Even for a sy-fy movie, it is quite terrible!

Now I do love movies and always have and most likely always will. I have seen a number of notoriously bad sy-fy movies, but Mega Piranha takes the cake. Now I will give some credit, if you see it in the right state of mind, you might revel in its awfulness.

What makes Mega Piranha so awful especially is the production values. The scenery and locations are striking enough but the sloppy editing and dull lighting spoils it, and the piranhas are as menacing as rubber fish toys(very over-sized ones at that) and looking at them you would actually mistake them for those.

The story is incredibly predictable,ridiculous, unexciting and feels cobbled together. There is also a lack of atmosphere, for a movie of the genre, it has next to no suspense, thrills or scares no matter how hard it tries. Any suspenseful moments are clumsily handled, and the dialogue is excruciatingly awful, being laughable and melodramatic almost as if little kids were writing for some kind of script-writing assessment. If that was the case, and if I were a teacher, I would give them an F for effort.

The acting is dreadful, it never rises above bad sit-com-ish quality and a lot of it feels strained. Barry Williams tries but fails, Paul Logan's acting feels superficial and phoned in and the less said about Tiffany the better.

Speaking of the direction, it is so soulless you can hardly tell if there was a director on board at all. And the resolution is really daft and hard to take seriously. The characters are shallow and artificially written.

Overall, terrible but maybe worth the watch for the novelty value. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
5

3

TheLittleSongbird10 abr 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
rather be watching grass grow...

Útil
•
4

2

davidnunney20 ene 2011Enlace permanente
4
/10
Seriously silly Asylum mockbuster

Well what can I say other than The Asylum strikes again. It's the usual script – another Hollywood blockbuster is accompanied by yet another Asylum mockbuster. In this instance the big movie being ripped off for all that its worth is Piranha 3D, which in itself is a remake of an old 70's film. Ah modern cinema. Personally I have a lot more time for The Asylum's biscuit-taking cash-ins than the big-budget remakes they ape. At least these guys are a small independent company surviving by 'innovative' means, whereas the big studios lazily churn out countless remake/re-imagining/re-boots. The Asylum are simply following the longstanding grand tradition of ripping off the latest Hollywood smash hit, albeit in an admittedly memorably moronic way. In their latest offering – Mega Piranha – they seem to almost be cashing in on one of their own movies, Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. Not only do we once again have a Mega monster but hilariously specifically we also have a late 80's teen-pop singer as a biologist in one of the lead roles. In the former film it was Debbie Gibson, here it's Tiffany. Interestingly the latter makes Gibson seem like Faye Dunaway, such is her acting ability. All Tiffany seems to do in this movie is run from scene to scene spouting out exposition dialogue. Although in fairness she looks Shakespearean compared to her male co-star Paul Logan, I last saw him in the action boob-fest Return To Savage Beach, and it's only fair to say that his acting ability has improved approximately 0% in the intervening 12 years.

The story is the usual mix of nonsense that anyone who has seen Sci-Fi Channel movies would come to expect, i.e. some creatures become large and dangerous due to the meddling of science and wreak havoc, while a group of good guys and bad guys battle it out in the foreground. And that in a nutshell is what this movie is about. Make no mistake though, Mega Piranha is a much better film than Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. In the latter film you only really needed to see the trailer to see all of the best bits in the movie, the rest being padded out with tedious naval scenes, but this film is ram-packed with pure nonsense from the get-go and basically doesn't stop until the end. It's full of abysmal CGI effects that are almost heroically terrible and, generally speaking, the film is monumentally stupid.

I'm not sure how far The Asylum can take this mega-monster-starring-late-80's-pop-princess cycle of movies but I for one hope that one day they make Mega Ferret vs. Giant Badger starring Martika as a�..yep you guessed it, biologist.

Útil
•
5

4

Red-Barracuda2 sept 2010Enlace permanente
10
/10
This movie totally rocks!

Útil
•
36

24

viper512111 abr 2010Enlace permanente
7
/10
Hits the perfect so-bad-it's-good sweet spot

Útil
•
8

6

zetes31 may 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
A New Low for Sci-Fi

Tagline: "They were created to save mankind. Something went wrong." You can say that again.

SyFy Channel continues to plumb new depths in sci-fi programming with this entry from "auteur" Eric Forsberg. Mega Piranha stands out as the consummate example of low quality, mindless fodder cranked out for the indiscriminating pre-teen viewer. Sadly, a generation of impressionable kids are being trained to accept this level of crap as acceptable entertainment.

Dread Central wrote about the film: "Now, the question becomes whether Mega Piranha means we should expect a super-sized piranha a la Asylum's Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus or if they are basing their film around the prehistoric Megapiranha, a toothier, three-foot version of the carnivorous fish that became extinct millions of years ago. Given the big screen 3D remake is about these Megapiranha, I would say odds are high the latter will prove the case.[9]

The film reached a 2.2 million audience for its April 10 premiere, making it the channel's most-watched movie of the year. Of those, 807,000 were adults 18–49.[10]

Mega Piranha holds an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on thirteen reviews.[11]

Herman Melville's classic novel retold. That infamous Great White Whale is now bigger, badder and a whole lot stronger in this science fictional re-imagining of Herman Melville's classic tale of the battle between a man, the sea and a sea creature starring "Xena: Warrior Princess" alumnus Rene O'Connor as the (traditionally male) narrator. But the Pequod - now a high tech submarine - is also bigger, and this version of Capt. Ahab is just as determined as ever to settle the score and take down the mighty marine mammal that maimed him.

An abomination... even for a B movie
This take on the classic literary masterpiece Moby-Dick does not deserve to be even mentioned in the same sentence. Herman Melville is turning in his grave right now. Just about the only thing that's related to the book are the names of the characters. The story is set in a present day submarine, features some of the worst acting imaginable, grade school quality production, and just about the worst script.

And the worst part about it is that it takes itself seriously. I am sure it will quickly make it's way to IMDb's bottom 100. I am just happy I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap.

Útil
•
48

11

DigitalBlade21 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
worst use of modern filmmaking technology
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I am so shocked half-way through it- that I had to stop- and go back and look over reviews- to make sure- super sure- that maybe what I am seeing is a comedy. No- it's just that bad. The cgi is so tragically bad- that in one scene- you see a closeup of a whale's eye and see the wiremesh show up because of low polycount. Wow.

I think this is a treasure of a movie for film students- It must be mindblowing to them how it is possible that these fools got funded to make this crap- and then it actually got distributed- amazing. If I had made this movie- I would not have distributed it- out of sheer shame. I think the actors probably looked at this movie afterwards in its entirety and walked out before it ended.

Útil
•
39

9

leocharre21 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Unbelievably awful!

I have no idea HOW they got the cast to do this hokum. It was frakking unbelievably awful.

I have no idea how they got the cast to sign on, I have no idea. Blackmail? Threats of torture? Kidnapping? But they were just wasted. They looked like they couldn't believe they had been forced to do such awful drivel.

What killed it was the story. The original was a wonderful novel. It has been done quite well at least three times before, with Gregory Peck, Patrick Stewart or Jack Aranson as Ahab. Orson Welles made a short of it. A new version is coming out with William Hurt as Ahab, and I look forward to it. Even if the script had been decent, I think Barry Bostwick would have been out of his league playing Ahab.

The special effects aren't that bad, but it takes so little to do that these days. What was AWFUL was how they used them. The whale looks to be the size of an island, simply bigger than any animal has ever been found to be.

I could go on and on and on. The only pleasure from it was like that of watching an airplane about to crash. You know it's a disaster in progress and it will be famously horrible.

Útil
•
28

6

mike-ryan45526 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Avoid at all cost

Útil
•
23

6

quakelord20088 ene 2011Enlace permanente
4
/10
Balancing on the line of being awful.

Lets make make something clear, this is low budget. Whats worse is that any technical aspect that could possibly be wrong, IS wrong. A low budget is no excuse for not doing some basic research on the internet before you being production, its free after all.

We have navy officers wearing army field uniforms, we have have a one legged submarine captain and and helicopter attacking a submerged nuclear submarine with a machine gun, and doing enough damage to make the 400feet sub shake like it was being depth charged!

All the special effects and animations looks like they transfered in from the eighties and and most of the sets are awful as well. The ultramodern submarine looks like a run down Russian factory on the inside, and the instrumentation seems borrowed from a lesser Sci-Fi production.

So why did I still give it a 4? Well I managed to sit through the movie. I'll admit that I was desperately bored, but still. The acting is not as horrible as you might expect, but still far from anything memorable. And the basic story is not hopeless either, with a large studio this might have become an OK film on par with godzilla or king kong. However any similarities with the original book are nowhere to be seen, besides the big whale and the obsessed captain that is.

The 4 I gave it is being generous, but I have seen movies that are worse, and still scored higher on IMDb.

Útil
•
23

6

GustafM21 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
#1 rated for ridiculous movie

I am sorry I wasted my money on buying such a poor movie, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous and poorly made movies on record. Very poor acting, nothing life like at all, I am sure this movie was made in some child's bathtub using his play whale and toy submarine. I wouldn't give this a one out of ten, how can anyone take credit for this kind of rubbish, it is truly an insult to the first Moby Dick movie. The whale Moby Dick looked like a big rubber toy and the waves created by computer graphics were obscene. I am sure they could have done better at a sea side "Punch and Judy" show.

They should take the camera's back to where you got them until they know how to use them, was this some kind of "Your on Candid Camera" stunt?

Don't waste your money or time watching this, I'd rather go down to the lake and feed the ducks!!

Útil
•
22

7

Robert12924 dic 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Moby Dick the Turkey

When I came across this DVD I thought, why not, this could not be that bad. I have seen flicks like Mega-Piranha and I enjoyed it a bit. And here we have Trey Stokes directing, a man who knows his stuff as a visual effects man, he worked for Species and Starship Troopers and be honest, not bad at all. But here in Moby Dick, it's one with a lot of yawning and this can't be happening. If you are even a fan of those SyFy trash flicks you will have your doubts of this one. The CGI is one of the worst I have seen. The script is written in two lines, line one, we have to kill Moby dick, line two, he can't be killed. Some scene's did indeed remind me of Mega Piranha, for example the helicopter scene but that must be the best part. On the DVD you have some gag reel and I enjoyed that part more than the flick itself. There are really some stupid things going on like the torpedo story at the end with two soldiers just waiting for impact and others trying to kill Moby with a shotgun. No I didn't enjoy it and I have seen creature features from all era's. Moby Dick was just a teaser to attract fans of the original one and the sleeve is influenced by Jaws but for the rest it was utterly a Moby Turkey, what a Dick he is.

Útil
•
10

2

trashgang4 oct 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Alrighty then. This was, well uhm, special...

Well, you already know what kind of movie this was going to be. A bad one, and it turned out to be just that. It is the kind of movie that is similar to a car crash, you know you shouldn't look, but you can't help it.

Lets start with the story, it was sort of a re-take on the classic tale, though oddly twisted and warped in a sense. And it was actually not really necessary for the world to have another Moby Dick movie, at least not of this caliber.

The special effects in the movie were, well, special! They were hilarious, and I was wondering how come in this day when we write 2010, that these type of fake effects and cheesy CGI's still take place. If you can't make it look believable, don't make it at all. Half-hearted attempts do not please the viewers.

There were two familiar faces in this movie, those being Barry Bostwick (playing captain Ahab) and Renée O'Connor (playing Dr. Michelle Herman). Now why they agreed to do this movie is beyond me, but hey, who am I to question Hollywood celebrities? Usually Bostwick and O'Connor appear in sort-of-alright movies and TV series, but this? ... The cast in the movie was actually decent enough, despite the lack of any major blockbuster names. And most people also put on adequate performances, though there was a lot of times where you could see that the people didn't fully have their hearts in the movie.

As for the dialogue, well it was adequate, though at times kind of strained to witness.

This take on the Moby Dick story is one that should be bagged and tagged and not really talked about again. It was not a good attempt at it, in my honest opinion. And truthfully, then I didn't even make it halfway through the movie. I couldn't stand the effects (or rather lack thereof) and the weak storyline. I gave up. But hats off to those actually managing to sit through the movie in its entire length.

Útil
•
20

8

paul_haakonsen11 dic 2010Enlace permanente
2
/10
White Whales or Pink Elephants
I am just glad that Herman Melville is not alive to see what they have done to his immortal tale of Ahab and his White Whale. I thought the film went over the top when they were using names like Ahab and Moby Dick, but when they added the character names of Starbuck, Queg Qheg, what really got me was the name of the submarine, U.S. S. Pequod, now that is just a little much. I am just glad that Herman Melville has been dead for over 100 years or he may come back from the grave and let us know what he thinks. At least they didn't have a character named Ishmael.

Still, as bad as that is, I find the film compelling, maybe that's because I have such a craving for a stupid horror film. It's worth a watch if you don't expect too much from the film.

Útil
•
7

1

wjurgens53 sept 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
wtf !!
Other than Renee O'Connor in a bikini top, this movie has no redeeming qualities. The entire cast and crew throw all their SAG cards into one pile, tie Barry Bostwick and the director to a stake, and burn the whole lot. I know this kind of movie requires a suspension of disbelief, but this stuff will give you brain cancer !! Other than the first 10 minutes where Renee is parading the bikini top, this movie should be avoided !! How does Bostwick get work?? He has pics of movies execs in the hot tub with some underage action?? And they give Melville a nod as contributing writer. Btw, he has returned from the dead, and he looks mighty mad !!

Útil
•
10

3

opposumhunter10 jun 2013Enlace permanente
8
/10
Awful, but it made me smile, which a lot of far better movies have failed to do.

Útil
•
15

4

woodiphora29 abr 2013Enlace permanente
7
/10
Thee OG Mega Monster,Representing !
Starring : Barry Bostwick and Renee O'Connor. OK,This movie is really good & satisfying to the genre. Renee O'Connor is the only female in cast and what other film would have an establishing shot of a scientist character in a bikini top ? Barry Bostwick as Sub Commander AHAB gets dialogue like he is breathing the words of the novel: Scientist: " You would attack an animal ?" Ahab: " Madam,I'd strike the Sun,If it insulted me !" " Moby Dick will feel the sting of our hate !" " May GOD hunt us all,If we don't hunt Moby Dick !" "It (MD) took my leg,I don't intend to give it my ass !" �And the finale of quotable quotes: Scientist: " Why would a whale act like this ? " Ahab: " Why do babies die in their sleep ?" Come,On ASYLUM skeptics,Those words rock your ears and beg for Bumper Sticker Stardom. This Trey Stokes directed opus lifts the bar of all those Mega-ish monster flicks and says (Raspberry noise) .

Útil
•
18

28

guestar5718 nov 2010Enlace permanente
3
/10
Sloppy execution

When I first heard people criticizing this movie, I wrote them off as the typical whiners that accompany the release of any outrageously far-fetched monster movie. Of course whales can't grow to the size 2 football stadiums, and of course they can't snatch helicopters out of the air--that's why it's fiction! It's precisely this outrageous scale and the novelty of seeing the impossible that makes these films so entertaining and thrilling. However, this time the criticism proved to be 100% deserved.

Sci-fi B movies have their place in my heart. And I actually quite enjoyed Peter Benchley's "The Beast" and its epic portrayal of a giant man-eating squid. That was a made-for-TV movie from 1996; fourteen years later, we have "2010: Moby Dick". But although CGI has made huge leaps in the intervening years and no doubt costs far less these days, Moby Dick's special effects are still laughably bad in comparison. They simply come off as cheap and very rushed.

To be fair, the whale itself, although a bit too shark-like IMO (as seen in the movie poster), isn't all that bad. It's not the best CG ever, but it's respectable for a low-budget movie. However, much of the supporting special effects used throughout the movie is very poorly done, with no attention to detail.

For example, we've all seen underwater explosions on TV and in movies. When something blows up under water, the explosion has a very distinct look: there's cavitation, a bright flash, and lots of gas bubbles. Not in Moby Dick though... In Moby Dick, the underwater explosions are simply dry explosions taken from stock footage sloppily overlaid on top of a poorly rendered underwater scene. The result is an entirely unrealistic effect that precludes audience engagement in the story. I mean, there are Xbox games that have more convincing underwater action sequences.

Another example of the sloppy effects in this movie involves a scene in which a dead "school of squid" are supposedly being shown floating to the ocean surface--that's what is described in the dialog at least. But instead we're shown a shot of the ocean overlaid with blurry blown-up photos of 2 enormous-sized squids. And not only are the squids very poorly pasted into the scene (imagine a really bad Photoshop job), but as the camera pans (being shot from a moving helicopter), the squid cut- outs move completely out of sync with the background (the ocean surface). No attempt is made to synchronize the squid overlays with the camera movements or the corresponding perspective changes. And it's scenes like these that make the film look so amateurish and cheesy. You might expect this from a local cable access program or a Conan O'Brien skit, but not a feature film.

Sadly, as the movie intensifies and the stunts get ever more outrageous, the effort made by the filmmakers and special effects team seem to decrease. By the end of the movie, when the audience ought to be sitting on the edge of their seats, gripped by the explosive action as they approach the big finale, they're instead completely detached from the on-screen action, the sloppiness of the film having worn away any suspension of disbelief they had. So when the big finale does come, they're no longer emotionally invested in the characters or plot enough to care.

Although Barry Bostwick delivers an impassioned performance as Captain Ahab, Renee O'Connor (Gabrielle from TV's Xena), the female lead, is unconvincing in her role as a marine biologist. And for good measure, a few peripheral military characters also deliver some spectacularly bad acting during their few seconds on screen.

This is just a really shoddily made movie. There's no other way to put it. It would have been better had they cast Jack Black as Ahab and turned it into an intentionally cheesy comedy/spoof. However, this movie tries to take itself seriously and aims to be a big action monster movie, but the production team clearly weren't willing to make the effort for it to work.

I don't believe in such a thing as being untalented, just laziness and sloppiness. And that's what killed this movie. The sad part is, most of the problems don't seem to be budget related, and the individuals involved are clearly capable of producing quality work if they simply paid more attention to detail and set higher standards.

Útil
•
16

7

lysergic-acid22 nov 2010Enlace permanente
2
/10
If you really wanna watch it, throw science out the window.

Útil
•
6

1

chrisschultzhoc11 ene 2012Enlace permanente
4
/10
Giant white whale vs. sleek black sub. ---Oh yeah, and a crazy captain.

The movie begins much earlier in Ahab's navy career to show his first encounter with the giant whale. This occurred while on some kind of intelligence gathering mission in Russian waters on a submarine where he was then a lowly sonar operator or something. The movie then jumps from there to the present where a much older captain Ahab has ditched the old ship of yore for a sleek black state of the art sub called the Pequod with all the bells and whistles which he designed himself. Apparently the navy knew nothing about his hidden agenda when they allowed him to do this and give him command of it.

Later they become concerned when Ahab stops checking in and is spotted where he's not supposed to be based on the orders he was given. Coupled with this are reported incidents of ships being sunk and people killed. The navy conclude that Ahab has somehow flipped and gone rogue and is responsible for these incidents. Orders are issued to find him and stop him. In the mean time, Ahab is underwater in the Pequod with a serious hard-on for Moby Dick (har, har, me mateys) and oblivious --for the time being-- that the navy is after him. Joining him and his crew aboard the sub, are a female scientist specializing in whales and her assistant whom, while out testing the effects of some recorded whale cries, Ahab "commandeered" for the purpose of helping him track Moby.

The movie is a middle budget-to-low budget movie (seems to me) because the whale and the effects in general could have been better though it was passable. The continuity didn't seem too good near the end, either. Seems like they were short-cutting. Observe also the classic use of one well-known old time actor and a whole bunch you never heard of. But money by itself doesn't necessarily make a good movie and we've all seen examples of this truth. The script and the ability to creatively make the most of what you got is what counts. So what about the script? --Not great; slightly below average; as well, needed more imagination or innovation in it. --Or at least more laughs, intentional or unintentional. For instance, Ahab did make me chuckle once or twice near the end where he came off as not only insane but "ridiculously" insane. Was this because of good acting or bad acting? --You tell me. Finally, nothing exceptional here; wouldn't rush to see it. It would make a bigger splash (har, har) on TV watching in your underwear with your favorite snacks on one side and your favorite person on the other. Love, Boloxxxi.

Útil
•
11

4

Someguysomwhere23 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Pathetic

For many years I believed "Megaforce" was THE absolute worst movie I have ever seen ... I was wrong.

This "whale" was literally walking on land, he climbed a cliff, he flew.

This whale was walking on water on only his tail.

The whale ate entire submarines in half.

The whale ate a helicopter.

The submarine literally flew out of the water over 100 feet and landed unharmed. It dove to nearly 4,000 feet, which no US "boomer" can do.

The finale had three nuclear torpedoes striking an atoll, utterly destroying it, yet one woman survived from ground zero? Do NOT watch this movie. Even if you are bored. This is THE worst movie ever filmed.

Útil
•
7

2

drmmac5 jun 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
This is why they do it.

At this point in time, Asylum movies are among the worst in all of creation. You don't get to be this bad without effort.

Anyone watching this movie in the hopes that it will be anything more than a cheap sucker-punch at the classic novel Moby Dick will be disappointed in the worst way. If you were expecting a remotely plausible story with reasonably capable actors and even some worthwhile special effects, then you should have never watched a movie made by Asylum. You are very behind on the times if you don't know that Asylum doesn't do that sort of thing.

It is soul-crushingly bad. It's like watching despair. So much so that I'm beginning to suspect that they are doing it on purpose. Nothing else could possibly explain how they can relentlessly churn out terrible movie after terrible movie, with absolutely no shame. I'm truly starting to believe that Asylum is in fact dedicated to the less-than-noble cause of making their mark as the worst movie making company in history. All of the things that a good movie needs will never be found in an Asylum motion picture. They need a trophy for epic failure in movie making.

But it's not all bad. Asylum is definitely good at one thing: Making movies so bad that they mysteriously 180-themselves into something good. This movie didn't really succeed at that, but it did have some very entertaining moments. The "special effects" are notably radical; certain scenes with the whale literally caused me to slip out of my chair laughing, and the look on the doctor's face nearly caused me to have a stroke (watch it and you'll see what I mean). For that reason alone I'm giving the movie a 2 instead of a 1.

Útil
•
5

1

rushknight2 mar 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
So bad it deserves to be watched if you'r up for the challenge

Útil
•
5

1

SundayDriver8 dic 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
Waste of time and money
This was one of the worst films I have seen in a long time. The acting was bad, the plot was thin, and the effects were laughable and the CGI must have been done at an elementary school. The continuity was lacking big style. Why even bother making such an awful film. All the special effects and animations looks like they were straight from the eighties and and most of the sets are cheap and nasty as well. There is one scene when the submarine has to do an emergency surface and shoots hundreds of feet out of the water, totally believable!. Towards the end, Moby Dick comes out of the water, climbs the island, then throws itself off the top of the island and lands on a poor seaman. Poor, Poor Poor. Don't really know why I sat to the end of the film.

Útil
•
7

3

nickmoulsdale-18 ene 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
What an abomination...

Not just as an adaptation(the absolute worst adaptation to do with Herman Mellville's masterpiece) but on its own terms. The basic story is there, but the way it is structured and executed is horrible. The pace is constantly uneven being pedestrian one minute and rushed the next, several scenes such as the ending never ring true and the film is completely devoid of suspense and tension.

To make things worse, the dialogue is deplorable. Instead of the intelligent, complex and thoughtful prose of the book, it is cheesy, contrived and forced, in short the complete opposite of what it should have been. Then again, it is an Asylum production, I should have known better, I have yet to see a film of theirs that I would deem better than average. The direction is also a major part of the problem, there are times where it feels that Moby Dick doesn't have any direction.

The less said about the production values the better. The sets, costumes and submarine(yes this film updates the story) interiors are unimaginative and the effects are distractingly bad, even on Moby Dick who is laughable in alternative to menacing. The acting is poor, Barry Bostwick and Renee O'Connor are decent actors but the terrible dialogue, amateurish direction and badly written and explored characters- Ahab especially never once comes close to his novelistic counterpart's complexity and demonic presence- disallows them to do anything with their roles. Nobody is talentless or bad as such, it's just that other elements of the film severely hamper them.

All in all, an abomination adaptation wise and on its own merits. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
8

4

TheLittleSongbird1 may 2011Enlace permanente
Awful, just awful

Útil
•
3

2

Sub_Captain3 ene 2011Enlace permanente
8
/10
An hour and a half of pure escapism!
When I came upon this movie I was looking for something that would just be good fun for an hour or two,and I am glad that I found 2010:Moby Dick. Sure their are plot holes,bad acting, and cheesy effects- but looking past all of that, this film's just plain fun! I have always enjoyed submarine films, throw in a giant monster and well...I found myself talking to the screen and shouting when Moby would make a sudden appearance. A sequel would be a good idea, I'd watch it!

I agree with other reviews that the whale was unrealistic, but so what? It's like the old Godzilla movies-they were very unrealistic, but we still loved them because they were so much fun! I thought that it was very imaginative to retell the story in this way,it may make some of these kids nowadays take an interest in and appreciate the original book and maybe even other classics.

Útil
•
5

10

rickkingmusic15 dic 2010Enlace permanente
6
/10
Not as bad as you would imagine

Útil
•
6

10

digdog-785-71753819 nov 2010Enlace permanente
1
/10
A Movie Which Should Never Have Been Made

Útil
•
4

1

HeadMMoid18 jun 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Big Bad Whale chased by Bad Bad Actors
This is one of those films that are so bad that you have to watch it. The special effects are pretty rank and the acting is so bad that I can only assume that it was done on purpose. My attention was first focused after seven and a half minutes of the film when a Newspaper dated Monday 13 Feb 1992 is shown entitled 'Fishing Boats continue to disappear'. For a start 13 Feb 1992 was a Thursday and the story directly below tell of Frank Lampard (a Chelsea footballer) splitting up from the mother of his two children.

It's worth watching just to count how many times the whale changes size during the film.

Dread Central rated the film at 2 1/2 out of 5, criticizing the choice to add 2010 into the film's title and stating that some viewers could find some "schlock value" but warned that they may "mash the fast forward button between the first and last fifteen minutes".[7] Kevin Carr of 7M Pictures was more favorable, as they felt that it was "silly and it's fun, and it actually plays better than most of the Asylum knock-offs."[8] Paul Constant of The Stranger also wrote a favorable review, noting that "It's perfect distracted holiday viewing. Watch it while you're drunkenly wrapping presents."[9]

In an article for the Journal of Film and Video David Dowling wrote that "The crass spectacle the film makes of the whale’s animality and agency is not uniformly sophomoric, however. One scene in particular, shot with tongue in cheek, is simultaneously selfreferential and critical, calling attention to its own place within the trappings of a campy third-rate action monster movie, while also mocking the well-meaning piety of whale watchers as embodying yet another equally blind androcentric understanding of the whale."[10]

After escaping death during the fierce battle with the massive cephalopod in Megatiburón contra pulpo gigante (2009), once more, Megalodon, the prehistoric beast from the sea, roams free in the open ocean, wreaking havoc. However, this time, an even greater adversary emerges from the dark depths of Congo's diamond mines, as a gargantuan primaeval Crocosaurus sees the light of day, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. Inevitably, the two nightmarish creatures will have to confront each other, and in this ultimate fight, there can be only one winner. Is Dr Terry McCormick's ultrasonic device and the mighty U.S. Navy able to avert this unstoppable new menace?

Be careful!

After a long time thinking about this movie I came up with two theories about its existence:

1. On some weekend in the early 80's a group of 14-year-olds sneaked into an empty Hollywood studio. Without any clue, script, or skill but a lot of beer and dope they shot this film in a few hours. Afterwards, when sober they figured how disastrous and scary the result was (even for drunk high school kids), and they tried to destroy the tape. But somehow it got into the hands of The Joker who thought it was a powerful weapon of mass destruction if ever published – well, he was wrong, but close.

2. This production was meant to become the worst movie of all time. But it still failed to make it. From the worst movie of all time I definitely expect to have fun watching it. But this one is pure pain – the Joker was not that wrong.

If there wasn't two or three actors I recognized from somewhere else I wouldn't have believed that there was a single film professional involved in this "thing".

My recommendation: Rather use the 88 minutes it takes to watch it, for reading the newspaper from 4 weeks ago. Afterwards you will regret it less.

Útil
•
29

8

steve91710 jul 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Megashark faces off against a prehistoric harbinger of poorly rendered destruction

Útil
•
12

3

blackhawx10115 jun 2011Enlace permanente
4
/10
It was horribly bad, but I enjoyed it

Yes, it was ridiculously horribly bad, but some reason, I enjoyed it.

The effects looked cheap - because they were, the acting was overdone - maybe on purpose, the soundtrack was horrible, the camera work and editing was bad, the script was at best horrible. So many parts to this movie did not make any sense.

So why did I like it? With a title like Mega Shark Vs Crocosaurus, how could you not? So many clips were reused in piecing this scrap together to make a movie.

It was so bad on so many levels and so stupid, that it was good for that reason alone.

I could only imagine if this had a real budget,. a real script, a real cast and was not the cheap movie that it is...how good would it be? Who would have been in it if it was a Hollywood big budget movie?

Útil
•
19

5

vampyrecowboy5 ene 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
I think the shark...just went nuclear!

It kind of feels like a given to rate a film like this so low, even allowing for the fact it is unlikely any sane film watching person expected anything other than the cheap cheesy picture that it is. The expectation levels are still further finely tuned if one has been privy to the previous hokey horrors of Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus. Of course the problem with these run of films coming out of The Asylum film studio (see also Mega Python vs. Gatoroid), is that they tread the thin line of being bad but entertaining, or bad and insulting? Then there is the question of if the actors are taking it serious as well? If they are then they should be stripped of their equity cards, if not then they should be lauded as comic geniuses. With Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus the answers aren't abundantly clear, but it does have moments of levity, for better or worse that is. Enter with caution, you are now entering the crazy world of cult cheese.

2/10 on an artistic level and 7/10 for comedic value.

Útil
•
4

0

hitchcockthelegend27 oct 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Probably the worst Sci-Fi/Horror movie ever made.

Útil
•
4

0

The_Depressed_Star_Wars_fan9 oct 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
One star of 10 for quality, 9 of ten for fun!

I guess you need to have movies like this to offset the seriousness of Hollywood sometimes. The title says it all. If you didn't know this was going to be super cheesy then you gotta be dim or something. Thought it was hilariously bad. From the first scenes of the freighter with the tarp and giant fin in the forground (took my 3 views to figure out what was that supposed to be?) to the scene of the order for the Arc Flash going through chain of command -"Yes you heard me right, an arc flash. Thats an order." .....hilarious.

Some of my favorites

The guy gets chomped up by the croc and suddenly the croc collapses and he walks out of the mouth. What did he do in there?

The 1500 croc loaded up (How?) on the flatbed. Must have been a big flatbed.

Croc eating all the whales at seaworld...in one bite

URKLE!

Mega shark jumping up and snatching fighter jets from the air.

The tarps and bailing twine holding down the croc on the ship.

Útil
•
15

6

drewnox8825 abr 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Whoever winds we lose, literally.

Útil
•
10

4

poolandrews4 jun 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Mega crock of s***
Former professional boxer/model stars, if that's the right word for it, as a fearless hunter, recruited by the US military to kill a gigantic shark and crocodile. Bad acting, even worse "special" effects and a ridiculous plot - another typical movie from The Asylum. This isn't so bad that its good. Its so bad that I just wanted the end credits to roll. Awful.

Útil
•
3

0

Stevieboy66626 jul 2018Enlace permanente
4
/10
Tries too hard to laugh at itself

SyFy channel's latest gigantic monster movie self-mocking flick, but below-average even for the folks like me who enjoy the kitschy fun of this nonsense.

The shark that butt heads with the big octy a couple of years back has returned (be expecting SyFy to revisit the octy soon, too I would guess), but this time his foe is a big old croc called Crocosaurus. A couple of name actors from '80's and '90's TV shows are in it, and they play the camp as well as possible (the Doc from Voyager and Steve Urkel), but the movie just doesn't have the comic kick to it that's necessary. The lead monsters give it the old college try too, but even the big guys fall victim to a messed up script. I did like the work of the FBI lady, but she was stuck with an overly cliché (but not humorous) character, as was everyone.

Had a few moments, but barely watchable even as a joke.

Útil
•
8

3

MartianOctocretr518 sept 2011Enlace permanente
8
/10
The Mega Shark returns!!

After its titanic battle with the Giant Octopus, the world had only one question -- what would happen if the Mega Shark did battle with a 1500 foot giant crocodile? Well, luckily, we know the answer, as "Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus" is finally released!

Easily mistaken for a documentary, this film follows a band of intrepid heroes -- an oceanic sound engineer (played by Jaleel White, yup, "Urkel") who knows about sharks, a drunken hunter who knows about crocodiles, and an uptight FBI agent who is also a helicopter pilot and wears a tight tank top -- as they chase the two monsters around the globe.

The plot is straightforward; while mining diamonds in the Congo, workers unleash a giant crocodile. Meanwhile, the Mega Shark has returned and apparently finds crocodile eggs indescribably delicious. Thus, the tension between the two beasts. The top-of-the-line special effects will blow your mind as we follow the story from Miami Beach to Orlando to California to the Panama Canal. The Mega Shark is up to its old tricks (eating boats, jumping out of the water to attack planes, etc) and the Crocosaurus will live in your nightmares as you watch it trample through cities.

I am certain this film is 100% scientifically accurate, and should be required viewing for anybody who enjoys good, mindless fun and doesn't take things too seriously!

Útil
•
96

21

stsinger26 dic 2010Enlace permanente
Fun and horrible at the same time!
What do you get when you combine a sweaty, dirty guy whose favorite pastime is sexually harassing women, a hot female secret service agent who needs some serious counselling in anger management and Urkel, all combat styled out�. You get a lean, mean mega shark/crocosaurus fighting machine! This movie was horrible� BUT� that's what makes it so awesome! I loved this movie, its horrible graphic were funny, its script and acting ridiculous and the storyline was basic yet captivating.

I think this type of movie is an acquired taste. Those of us that love this silly type of movie will enjoy this gem. Others, who are not as easily amused will turn it off within the first 5 min.

ZombieSteak.com - Discover a new world of horror films, designed just for you.

Útil
•
8

6

jennifer-25-96523130 jul 2011Enlace permanente
7
/10
The ultimate underwater battle of jaws vs jaws.

Útil
•
2

4

kevinxirau10 sept 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Bad doesn't even start to describe this movie.

Oh my God, how did this movie ever come to be? Who in their right mind had the idea to make a sequel to the "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" movie? Who had the idea to sit down and make this actually come to the screen? Alright, well where to start? ... You know from the title alone that this movie is going to suck horribly, and yet here I was watching it. There was just a tiny flicker of hope that the movie would be an improvement to the "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" movie that came before "Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus". But no, that was not to be the case. This movie was equally bad.

First of all, the CGI effects were horrible and lousy to look at. This is 2010, and still there are effects that look like something that came from the 1980's is happening on the screen. How can this be? Can't the people making the movie see how fake and pathetic it looks? Or are they blinded by the sheer excitement to see their movie actually making it out as a 'direct to DVD' release? Then we have the story, or rather lack thereof. You have a crocodile the size of a skyscraper, that have apparently been living inside a mountain for God only knows how many years. Alright, hold it, back it up right there. How did a creature this size get into a mountain? And how did it managed to find food in there? Then there is the equally big Megalodon shark that apparently has been swimming around our oceans unnoticed for years, and it apparently is smart enough to jump over ships and attack them by flapping its tail against the hull of the ship. Yeah, okay...

Throughout the movie, you are introduced to more ridiculous stuff, such as how they managed to load a crocodile that size onto a truck in the middle of the jungle. Or why a man washed up on a beach, having survived the attack of two gargantuan monsters, would be waving his gun at small children and yelling at them. What the... There is just so many levels of wrong in that scene.

Then, lets move on to the cast. First up we have Jaleel White, wow. That guy will never be able to shed his Steven Urkel skin. I couldn't look past that, and I kept waiting for him to go "did I do that?" He was so wrongly cast for this movie. Then there was Sarah Lieving in the role of special agent Hutchinson, whom apparently believed agents are drones who all seem to have something stuck up a certain place. Her performance was like watching a robot. It was so bad. Actually, most of the performances in the movie were half-hearted, though every once in awhile there would be a glimpse of acting on the screen.

The best part in the movie, was that they had actually put some effort into the sets and decorations. And a follow-up to that, the movie cover was actually not that bad to look at, it just turned out to be a somewhat interesting teaser for a really bad movie.

"Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus" is just another sad attempt at cashing in on the gargantuan monster movie genre, and it is a horrible attempt at best. I didn't actually manage to sit through the entire movie. I gave up in frustration about just a bit over halfway through it. I just couldn't take anymore of that kind of self-torture.

I wouldn't know who to recommend this movie to, except for maybe people who sit up at 3.30 in the night and have nothing better to watch. Perhaps you should give this movie a go if that is you, it might just be good for a few laughs. Who knows?

This is a movie that I will try to erase from my memory. Hopefully it will be gone by tomorrow. And honestly, despite it was a bad movie as well, then "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" was actually a lot better than this sequel.

Útil
•
28

23

paul_haakonsen23 dic 2010Enlace permanente
3
/10
The title is the clue

Útil
•
4

1

Russelldavey323 may 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Megashite vs Craposaurus.

As a self-proclaimed connoisseur of bad films I felt it my duty to watch at least one giant monster movie from The Asylum. That film: Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus, an utterly abysmal pile of drivel starring a Pierce Brosnan lookalike, a poor-man's Cuba Gooding Jr., a bird with big tits, and two titanic CGI creatures that would have been considered laughable over a quarter of a century ago.

When I write my reviews for IMDb, I usually try my best to stay away from the clichés that so often proliferate other comments, but on this occasion I think I'm going to allow myself just a couple:

I wish that IMDb had a zero rating because '1' is being far too generous.

That's an hour and a half of my life I'm never going to get back.

***Looking back, it turns out that I've already seen the prequel to this film, Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus; it doesn't surprise me one bit that I couldn't remember it.***

Útil
•
4

1

BA_Harrison25 mar 2016Enlace permanente
3
/10
The Name Says It All

Útil
•
4

1

Gyroshock9218 sept 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Worst SyFy movie? No. Is it bad? Yes

I have to admit that I did get a good laugh when watching Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus. And it wasn't because it was hysterically funny. It's because it is so awful. I will give credit and say SyFy have done worse with the likes of Quantum Apocalypse, Camel Spiders, Battle of Los Angeles, Mega Piranha, Dinocroc vs Supergator, Titanic II and 2010:Moby Dick.

That is not saying much though. The soundtrack is okay if not great and the scenery is serviceable, but that's all good I can say really. The special effects do look really cheap, as though they had been constructed in a rush. The editing is also slapdash. What's even more sad is that neither the shark or the crocodile have any menace to them.

Even worse is the dialogue. SyFy movies are notorious for awful dialogue that are ridden with clichés and banality, and Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus is no exception. The story is really daft and unengaging, with plot holes and scenes that don't make sense galore. The characters are underdeveloped, the direction is sloppy and the acting is poor with the actors trying to bring a comedic element to the film and for some a sense of youthfulness, but seeing as the material is so bad it doesn't work. Jaleel White is the worst, he is not only miscast but awful.

All in all, a bad SyFy movie, but not the worst. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
5

2

TheLittleSongbird6 dic 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Good God, this was bad
I don't expect much from the Asylum - and this still managed to fall short. Sarah Lieving was easily the best thing in it. Put it this way, there were only two things worth seeing in this movie, and they weren't the Mega Shark and Crocosaurus.

2/10.

Útil
•
2

0

Milk_Tray_Guy3 sept 2021Enlace permanente
1
/10
One of the worst, in a series of the worst
It's really sad when former 'stars' like Jaleel White and Robert Picardo can only find work in garbage movies like this. Most annoying, though, was the faux-"tough chick" barking orders like she had ANY clue. And then there's the inevitable attempt at GI Jane-style weapons usage. Puh-leaze. The CGI was as mediocre as usual, but is the norm for this production company.

Útil
•
2

0

ophidiancartomancy3 mar 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
This movie is even more of a stinker than its terrible predecessor 'Mega Shark vs. Octopus'!

Don't waste an hour and a half of your life watching this PATHETIC movie! This movie is even more of a stinker than its terrible predecessor 'Mega Shark vs. Octopus'. It is the exact same theme and follows the same plot as Mega Shark vs. Octopus, two larger than actual life creatures emerge to create mayhem, the military is portrayed as idiots, and throughout the whole picture the actors (Are there any actors in hollywood these days that aren't fugly?!?) are trying to get the two monsters together to destroy each other. The writers, directors, and actors are even more stupid & divisive than on the predecessor. Every scene was ripe with false, misrepresentation of just about everything! Lots of divisive hate loving hollywood propaganda! In the opening scene the brutal white foreman mistreating his black employees (divisive race baiting propaganda) is eaten by the crocosaurus that emerges from a cave opening about one tenth the size of the croc, i.e. it would not fit! In the second scene 'Blood Diamonds' and coal mining feed the earth liberation front terrorists (Divisive class warfare anarchy). In the third scene the anti-military types will love the portrayed ineptitude of the officers and men of the same cruiser that megalodon destroyed and sank in the prior movie (It resurrected itself somehow). Megalodon, believed dead at the end of the prior movie, reemerges & attacks this same cruiser, again, this time destroying & sinking it, again, this time by jumping over the ship and swatting it with his tail. The ship's captain leaves the bridge in the middle of the struggle to go to an unmanned but fully loaded anti-aircraft gun to engage the mega shark. (Why didn't he just ripe the AA weapon from its mount and shoot it from his hip?!?) So wrong on so many levels. Nonexistent continuity... The cruiser was not even part of the navy's inventory in the time setting of this movie. The divisive anti-military hate propaganda portraying them as evil & stupid. The megalodon times his jump into the air perfectly to chomp a supersonic jet fighter. Oh, really cheesy CGI. Most of this movie is like a poor production modern day cartoon. Later, anti-aircraft guns are somehow used to shot at underwater targets, and the main guns, surface to surface weapons, also are falsely shown to shoot underwater. The crocosaurus is tied down on a ship with a few strands of 3/8" hemp line & one line of 5/8" nylon rope. Dah! Again, none of the writers, directors, or actors could have in IQ even remotely approaching 100. Don't waste and hour and a half, that you won't get back, on this movie.

Útil
•
2

0

ccunning-7358726 may 2019Enlace permanente
8
/10
So (intentionally) bad it's good.

Guys, the movie is supposed to be bad. I think the other reviewers here have missed the point entirely. The Asylum is out to mock blockbusters. Titanic II? If you actually think they're trying to be serious, you deserve to be duped.

If Urkel - sorry, Jaleel - had said "did I do that?" after the first action scene (don't want to be a spoiler), I'd have given it a 10/10. It's exactly what you'd expect from these guys - over the top scenes poorly crafted on a short production schedule and low budget.

I'd have liked more battle scenes like in Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus. Sort of felt like an hour of building to 20 minutes of battle. Next time, let's see them destroy more stuff. Loved the Canal scene, "I guess you'd better bring your hydrosonic balls," the and the one rope holding the croc down with a tarp. Well played, guys.

Útil
•
15

11

Tine251 ene 2011Enlace permanente
If You Want Citizen Kane Look Somewhere Else

Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus (2010)

** (out of 4)

When MEGA SHARK VS GIANT OCTOPUS became a huge hit you just knew The Asylum would follow it up. This film here is just as campy but it actually manages to be somewhat better due to some better written characters and a nice performance by Gary Stretch playing an Indiana Jones-like croc hunter. The "story" pretty much has the 1500-ft. crocodile wanting to protect her eggs from the mega shark who wants to eat them. The humans have to find a spot for them to do an epic battle. If you pay a $1 from your Redbox like I did for a movie called MEGA SHARK VS CROCOSAURUS then you should know very well that you're not renting a film by Orson Welles. I'm still shocked at how many people rent or buy a movie like this then get upset that they're not watching something they can compare to GONE WITH THE WIND. Look, if you're going to waste time watching a movie like this then it's best to realize that you're watching a "C" production from a minor company who specializes in making silly, bad movies that get released direct-to-DVD. If this was fifty years ago then this would be playing as a double-feature with FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER or BRIDE OF THE MONSTER but today we get it this way. This movie contains some of the worst CGI you're ever going to see unless you're watching another film from The Asylum but when it's this bad there's really no point in trying to figure out which is the worst. There are a couple scenes here where CGI helicopters are flying so close that their blades are obviously touches each others yet nothing ever happens. As with the previous film you get all sorts of campy scenes including one where the shark comes up from beneath the submarine, picks it up and flies through the air with it. The crocodile CGI is without question the weakest as it comes off very blurry throughout the movie and you have to wonder why they made it look this way when she's clearly one of the stars of the film. So, how is the big fight? It's not too bad but then again there's really not too much you can do when a shark fights a croc. The battle between the two is pretty fun but the bigger highlight is when the croc goes on shore in Miami and does damage to several familiar places and he even visits Sea World where Shamu doesn't stand a chance. The performances are pretty much what you'd expect in a film like this but I thought Stretch actually delivered a fun performance and he certainly kept the film moving. There's no question this is a bad movie but thankfully there's enough camp and silly action to at least keep it entertaining for the most part. At just under 90-minutes the film runs way too long and The Asylum really needs to understand that these type of films are better when they don't cross the 75-minute mark.

Útil
•
9

8

Michael_Elliott24 dic 2010Enlace permanente
6
/10
This was metaphorically amazbollz

Útil
•
1

1

danielglass-360278 may 2019Enlace permanente
2
/10
Too bad to be self spoof

A huge crocodile and shark attack some US city?

Is this meant to be a self spoof? I think not. The incredible acting, which oscillates from wooden to unnecessarily urgent/angry, poor special effects and hilariously predictable plot make this fascinating watching. Much like watching 'Thunderbirds' was 30 years ago.

We see the same helicopter scene at least 10 times, the same 'fleet with submerging submarine' at least 3. Did the Producer really have so little imagination?

Dread Central gave the film a scathing review, giving it a score of "1 Megacraposaurus" out of 5. The review commented that "movies like this always tread a fine line between anything-goes fun and merely insulting your intelligence, and this time The Asylum may have finally jumped the mega shark."[4] Felix Vasquez, Jr. of Cinema Crazed gave the film one star, calling it "a tedious and horrific mess that at least gives audiences what it wants: A big croc eating people, a big shark eating people, and two gargantuan stock CGI animals battling it out for the fate of Earth. Or something."[5]

As rampant, ever-growing pythons infest the warm Florida Everglades thanks to Dr. Nikki Riley's die-hard group of activists, suddenly Park Ranger Terry O'Hara has a lot on her plate. One by one, the slithering invaders are killing the unprepared population of indigenous alligators, leading to a drastic but ill-advised countermeasure: to kill a dangerous predator, one needs to come up with an even more dangerous protector. As a result, gigantic bone-crushing pythons and gargantuan man-eating alligators wreak havoc on the land, devouring everything in their path. Now, the ultimate battle between two species commences, and whichever one wins, humans lose. Can Nikki and Terry put aside their differences in the name of survival

3
/10
It is what it Claims

Now, somewhere between the non serious title and the fact that this movie went straight to cable on the SyFy Channel, one certainly should get the idea that we are not dealing with "Gone with the Wind" here, but with a silly monster movie. But there is still a place for that. Sometimes some of us have had it with too many serious things in life and we just want to watch something light and silly, and movies like these fill that urge. The fact that several of us voted to watch it proves the point.

The good points? The rivalry between the two main actresses at times was interesting. The rest of the movie sort of went along with expectations. And by that I mean, the acting and drama did not even get to good, the special effects did not rival Jurassic Park, and no university professor (who is not high) is going to buy the explanation for the larger monsters and how they got that way. The bottom line is, if you are in the mood for something that you know is not serious nor pretends to be serious, this might fill some time for you.

Regrets from me after watching it? Some movies that know they are not the big time sometimes reach cult classic fame with the right amount of silliness and interest such as "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". I think this movie tried for that category also, but I do not feel it achieved that either. But I give it credit for being honest as to what it really was - a non serious monster movie.

Útil
•
18

4

RNHunter30 ene 2011Enlace permanente
3
/10
Tiffany and Debbie Gibson: Together Again

This is one of several movies where they take has-beens from yesteryear and have them do silly things. This movie features Debbie Gibson and Tiffany, teeny-bop pop starts from the 80s, but they're not really has-beens. Both of them still have careers that most actresses and singers can only dream about. It also features some guy from the 80s band The Monkeys.

Nevertheless, Debbie plays a tree hugging environmentalist who releases some snakes into the Everglades. Tiffany plays a voluptuous park ranger who feeds steroid induced chickens to alligators thinking that the alligators would eat the snakes. What could go wrong?

As a former fan of the singers, I was more than pleased. Cute Debbie has grown up to be a mature, beautiful woman, slender, yet muscular. She spends the second half of the movie running around in an evening gown about the size of a hand towel. Tiffany has curves that are imprinted in my brain. The two play rivals in the movie, occasionally using the B-word to refer to each other. At one point, the two ladies get into a cat fight.

The movie knows it's a joke, and it doesn't pretend to be otherwise. The ladies don't take themselves seriously either. Both know it's a stupid low budget B-movie, if that. If you were in love with Debbie Gibson and/or Tiffany back in the 80s, then you'll like this movie. If not, then I highly advise that you skip it.

Útil
•
2

0

chubbydave7 nov 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
So bad it's almost (but not quite) good!

Útil
•
4

5

hjassol30 ene 2011Enlace permanente
Its funny if you appreciate B-grade Sci-Fi hilariousness

OK. Debbie Gibson. Tiffany. Mutant creatures. Cheese acting. Cat fight between Debbie and Tiffany. Total crap as far as "good" movie standards go. However, if you're into crap sci-fi movies, and you are old enough to remember these girls from the eighties and being superstars, its a great watch. Perfect for killing some time or putting on to doze off to if you have a TV by where you sleep and need something to watch and listen to while you drift off. I seriously don't know why some of these movie snobs bother to watch these movies just to criticize. I know what good movies are, and I like good movies. This isn't a good movie. Its a movie for people who like bad movies, or just bad movie trash to doze off to at 2AM. Its great as far as that goes and I hope they never stop pumping out cheap readily available movies like this for those of us that just need something kinda funny/amusing to kill some time with. Also, Jack Frost (the horror movie with a killer snowman) is great in that regard. There's a second one as well. Also, Santa's Slay...awesomeness!

Útil
•
27

5

bloodugly3 feb 2011Enlace permanente
5
/10
Methinks You All Protest Too Much...

Útil
•
12

3

jmiller-8430 ene 2011Enlace permanente
5
/10
Cleavage,Snakes,Gators,Micky Dolens and Debbie Gibson!

Útil
•
14

4

plex30 ene 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Ah... the asylum

Don't you just love when the infamous Asylum production discriminates your brain? It's just intolerable! I know, now you're thinking "then why did you watch that film?", because I want to issue a warning to all people who loves to watch movies, to avoid this at every cost. So, this movie was directed by Mary Lambert who directed "Pet Cemetery" and it's sequel. But, Mary is definitely one of those directors whose career was washed up and so, she joined the Asylum. Now� I don't know� I bet that producers of Asylum are the fans of Debbie Gibson and Tiffany� And they took this failed director and these two failed singers� oh yes, how did they call them? The 80s pop sensations? What sensations? The two of them had only one hit song that sucked big time. And they obviously wanted to show some kind of rivalry between the two "pop sensations", and they did it with the duel on a party, which was one of the funniest things I have ever seen� especially in the film that, like� tends to be somewhat "serious"� That duel was predicted by Bill Hicks, if you ask me� Now, what to say? Directing was horrible, acting was dreadful (all actors in this film� wow� they never ever heard about acting. Tiffany and Debbie were characters that presented a last straw in this crap, two failed "pop sensations" in failed movie career. Are they that dumb, not to notice that the joke was on their expense?), editing, music score, camera work, well� that's asylum� and CGI which is the highlight of badness� no need to talk about this� in this moment, my fingers are shivering and my brain hurts! Avoid this and do something better with your life, fill your bathtub and practice holding your breath for a� two hours. It's far more exciting than watching this turd.

Útil
•
6

4

swedzin16 nov 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Like a rookie video editors nightmare...

Is this what Sci Fi... oops... I mean ScyFy has come down to? I remember watching many bad movies aired as original movies on ScyFy back in the day, along with many other series that were back then what made the original SciFi channel what it is.

Mega Python vs. Gatoroid is one of those horrible films you see come along every now and again on ScyFy that make you question the motive of film makers these days. There are good films, and then there are ScyFy films.

As a film & video VFX editor and 3D animator I was ashamed to see such a low level of attention given to the effects and production of this movie. For one the editing of gore has no dimension. They simply fall as bits and pieces of flesh into a masked layer of pathetic editing.

The rendering and blending of objects in the movie were not even close to decent. This film looks like one of those 5 minute videos you will find on YouTube if young kids and adults who have quite literally JUST started working in video editing and production. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the production company that worked on the film were a bunch of college kids who downloaded After Effects, Maya, 3DS Max and called themselves a production company and did work for cheap.

It's so bad that calling it cheesy doesn't even do it justice. There are errors all over the place that in film production you go nuts over if you spot them.

For one the object blending is off. They look like actual 3d models rendered in a scene view or on a low production setting. The object blending is actually decent, but the fact that they can't render anything that looks realistic or even just a tiny bit realistic makes me sad.

The 3D helicopter used in the movie is not only badly animated, but as we all know when a helicopter gets close to ground level objects such as water and trees movie violently simply because of the force being directed downward for the helicopter to obtain lift... It isn't in this movie. Objects are as still as a picture.

I'm ashamed that they are airing this. They need to bring back the X- Files. This just doesn't cut it. ScyFy needs to be shut down if they are going to continue airing what is basically a steaming pile of transformer, x-file wanna be s''t's.

Útil
•
5

6

Eugenecampbell3 feb 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Brutally bad and incoherent

Útil
•
4

5

erikrich29 ene 2011Enlace permanente
3
/10
Bad, but better than other projects SyFy have churned out

As I have said many times, I have made no secret of disliking most of SyFy's output. I kind of knew that Mega Python vs. Gataroid was going to be bad, and it was. However, because the concept was intriguing, it started off alright and because Deborah Gibson and Tiffany were decent, it is not as unwatchable as something like Quantum Apocalypse, Alien vs vs. Hunter or Titanic II.

The special effects are crude-looking and in my opinion not used very well, as the film is often very silly and lacking in tension and atmosphere, while the camera work and editing are slapdash. As I said, Mega Python vs Gataroid has a good concept, it starts off well and has a quite enjoyable scene involving a meeting to save the everglades, but the sillier it gets the more meandering the storytelling becomes. The film is rushed, too short, has some really absurd dialogue and the acting excepting the two leads is painful especially from Micky Dolenz.

Overall, although it is a bad movie, I can't bring myself to entirely hate it. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
3

3

TheLittleSongbird3 jul 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
And I thought Jaws The Revenge Was Bad

I would have walked out of this movie on an airplane. Indeed, where should I start? Aside from the cat fight between Tiffany and Debbie Gibson there are so many technical flaws, misguided character arcs, and examples of bad acting I actually found myself wishing that Jaws The Revenge was on. Remember that gem? I like monster movies and creature features just as much as the next SciFi fan but unfortunately this movie, in fact everything that The Asylum as ever released, demonstrates that elements in the scifi world is languishing in a creativity vacuum. I am of the opinion that nothing new or original is being created in Hollywood anymore and it seems that independent film and scifi film makers are falling for overused formulas and horrible graphics. Did you see how bad the creatures looked? I would have rather had a guy in a suit or those odd camera shots we saw in movies like The Night of the Lepus and The Legend of Boggy Creek. Some may argue that the director may have been trying to lampoon a huge number of the common creature feature plot devices but I think that is giving the director way too much credit. While watching this movie I started to feel bad that I was wasting so much time when I could have spent it doing something more interesting like sewing up holes in my socks or watching the snow melt. SciFi can do much better than this. I hope that more worthwhile works are coming our way soon.

Útil
•
4

6

brianschorr30 ene 2011Enlace permanente
10
/10
Tiffany vs Gibson vs Two Giant Monsters Resulting in Delightful Hilarity
Gifted director Mary Lambert (Stephen King's Pet Semetary) brought screenwriter Naomi Selfman's delightful script to the screen with fantastic vision and panache. Pairing Tiffany and Debbie Gibson as cat fighting heroes was an absolutely brilliant concept and when these two embark on a mission against rampaging giant pythons and gators, high-jinx ensue. The laugh-out-loud fun never lets up from start to finish in this hilarious caper and it's apparent that everyone involved is having a great time in this farce. The special effects are appropriately awful and the supporting cast simply seems to be enjoying the joke themselves. The always enjoyable A. Martinez is a true comic surprise. While not meant to be taken seriously, this has some pretty intense horror elements but that never overshadows the spirit of outrageous hilarity. A fabulous departure from the usual SyFy/Asylum serious science fiction dramas.

Útil
•
3

0

dianerpessler-4616415 jul 2015Enlace permanente
7
/10
Bad A-Grade movie...Brilliant B-Grade Movie!

First off, i have got to admit that i have a slight obsession with these type of SyFy movies, there's just something about the outrageous plots, low profile actors and shoddy CGI that gets me every time.

The Plot: Trouble in the everglades becomes apparent after Dr. Nikki Riley releases pythons into the area which result in the dwindling number of alligators, and rising numbers in animal corpses. Tiffany who plays park ranger Terry swiftly takes it into her own hands to resolve the problem armed with chickens and steroids; for which disastrous consequences are lurking round the swamp door.

My Thoughts If you gave it a grade purely from it's technical side, well... let's just say it wouldn't be getting on the honor's roll anytime soon! The lead actresses, Tiffany Darwisch and Deborah Gibson's acting skill set, to put it more nicely, would not benefit any other channel but SyFy. If they were to leave the safety net of the souped up minds of the SyFy team, they just wouldn't be able to survive in the world of acting.

The pacing itself seems to be a bit slow in the beginning but soon grabs your attention with a vast array of humorous moments intertwined with suspense and thrill, you really are entertained from the start to the finish.. almost.

The Screen Stealers There were a minority in the film who definitely stole the show for me in regards to their acting ability in contrast to other various cast members, for instance; A Martinez did a fantastic job of playing Dr. Diego Ortiz, but unfortunately i believe he slightly let himself down in the aeroplane scene (or if you're American, airplane), his face just didn't really seem to convey as much pain as what he says he is in.. suspicious stuff.. eh?

The second of my shining stars has to be Kathryn Joosten, even though she doesn't have as much screen time as the majority, she is still absolutely brilliant at what she does, and what she does is she makes us laugh. It is entirely apparent why she has won two primetime Emmy awards. Bravo Kathryn.. bravo.

And the Conclusion is.. (Drum Rolls Please) Overall it's a bad film, yet still my heart tells me that it's completely amazing, in it's own special way. Even though it is quite terrible, you cannot disregard the pure entertainment value of this cracking movie and I would completely recommend watching this to any of my many friends cats.

What a "normal" person would think: 3/10 What an epic person with the whole SHABANG just like me would think: 7/10

Útil
•
7

0

ezzey19965 jul 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
O M G it's such a cinematic turd~!

Útil
•
5

9

amberbaer29 ene 2011Enlace permanente
Mega fun movie

OK, here's the deal. Don't expect The Green Mile or Shawshank Redemption here. This is a B Grade Comedy that is very creative and fun. If you have watched the Mega Shark series and want more then this is by far the best of the lot. Its fun, silly and the dialogue is positively hilarious.

I suggest: Watching this with kids Watching it while high / stoned watching it if you are very forgiving of low budget fun movies.

I watched this with a 6 year old it it really is a great way to have fun with the family. Kids love the animals and Adults love the absurdity. People that rate this movie badly are equating it to big budget movies. That's hardly fair bu whatever, If you fall into any of the above categories then give it a try and be forgiving when rating this.

Útil
•
14

2

o_mcguigan18 sept 2011Enlace permanente
5
/10
"Anybody that has a gun: use it!"

When SyFy debuts their latest camp extravaganza in its esteemed 9PM Saturday evening showcase spot, featuring its lead actors bashing it MST3K style at every commercial break on its first showing, it's a pretty fair bet you're in for B-movie nonsense. This one delivers.

It never for one second takes itself seriously, and just about everybody is directed to play their parts as cartoonish caricatures. The parts played by Debbie Gibson and Tiffany, an ecologist and a game warden respectively, are over-the-top fanatics who mess with nature's food chain. When they're not cat fighting each other, that is. Then they're genetically altering gators and pythons into mutant CGI giants that get a kick out of croaking each other, or rip apart humans on sight.

The film's shining moment is a party where conservationists are dedicating a program to "save the Everglades." When the big mutants inevitably show up to crash the party, they learn to their dismay that lots of conservationists carry concealed weapons. Everybody (including people in wheel chairs and banquet bus-boys) starts blasting away with guns 'a-blazin' on the surprised creatures.

This self-mocking film has many of the elements that make the classic drive-in "big mutant monster" movies so fun. Worth a watch for a good laugh.

Útil
•
2

2

MartianOctocretr522 jun 2011Enlace permanente
5
/10
Shockingly the Best SyFy Film I Have Seen Yet

There's a crisis in the Florida Everglades as giant pythons are threatening the alligator population.

Every time a SyFy film appears in my mailbox, I get scared. With very rare exceptions, they are among the worst movies I have the privilege of watching. That being said, this one was not one of those. Not saying it was good, mind you -- it is not. But on entertainment merit, it ranks highly. I had more than a few laughs.

As usual, the graphics are bloody awful. In fact, maybe even worse than usual. SyFy and the Asylum have completely given up. Debbie Gibson cannot act, and neither can Tiffany. A few jokes came at their expense, and that was good. But if they were not on SyFy, they could not survive in the world of film. A Martinez, on the other hand, was excellent.

One might wonder how Mary Lambert ("Pet Sematery") was given the director's chair for this. Is this not beneath her? But it is hard to tell if she did a good job directing or not. When you have two terrible actresses and mountains of bad animation, can a good director fix that mess? I think not. So, in essence, this puts a blot on an otherwise respectable career.

Útil
•
2

2

gavin694211 jun 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
80's flashback time!

Útil
•
2

3

juliet-marlow3 jul 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
is it because there's no plot; is it because it's a syfy movie; yes to both

Útil
•
2

4

Erichnathanbennett18 jun 2011Enlace permanente
1
/10
Why did I just watch this?

Útil
•
2

4

poolandrews9 jul 2011Enlace permanente
3
/10
Okay, WHAT!?

Útil
•
1

1

kevinxirau28 oct 2011Enlace permanente
2
/10
Oh no they didn't...

"There's a crisis in the Florida Everglades as giant pythons are threatening the alligator population." is written in the synopsis. Well it wasn't the only crisis in the movie. Oh my god.

Alright, well where to begin? Actually, you knew from the very beginning that this was going to be one of 'those' movies. And it was. Anything with the word "mega" in it and something that comes from SyFy is 90% likely to be epic in a bad way.

The storyline in "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid", although very straight forward and easy to follow, was just so far out there, that you don't buy into it for one second. And the story was plagued with some many mistakes and continuity errors, that it was actually making me laugh.

Being a typical SyFy movie, "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid" is suffering from horrible CGI effects. But in a weird, perverted way, you just want to stick with the movie to see what happens next and to see the next eyesore effect.

The dialogue throughout the movie was halting, forced and often absurd to listen to. I am pretty sure that during a crisis situation like that in the movie, no one would actually talk like that or say those things.

I am sure many noticed the extreme amount of screen-time that Tiffany's cleavage was having. What was up with that?

As for the cast and acting, well it was as to be expected of a SyFy movie. Some actually put on decent enough performances, but there were a lot of really painful performances as well. I was wondering why Micky Dolenz agreed to a movie like this.

Something made me go "what?" It was when the snakes and gators suddenly started working together in unison at the fund raising party attack scene. Why? Someone please tell me why? And how did the snakes reach monstrous sizes after being released into the wild? The entire movie is flawed with mistakes of this caliber. However, in a weird way it does make the movie come off in a comedic sense.

If you like monster movies, then there is a handful of much better options available out there. And as for SyFy movies go, this was even below what they usually pump out on the market. "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid" is good for some laughs at the story and the effects, but that is about the entertainment value of it. However, if you are like me in the habit of watching SyFy movies because you know they will be horrible, then you will definitely like "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid" because it delivers one stupid thing after another.

Útil
•
2

5

paul_haakonsen5 feb 2011Enlace permanente
8
/10
Funny Stuff
They did not pretend they were not a B movie, and as a B movie - I loved it! there was nothing but low budget here. BUT! again I say BUT! I ROFL at a lot of its idiocy. I see they had fun with it and I enjoyed having recognizable talent involved in a just for fun movie. We thought, why is a monkey so important to the fund raising event, LMAO when we saw "The Monkey". kudos to you, I had fun with it. you really have to look at this movie as not something trying to get a Oscar or academy award. I'm telling you the monkey thing got me the best. I see a street person with a little monkey when you say that. I got it first and had to say " No, Look - THE MONKEY!" thank you for this little bit of just silly. Deb and Tiff OMG! two singers being silly together. come on, this was fun.

Útil
•
11

7

fourfb29 ene 2011Enlace permanente
6
/10
Never a dull moment

I think 'never a dull moment', would have been the formula for the making of this movie. That, and 'everything done as fast as possible'. Maybe as cheap as possible too. Credit where credit is due though, because there is tonnes of cgi throughout. At least four or five scenes would be worthy of a poster. It's not quality cgi, but it's a fair way above student quality. It's one of those movies where a script is borrowed from other movies, and it is only to tie together the wacko cgi action anyway. It's an art form I guess, and would be entertaining to kids as soon as they can pass the suitable age rating, but not much further once they experience true blockbusters. Mega Python is nothing to compare with, say, Rampage (2018), but does fall into that quirky genre of B-movies where, since the advent of cgi, there has been a renaissance, which is a good thing, and there are better ones and worse ones of course. If I were 18 again I would have watched this with my girlfriend so we could laugh. For these reasons it deserves a 6. As a movie it deserves a 2.

Útil
•
1

0

robertemerald2 oct 2019Enlace permanente
3
/10
I just notice this movie in your better version of The Asylum's Big Foot.

I do not know what she thinks worse movies in which all people are hypocrites or bohemians with a fourth that he talks about environmental protection and peace. Everyone in this film is disagreeable egoist, everyone in this movie does a lot just to help themselves or to feel better themselves. The damned around environmental terrorists who do not mark them with that they could do him more harm to the human world with their behavior than climate change ever could do, I damn city folks and festival organizers who do not notice that they harm more with you from behavior The flora and fauna could do anything that climate change could do, and even the filmmakers because they felt it necessary to recycle everything in this film, including the dialogues, to Greenpeace.

Mega Python vs. Gatoroid has been panned by critics. Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly said in his review that the film "did something that other stalwarts of this genre, such as Sharktopus and Dinocroc vs. Supergator, did not do: It called attention to how bad, campy, and trashy it was; the actors did everything except wink coyly at the camera."[5] Jared Rasic of CHUD.com gave the film two out of five stars, commenting, "this movie knows exactly what it is and doesn’t try to surprise you with any sort of quality element to make the time you spent watching this have meaning."[6]

Harley Anderson y Simon Quint, dos hombres cuyos destinos divergen se ven envueltos en la misma aventura. De hecho, se unen para poner sus manos en una criatura legendaria que se esconde en las montañas: el Bigfoot.

2
/10
Cheese would have been OK, but stupid drags it down

I was looking forward to the intentional cheesiness of the Partridge vs. Brady hype, but the movie just has too many stupid people doing stupid things that no real person would do. Ruined the fun for me. Also, since when is Bigfoot supposedly bigger than a house and yet could still never be found? And when did he start ripping people apart and eating them?

As the story went on, it just seemed like people in that community had been doing stupid things for maybe a century. No one could ever put 2 and 2 together and make 4.

At least Danny Bonnaduce realizes that his career is made up of playing some silly version of himself and glories in it. Poor Barry Williams has to play his role straight-faced and serious, trying so hard to make a glaring eye look more glaring and intense by keeping it glaring longer and twisting his inherently droopy face. I think he got the bad end of the deal on this one.

I had hoped for a good bad-movie-night film, but it's so much worse than that. Makes me sad. This could have been done with the right attitude and just a small grain of intelligence and been fun.

Útil
•
21

1

bkwormonthenet30 jun 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Absolutely terrible

Útil
•
19

1

jamesashman792 jul 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
So Bad - it's not just bad - it's BAD!

Quite possibly the worst TV movie ever made.

The special effects Bigfoot reminded me of the Snow Monster from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Only the snow monster was scary.

While this movie was suppose to be cheesy and way out there. It failed on every level of film making. It was so awful even the editing sucked. The editing.

Terrible script. Awful acting. Horrible cinematography. Dumb story. Cheesy special effects. There is not one redeemable facet of this movie. Worst Director of the year.

I was embarrassed for everyone involved, especially Sherilyn Fenn, who I love. She was the only one I felt did a good job till she sprung into "action" halfway through. By that point I was laughing and gasping for the pain I felt for this group.

Had they taken this garbage script and played it like satire, and went ten times over board on the set, it might have been so bad it's good.

I'll never get out of my brain Greg Brady on that flying contraption. Oh, my God, what the hell were they thinking?

While I understand actors need to act to put food on the table. I'm ashamed for everyone involved.

Horrendous, simply horrendous.

Útil
•
33

5

davidsmith6669991 jul 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Another painful viewing experience from The Asylum.

Útil
•
11

2

poolandrews2 dic 2012Enlace permanente
2
/10
Something Stupid This Way Comes

Ever since Mr. Mercer and myself have endeavored to create our own monster movie based on the legendary bigfoot (you can read more about our efforts here), I've kept an eye out for any and all things related to the ever elusive Sasquatch. Enter the release of 2012′s Bigfoot, a made for TV movie that documents the reign of terror imposed by a creature more relative in size and stature to King Kong than the reportedly gentle giant that roams the forests of North America.

There are a number of ways one could approach a film like this, but I would never have guessed that the story would center around a rock concert in the shadow of Mount Rushmore. Two aging foes—who apparently shared glory days as members of jam bands during the 1980′s—lock horns in a dispute that boils down to conservationism versus capitalism. I'll save you the grief of a tedious narrative recap by saying simply that the catalyst that ultimately sets up the confrontation with the creature of cryptozoological lore is idiotic; it's a hammy idea that may have worked had the actors been more willing to "cheese up" the proceedings, but a misplaced sense of seriousness sinks any hopes of intentional laughter. Instead, we get uneven sequences that find our hero and villain spouting off cliché lines (and plot points) about protecting the environment and generating revenue for small town America (respectively).

Are you bored yet? If so, I apologize, but this serves to highlight the fatal flaw of Bigfoot: that there isn't enough of well bigfoot. When the monster shows up good fun is had by all, but too much of the movie is bogged down in a dispute between two unlikable characters. Last time I checked, people tune into the SyFy Channel movie of the week because they want over-the-top gore and an overabundance of horrendous special effects. Here, neither is given the screen time it deserves, and the result is a mind-numbing movie with an absolutely infuriating conclusion that's every bit as hollow as Alice Cooper's two minute cameo.

Yeah. You read that right. Actually, said appearance might just be the highlight of Bigfoot. As the aging rock star touts before being stepped on by the massive primate, "I'm the scariest thing you'll ever see!"

Útil
•
7

1

piratecannon26 dic 2012Enlace permanente
3
/10
I Love the 80's, but I Hate Asylum

Útil
•
9

2

pv71989-130 jun 2012Enlace permanente
One of the Worst Bigfoot Movies Ever

Bigfoot (2012)

1/2 (out of 4)

A concert promoter (Danny Bonaduce) is having an 80's festival in South Dakota and to do this he must destroy several acres of land, which doesn't sit well with a land lover (Barry Williams). Soon the two are battling each other over the land but Bigfoot shows up and wants everyone off him home turk. BIGFOOT comes from director Bruce Davison and lets just say that it's without question one of the worst movies ever done on the subject. I will admit that I'm a Bigfoot lover and I enjoy watching any movie I can on him so if someone such as myself hates this film so much I'm really not sure how bad others will hate it. I will say that I think Davison could make for a good director as it's clear he knows how to tell a story, the film looks professional and so on. However, whoever had the idea to do "this" to Bigfoot should be ashamed of themselves. The Bigfoot here isn't the one we've all come to love but instead it has more to do with King Kong. Yes, the title creature here is a gigantic monster that runs wild just like the big ape, which is just downright stupid and silly. For starters, just a tad bit of logic would tell you that it would be impossible for no one to have spotted him already if he was this big. Secondly, what was the point? Why have Bigfoot be this giant monster? Those expecting to see your typical Bigfoot are going to be disappointed but that's not the only bad thing. The constant back and forth between Williams and Bonaduce gets old very quickly. These elements seem more like a spoof but the rest of the film is played straight. Another problem is that there's really no fun to be had with Bigfoot being so annoying. Even his death scenes are pretty bland as he usually picks people up and bites their head off yet there's no blood so go figure. Joining the cast is Sherilyn Fenn who plays a cop and we get a fun cameo from Alice Cooper playing himself. Again, I'm really not sure whose idea it was to turn this Bigfoot into a giant ala King Kong but the end result is an incredibly bad movie and one of the worst of its kind. Even The Asylum should be embarrassed.

Útil
•
19

9

Michael_Elliott30 jun 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
:(
I'm not quite sure what happened, This atrocity came on and next thing I knew, I was drooling on myself and had crapped my pants. Good thing Bonaduce can still get work. The only saving grace of this entire fiasco was of course the "Bigfoot" without a doubt the most realistic, and awe inspiring "Bigfoot" in the history of Bigfootdom. Barry Williams soul inspiring performance reminded me of John Schneider in "OGRE" enough cannot be said about his performance and therefore, it shall not be said, suffice it to know, Danny Bonaduce he is not and that's not a bad thing. The movie as a whole? definitely watchable as long as you have a beautiful drunk woman passed out on the couch who wasn't paying attention where you live and never caught your name.

Útil
•
8

2

bvalentine6610 may 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
So bad that it is.......................bad.

Bigfoot is another of those SYFY movies that is pretty bad. But they all are like that so you have to throw your expectations out the window when you see a movie like that and that will help you enjoy it more. I did so when watching this film and only was mildly entertained.

The story is about a giant bigfoot that attacks a city during a rock convention. Simple as that.

Bigfoot is done with CGI, just like all the other films like this. He looks OK, but when he moves sometimes he looks really bad. This bigfoot did not do anything that stands out besides bite peoples heads off.

Human characters are all horrible actors like usual, Danny Bonaduce does play a great jerk in this film tho. All the others are your typical SYFY characters. I thought it was cool that Alice Cooper appeared in this film, he was probably the best part of this movie.

The action scenes are typical, nothing special.

Pretty standard film, nothing really stands out. I do not really recommend it.

Útil
•
8

2

jerekra28 ene 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
The fact that it's stupid is just one of the criticisms

I do like Bigfoot movies and wanted to be entertained by this film no matter of my dubiousness. Sadly, my dubiousness(the fact that it's SyFy is clue enough of the level of quality you're expecting) proved correct, because apart from some decent scenery and a fun cameo from Alice Cooper, Bigfoot(2012) is an awful film, though not quite awful enough to be one of their worst. The camera work and editing have been worse before, but there is nothing exceptional about them. The special effects are really just terrible, even for SyFy the Bigfoot, more an out-of-scale version of King Kong, is incredibly cheap. How the Bigfoot is utilised doesn't help either, it never does anything other than running around wild killing people, which does get old fast, and it's never explained as to why he is so big. And the killings are very bland with no sense of real danger or suspense. The dialogue is very cheesy which I was expecting, but surely the actors deserved more to work with, Bigfoot commits one of movie-writing's biggest mistakes and actually gives them next to nothing to do. Consequently the acting is very poor, with Danny Bonaduce made to send up himself, which may have been more fun if the rapport between him and Barry Williams, giving meaning to playing it straight blandly, had been more inspired and less irritating. Sherilyn Fenn also turns up and is not given much to do. They are further not helped by their characters. I would not have minded if the characters were stereotypical or not(I actually have seen movies that do have clichéd characters but manage to do something with them, From Here to Eternity for example), it was the way that they were written that was the problem. I do think SyFy are at their worst, when their characters are both underdeveloped and made to do stupid things, sadly both of which are seen in Bigfoot. Furthermore, the story is dull, predictable and devoid of any kind of sense or logic, I agree absolutely about the Bigfoot not being spotted, if he was that big there is no way that nobody would've not spotted him(which is what brings me to my point about the characters doing stupid things). So all in all, even for SyFy Bigfoot is an awful film. Has some decent scenery and Cooper is reasonably fun, but the stupidity of the story, the cheapness of Bigfoot himself, annoying characters and poor acting bring things down. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
17

8

TheLittleSongbird1 jul 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Absolutely Terrible
I'm not sure why I even wasted time watching this one to the end. Having done that though gave me a chance to be amazed at how many names were in the closing credits. The CGI rendering of the Bigfoot, explosions, fires, etc is about as lousy as is possible. The sound effects of the Bigfoot's steps regardless of terrain or speed are also ridiculous. I love most Bad movies in the sci-fi, horror, exploitation, etc genres but once in a while you come across one that is just plain 'total waste of time' kind of bad....and this one is one of those. Now this is a 'made for TV' movie which 30-40 years ago meant you should expect a poorly made one...but for years now that is no longer the case.

Útil
•
11

4

kirkby-john6 jul 2012Enlace permanente
10
/10
Bigfoot

Útil
•
4

5

Scarecrow-8813 jun 2013Enlace permanente
6
/10
Big foot has a great drop kick...

Útil
•
12

5

djderka1 jul 2012Enlace permanente
2
/10
Big pile of cr@p
A gigantic Bigfoot is disturbed when the most pathetic music festival in film history is held near Mount Rushmore and goes on a rampage of death and destruction. There must be about 30 extras that make up the "crowd", they did, however, somehow manage to rope in Alice Cooper to make an appearance, and this for me was the only positive thing that I can say about this awful, cheap movie from The Asylum. Terrible continuity - in one scene there's snow on the ground, the next it's gone, then it's back again! Dreadful CGI effects, much of the acting isn't much better either. There are plenty of bad Bigfoot/Yeti movies out there but this is the worst that I have seen to date. This film is an ABOMINATION!

Útil
•
3

1

Stevieboy66629 abr 2018Enlace permanente
3
/10
Another Syfy not so good movie
Well at least this not so good Syfy movie has some decent acting with some proved, if older actors. Danny Bonaduce, Barry Williams, Howard Hesseman, and Sherilyn Fenn at least can act, if a little over done. Not exactly what you expect in a movie from a Syfy. Boy do I know this. I keep watching the Syfy movies and am usually disappointed, hoping for the occasional good one, which does happen from time to time, usually because Syfy did not make it. The reason I say not so good is because the Bigfoot is so much larger than projections and eyewitness (?) reports. It is way too strong, throwing several ton construction machines like I would toss around my little rescue dogs. They are 25 pounders and while I would never throw them around it is the same thought.I like Alice Coopers appearance but the total movie is not that good.

Útil
•
3

2

SanteeFats1 jul 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
The Best Bigfoot Movie Ever Made starring Danny Bonaduce and Barry Williams

Urban legend "Bigfoot" is a mystery no more, introduced stomping on a bear hunter, before the credits. A towering ape-like creature, putting out humans like a cigarette butts is one of his (or her) favorite ways to kill. We're set in the appropriately-named Deadwood, South Dakota during a spring cold wave. Morning radio talk show host Danny Bonaduce (as Harley Anderson) pans "global warming" and promotes his upcoming "80s Flashback Music Festival." Neither bad weather nor "Bigfoot" killings will convince Mr. Bonaduce to cancel the concert. Former popular singer Barry Williams (as Simon Quinn) doesn't agree. Presently an environmentalist, Mr. Williams wants to stop the music...

It's difficult to understand how people can make a movie this bad without trying. Bonaduce and Williams defy description; that two veteran actors could be so unappealing is astonishing. They were popular TV and recording stars on "The Partridge Family" and "The Brady Bunch" during the 1970s. Bonaduce is appalling, perhaps intentionally. Occasionally trying, Williams sings one song and Alice Cooper has a tiresome cameo. "Bigfoot" may have been angry because 1970s acts were headlining a 1980s music festival. The cartoon-like special effects and story are haphazardly presented. Appearing bored are co-star Sherilyn Fenn and actor-director Bruce Davison. Awful is too elevated a description.

* Bigfoot (6/30/12) Bruce Davison ~ Danny Bonaduce, Barry Williams, Sherilyn Fenn, Bruce Davison

Útil
•
3

2

wes-connors18 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Watch Only if You want to Feel Superior
I actually felt more intelligent after this! (I was just insulted. I was red inked "your review is too short." Yeah, I am only 5'3 and that is still considered "short"?)

Útil
•
2

1

malaincollins4 jun 2018Enlace permanente
4
/10
Gets 4 * for Alice Cooper's cameo
... otherwise it would get 2 as a typical SyFy movie. Not sure what Alice was doing in it but I hope he had fun.

Útil
•
1

0

lucyconnuk8 jun 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
These SyFy films are not 'camp', they're just plain STUPID!

Unlike one of the previous reviewers named djderka, I do not believe AT ALL that SyFy's movies are funny B-Movies for the Millenniumer's and that somehow, if you're not from that generation you're just not 'getting it'. That is such an insulting, arrogant and stupid thing to say to anyone who's not from your age category. That's as stupid as me saying that anyone who's older than ME can't appreciate bad movies made from 1974 to 1994, that's just BS, anyone with a brain knows in general the difference between a good and bad movie. If these SyFy movies are TRYING to be funny then they're doing a very poor job of it and if you find anything in this funny as in "HA HA, they MEANT that to be funny", then I'm afraid you're just a moron.

I actually suspect that 'djderka' probably works for SyFy in some capacity which would explain why he claims they 'purposely' made the cop car have a dull finish instead of a shiny one to make the film look cheesy (I guess a subtle SyFy joke that only a Milleniumer like djderka would be able to 'pick up' on). No djderka, sorry to burst your bubble but they did it because it's faster/easier/cheaper to render the finished CGI effects and that's the ONLY reason they did it. EVERY object in this movie that should have been shiny was dull. But I guess djderka thinks they made ALL those finishes dull to purposely get a laugh from all his in-the-know buddy gamer Milleniumer's.

Útil
•
3

3

randy_kay14 jul 2013Enlace permanente
4
/10
Decent Actors vs. a Lame Script

Watching this, I was more upset watching actors have to say such lame lines in implausible situations than by anything the "big scary" monster could do.

Danny Bonaduce (Danny Partridge forty some years ago on "The Partridge Family) and Barry Williams (Greg Brady on "The Brady Bunch" in the 70's) are the "leads" in this epic, playing totally unlikable characters. Bonaduce is a cynical promoter/DJ, Williams is a really bad folk singer who cares about the environment. Bonacuce stages a rock festival that a couple of dozen people attend, the highlight of which is a guest appearance by Bigfoot: displeased by Alice Cooper's song stylings, he eats a few audience members and literally kicks Cooper off the stage.

Sherilyn Fenn, an Emmy nominee in the early 1990's for playing high school hottie Audry Horne on "Twin Peaks" gets to wear Marge Gunderson's old hat from "Fargo" as she attempts to impose order on the scene. Also wearing a badge is Bruce Davison, an Oscar nominee for "Longtime Companion." Davison also directed the film. His direction of a kid's program got him an Emmy nomination a few years ago. He's unlikely to get one for this.

As I said, the script is terrible. Bigfoot eats people at a rock concert, terrorizes Deadwood, South Dakota, and briefly visits Cedar Rapids. The resolution of the story (well, sort of resolution) comes at Mount Rushmore.

But through all the death and disaster, there's no sense of urgency to the proceedings. Fenn does what she can with an underwritten part, but she's now forty-seven years old. She looks fine- she reminds me of Barbara Hale as Della on "Perry Mason"- but this is a film with poorly developed character parts and no leads.

Oddly enough, the special effects aren't really bad. There's some nice use of forced perspective. But we don't know where this huge gorilla came from. I don't think that apes of any sort are native to South Dakota. Because the story mechanics call for it, the monster shows up. To keep the story mechanics moving, characters walk into the frame to be Monster Chow.

By the way: I'll admit that I fast forwarded a lot, but I have no recollection of Billy Idol showing up for an instant.

Útil
•
3

5

bababear1 jul 2012Enlace permanente
3
/10
Lot's of laughs
Alice Cooper gets booted off the stage by Bigffot,come on you gotta love that,the rest has some giggles.

Útil
•
1

1

water-5933212 abr 2021Enlace permanente
10
/10
Sure to become a cult classic
If you love low-budget, cheesy horror movies, this one is for you! I watched because it was filmed near my home, and it's always fun to look for local landmarks in a movie. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the total camp value of this little gem. Watching "Danny Partridge" and "Greg Brady" duke it out as adversaries was priceless! The special effects and CGI are so badly done, I suspect they hired a fifth grader with a little computer skills to do them. The story line is bad, the dialog painful, the characters beyond superficial. Folks, those are NOT bad things! Watch this one with friends. You will all be howling with laughter within ten minutes!

Útil
•
6

10

sscott38251 jul 2012Enlace permanente
6
/10
Lost My Head In the Black Hills
Bigfoot (2012): This made for TV movie attracted rally bad reviews but I found it entertaining. The Bigfoot in question is actually Kig Kong sized and us woken from it's slumber in the Black Hills of Dakota by hunters and bulldozers. He soon kills and eats the hunters, casting the dozers aside like toys. The trees are being cleared to make space for a rock festival organized by an ex-rock star who is really a bit of a con artist. But Alice Cooper does turn up. A guy who played in the same band as him is now an environmentalist and is trying to stop the tree felling. It's quite funny with some genuine horror though as Bigfoot picks people up and bites their heads off. Worth watching. Directed by Bruce Davison, written by Micho Rutare and Brian Brinkman. On Legend Channel. 6/10.

Útil
•
2

0

Pairic26 dic 2022Enlace permanente
4
/10
Typical SyFY Fare

Yet another SyFY instant Tragedy. I am convinced that SyFy intentionally makes really bad Science Fiction films knowing that they are so bad, you can't help but love them for their cheesiness. Bigfoot is your typical SyFy channel fare meaning you will immediately laugh and realize the movie is awful, yet in all likelihood you will watch the entire movie while you take a half-snooze on your couch.

This film, while terrible does have a few decent moments. Danny Bonaduce is well-known from his days on The Partridge Family and it is hard not to like him. His acting is actually decent on the film. In addition, it does seem like our friend the Sasquatch (also known as Bigfoot) has never been more

Ian Jane from DVD Talk gave the film a negative review, writing, "Bigfoot is not scary, interesting or good - it is mildly amusing in a bad movie sort of way, and if you find yourself with an uncontrollable urge to seek whatever may lie at the bottom of the straight to video barrel you can have some fun with it, but yeah, this movie is awful."[3] Craig McGee from HorrorNews.net hated the film, panning the film's dialogue, script, and overly preachy environmentalist message.[4] Brett Gallman from Oh, the Horror! gave the film a negative review, calling it " a movie that's sometimes impossibly bad, especially because it's never quite that obvious just how aware it is of its own badness."[5]

Terror takes a ghastly form when a gigantic two-headed shark sinks a ship full of students, and the survivors wash up on a tiny atoll. But just when the kids think they're safe, a tsunami sweeps them back into the deep to face the twin jaws anew.—

4
/10
The 50,s rule !
This was one bad movie ! . You can guess what your getting before you start this one up. As a fan of b-budget horror and sci-fi,i HAD to see this movie.Last year brought us Sharktapus,and a few other sci-fi creatures,and this year,it gets BETTER !.A two headed shark !.With loads of bad effects,bad acting,and some good ,ol fashion shoddy monster. The film is chocked full of mistakes,and poor film-making stuff,and stranger things,that you cant stop watching.I loved the way the shark was anywhere from 20 foot ,to 9 foot,depending on the shots needs.Bless the people that worked on this fartblower,and bless US,the viewers that keep watching these movies.

Útil
•
52

5

dadatuuexx7 feb 2012Enlace permanente
2
/10
The horror...that a movie this bad can be made.

Útil
•
4

0

Latentlove200020 ene 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Absolutely horrible. Give yourself a break and gouge your eyes out.

Movie review:After posting the trailer, I just couldn't wait to watch this one. This movie was so bad, it kept my attention in between sessions of gargling hydrochloric acid to null out the pain my brain was enduring. The plot, bunch of kids charter a boat to who knows where and comes under attack, from a 2 headed shark, hence the snappy title. This movie is possibly the biggest joke I have seen, ever. The un-special effects were done by a two year old taking her first bath with a toy rubber shark. At some points the people that were eaten were larger than the shark, and others the shark was larger than the boat. The camera work was done so poorly that this was obvious. The shark had the ability to devour people that are standing in waist deep water, yet plunge straight downward into the depths of the water. When the actors, and that is the biggest insult to acting I have ever witnessed, get stranded on an atoll (i always thought that was a coral reef formation, not a makeshift island) they must figure out a way to escape. blah blah. There is not one single redeeming quality of this piece of crap, and it is hard not to swear as I am typing this. Oh, did I mention Brooke Hogan and Carmen Electra are the main attractions? They are still stuck in a cardboard box attempting to act their way out of it. All the extras were following cues from the staff so blatantly it was pathetic. "Act scared", "Act mortified at the person being eaten underwater", even though there is no way you could see it. I could go on, but I'll spare you. Do not see this movie unless you feel the need to watch a "how to not make a movie" instructional video. Worst movie ever. Now I am sure there are the "b-movies so bad they are good" people out there. Well, this is it, minus the good. Recycled scenes in a 87 minute movie, boats not moving when they are supposed to be speeding, conversations of two people on said boats and they can hear each other, the list is endless. 1.5/10 IMDb 2.6 , I guess it got scored high because two topless chicks make out in said waste deep water and get eaten. Brooke, stick with TNA (that is wrestling for the non-followers). At least that is more believable.

Útil
•
8

2

jackmeat8 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Sharks Vs. Silicone

Sharks Vs. Silicone The 'Jaws' series tought us that sharks grow to 40 feet, eat helicopters, raise their heads above the water to roar at their prey, hunt in 4 feet of water, and attack cruise ships.

The recent megalodon films tought us that sharks grow to 65 feet, fly, eat 747 airplanes, and attack oil rigs, supertankers, and aircraft carriers. Yet still hunt teenagers in 4 feet of water and raise their heads above the water to roar.

Now '2 Headed Shark Attack' teaches us, sharks have two heads, grow to 65 feet yet still hunt teenagers in 4 feet of water, can collapse and island by butting against it, are amphibious and come on land to roar at teenagers, and most importantly have a sweet tooth for silicon.

The plot: Hardly original crew of token "marine biology" college students' cruise ship is struck by engine and radio failure.

With Carmen Electra as a college professor it's understandable why so many gorgeous, horny, and brain dead students signed up for the class.

And when I say there's a lot of silicone, I mean it. I counted only 4 breasts that could even pass for natural in the entire film.

Predictably the class wades ashore a "atoll" which according to this film tend to collapse. Atolls apparently also feature concrete docks for motor boats and Robinson Caruso like grass huts.

The dialogue consists entirely of, "What was that? Oh my God! Go go go!" There's plenty of blood and guts and some decent CGI FX.

Disappointingly there's no explanation for why a shark has 2 heads and is 60 feet long. Most giant shark movies at least offer some type of explanation such as a greedy corporation's experiment gone awry.

The silicone is nice to look at between killings but no one is memorably gorgeous enough to save this disaster.

Útil
•
48

2

chow91319 abr 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Had to watch it.... Needed a good laugh.
And let me tell you.... I busted a gut on this one. I mean I expected bad, but there really isn't a word that adequately describes the level of bad this movie broached upon. Like Ninth circle of hell bad. Like Killer Clowns from Outer Space was an Oscar Winner bad. Like .... never mind. I need another good laugh, so I have Sand shark next on my DVR to laugh through. Whoever wrote this film should be drawn and quartered and forced to sign an agreement that swears they will never write again. B rated? Thats a compliment undeserved. Who in their right mind paid to produce that film? Is there a way to negotiate your contract to NOT include this in your credits list? I know if it were me, I'd certainly explore that option.

Útil
•
14

0

DanicaFontaine8 sept 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Physically painful to watch

Honestly what are these other clowns on? 6 and 7 stars? This movie is one of if not the worst I have watched.

Terrible story line, woeful cgi, my ass could of acted scenes better and so many mistakes.

They should start paying people to watch this. If this was my movie and I had just watched the final cut, I would have slit my wrists, gouged my eyes out and then destroyed all evidence that the movie ever existed while I waited to bleed out.

I thought this movie may be so bad it would be funny, I was wrong it is just really, really bad.

I want the last hour and a half of my life back.

Útil
•
51

15

golfpunk11121 feb 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Oh My!

Útil
•
14

2

joseph_kerollos7 may 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
If it had three heads, then maybe...

A wild 2 headed Sharpedo appeared. It used pixelate. It's not very effective ...

Suddenly, after about one minute, a vicious two-headed shark shows its teeth and consumes two innocent babes as if they were his hors d'oeuvre. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare yourself for 90 minutes of the most preposterous nonsense ever recorded on film.

In fact there is not even much to say about total failure number twenty thousand of 'The Asylum'. Really stiff dialogues, lousy acting, miserable directing, hopeless CGI, SFX and the typical, but equally desperate storyline. However, this time there are no scientists or special agents involved. The shark is only confronted with a boat of voluptuous and muscular students, who, of course, parade happily with their breasts and biceps, but ultimately only let the vocal cords work.

It can be said that the shark is essentially a young, healthy man, with an immaculate interest in the female sex, even though he presents himself at times as a juvenile peeper. But, generally it doesn't take long before he comes trotting with a whopper of an opening line, and starts courting the giggling girls. A lasting relationship, however, is not an option.

We know by now that our friends from 'The Asylum' aren't very pragmatic in approach, but of all the plot holes there is only one that I can not fathom. If that shark has two heads, then why didn't Carmen Electra have four breasts? Food for thought.

Útil
•
32

9

dave_last-edition8 feb 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
~sigh~
I'm curious as to who bank rolls movies like this? I get it, its not suppose to be a 'serious' movie; really the name of the movie says it all, however.... you've got to make the storyline at least a bit believable or at least entertaining. This movie fits in the same class as Piranha 3D and Shark Night. However i'd rather watch either of those over again before watching this movie. The acting is terrible, and if this is the platform Brooke Hogan plans on launching her acting career... I suggest she slap on some spandex and hop in the WWE ring instead. And what about poor Carmen Electra? Clearly she's needing some cash or at the least some exposure in front of the camera because her suntan scene (no nudity) was ridiculous...

Útil
•
24

8

coomassieblue10 feb 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
I wish the formerly known as the SFC would go out of business.
When I watch a total crapfest like this, it makes me wonder how the brilliant Battlestar Galactica ever aired, especially on this Lowest Common Denominator channel. Anyone else remember when this was a GOOD channel? When they showed 50's classic, SF Pilot Playhouse, etc? Now it pummels the audience with garbage like this, filled with has beens and never were's, edits out the softcore nudity and sex (for the DVD's and Europe I imagine). Anyone remember when a B movie was worth seeing? This absolute turd sandwich of a movie featured horrible effects, worse acting and a dumb story that had really nothing going for it. I know, I know, I didn't have to watch it. I know that. But it's like being hypnotized. One wants to look away, but we can't. WE CAN'T. I'd say this, avoid at all costs, unless you want to save money on a sleeping pill. It's simply that horrible.

Útil
•
11

2

mhorg20188 sept 2012Enlace permanente
10
/10
Greatest Movie Ever Made.

Útil
•
84

29

reggiebottomtooth12318 abr 2012Enlace permanente
Dialogue Example: "Wait, if it has two heads then it must have double the teeth!"

2-Headed Shark Attack (2012)

** (out of 4)

If you're expecting something like JAWS then I really hope you don't rent or buy a movie called 2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK. This film from the one and only The Asylum has a group of kids going out to do research when their boat is attacked by the title creature. Soon many are eaten while others stand around with dumb looks on their faces but have no fear because Carmen Electra, Charlie O'Connell and Brooke Hogan are on hand. 2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK is a very, very bad movie but once you realize that this is a straight-to-DVD flick from The Asylum then you realize that it shouldn't be taken serious and it's okay to laugh at it. Those old enough will probably remember in the 80s when low-budget movies like this one would attract used up, former stars and mix them in with relatives to more famous people and that's pretty much what we get here. Electra isn't the hot item she once was. O'Connell is the brother to Jerry and we all know who Hogan is. Christoper Olen Ray is even the son of cult filmmakers Fred Olen Ray. Again, if anyone goes into a movie like this expecting quality then that's their problem and not the films. The majority of the titles I've seen from The Asylum have been horrid but this one here is thankfully so bad that you can have some fun with it. Just one example is Hogan who gives one of the worst performances I've seen in a very long time. No matter if she's having fun, sad, angry or in fear she's always speaking in the same tone and delivering her lines the same way. Obviously she doesn't know how to express any sort of emotion so she just stays the same throughout all of them. Just check out the sequence where she's talking about a traumatizing event in her life and be sure to laugh it up. Electra at least still looks extremely good but she keeps her clothes on (as does Hogan in case you're wondering). The film does feature some nudity for those expecting that type of thing. The CGI sharks are poorly done but that's the type of thing you'd expect from a movie like this. The ending of the movie is downright silly as is the subplot of the island they're on is sinking. 2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK is pure "Z" grade material but I'll at least give the director credit for keeping it moving at a nice pace and making it at least entertaining in a bad way.

Útil
•
6

1

Michael_Elliott6 abr 2012Enlace permanente
6
/10
Title Explains the film

Two-Headed Shark attack was one of those movies that was exactly how I thought it would be.

This group of scientists or something get stranded on a island when their boat breaks down. There they must find a way to escape and also must avoid being attacked by this huge two headed shark.

The story is pretty typical for a syfy movie. Two-Headed shark appears and attacks. The CG for the shark is OK at best, but they do not really explain how the shark came into existence really well.

The action scenes with the shark are good. Nothing that stands out.

Another reason to see this movie is all the hot chicks in bikinis who get attacked by the shark. Overall the acting is pretty bad in this movie. Carmen Elektra I think does a pretty horrible job acting and only adds sex appeal (but not even that much of that). Brook Hogan I think did an average job acting, but that means by far she is the best actor in the whole film.

So, the shark is OK, the acting is bad, and the story is predictable. I say see it if you like these bad shark movies, otherwise stay away.

Útil
•
3

1

jerekra26 ene 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Comedy
I have never laughed so hard in my life. I don't know why this movie is not featured under the comedy section on Netflix. I knew it was geared up to be a terrible movie; however, I was not expecting graphics worse than my N64 with worse than elementary school children with little to no rehearsing. This movie left me speechless but not in the same way that Deep blue Sea left me speechless. Deep Blue Sea left me frightened by smarter sharks. 2-headed shark attack left me stunned that I completed viewing the film. I could go on all day but one thing actually bothered me more than anything. None of the characters are rattled at all that there is a shark with two heads. They're not happy it's a shark. They note that two heads means two sets of teeth. No one is concerned where this two headed monstrosity came from. Are there more? Is it a Frankenshark? We'll never know unless there is a sequel featuring more bundles of laughs.

Útil
•
8

2

Hollynxn1 nov 2012Enlace permanente
3
/10
A new definition for "bottom of the barrel"

While I consider myself a fan of the recent wave of cheesy, CGI-enhanced monster flicks a la SHARKNADO, even I have standards - and unfortunately, despite the great title, 2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK doesn't meet them. This is an entirely Z-grade film which takes PIRANHA 3D as its inspiration and fails to make a decent movie out of a rip-off.

The film is clumsily made and badly written throughout. The cast is almost entirely populated by annoying teen stereotypes and blonde bimbos, chief of whom is Hulk Hogan's daughter Brooke - an actress she isn't! Backing her up is Carmen Electra in a more minor role as a doctor; you may remember her from the likes of SCARY MOVIE back in the day, and she's still trying to play the same role and hiding her age by smothering her face in makeup.

Due to budgetary constraints, the whole film is set on a ship where those on board have to contend with one of the worst special effects yet put on film. This shark is a crude bit of CGI animation to say the least, and randomly changes size depending on the scene. There are many gory deaths, but the majority of effects are done on the computer; I felt like I was watching somebody playing THE SIMS at various times.

Needless to say, the acting is horrible, the script is dumb, and Christopher Douglas Olen-Ray's direction is vapid (no surprise that this guy is the son of infamous cult director Fred Olen-Ray). The amount of continuity errors and dumb decisions made on the part of the cast is unbelievable; I think the whole 'randomly sinking atoll' part of the story was the most jaw-dropping. In any case, this is a real stinker.

Útil
•
6

1

Leofwine_draca7 ago 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Meh
This movie should have been called Hot Chicks That Can Fix Anything. In typical bad shark movie fashion, the shark's behavior and abilities constantly change. It can eat 2 people in one bite, then it can't bite through 1 person. It can't go into shallow water, then it can get to the shore. The only thing that could have made this interesting would have been a topless Brooke Hogan.

Útil
•
3

0

13Funbags12 oct 2019Enlace permanente
2
/10
Science Has Nothing to Do With This!

Útil
•
4

1

Vincent_B25 ago 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
Great eye candy

Útil
•
5

2

SanteeFats9 sept 2012Enlace permanente
4
/10
Not as bad as you think!

Útil
•
2

0

doctorsmoothlove27 abr 2020Enlace permanente
3
/10
Big tits shark attack

With a title like this coming from The Asylum productions you know that you are in big problems. You know that it will be a turkey and it will have cheap and bad CGI effects. But still somehow you want to see those flicks for some reason unexplainable.

The acting is terrible, Carmen Electra is casted not for her acting abilities but just for showing off her body. She does it in one bathing scene but sadly for the Kleenex boys this time she leaves her clothes on. The other main lead is Brooke Hogan (Kate), just watch her mouth and you know who her dad is, ex WWE wrestler Hulk Hogan. She do perform a bit but is also cast for her 2-headed....I won't go into the acting of the others because it's not worth mentioning.

The flick itself is full of mistakes. Once on the beach they are looking at a motorboat race but then they are almost close to shore next shot they are miles away. Even so for the shark, then he's huge and then he has a normal size. He can't go into shallow water because he's to big but when some are just up to their knees in the water he still can swim in it and attack.

There's no gore to see because once the victims are bitten by the shark it's all CGI, even the persons. When they are being bitten above water it's a rubber shark with bad teeth others than the CGI shark.

But be honest, this is only watchable for guys. All girls do walk around in bikini's and are big-busted babes. And of course the gratuitous nudity is in tact when two girls go skinny-dipping.

Too watch with a beer and chips and invite your male friends, you will have a big time but to watch it as a serious flick...naah.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

Útil
•
5

3

trashgang22 jul 2012Enlace permanente
4
/10
If it had not been for the shark ...

Útil
•
5

5

cyndera2 feb 2012Enlace permanente
10
/10
Amazing!

Útil
•
22

14

claytonrabe19 abr 2012Enlace permanente
6
/10
almost delivers

Útil
•
4

4

hopla686 feb 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Fun in a "less than 80 IQ" sort of way

So the basic premise of the plot is a group of students on a school-sanctioned educational sea excursion are besieged by a giant two-headed shark. They seek refuge on a small island where they are served up as a buffet to said shark while often providing eye candy shots to viewers who are starving for anything of value in the film.

The good -- Brooke Hogan shows several small glimmers of hope as a b movie actor. She's the only one of the cast really adding any merit to this turkey of a movie at all, but in light of the poor writing and sub-basement direction that's not saying much.

There are also several eye candy shots of other females, a sex-implied scene with topless nudity, and a modelling shoot style scene custom made for the "star" of the movie Carmen Electra.

The Bad -- Pretty much just about everything else. Terrible writing of a plot machine-gun-riddled with holes, atrocious dialogue writing, producers and a director having no sense of continuity whatsoever nor any imaginative acumen at all.

Carmen Electra's character really doesn't have to be there at all, having no visible purpose other than eye candy and one more person running around until the inevitable (and predictable) end.

O'Connel's acting turn as the teacher who steps up and protects his flock of young charges leaves so much to be desired it is beyond painful to accept much less watch.

In short, this movie is a single star film at best, a waste of effort by all involvede containing so many moronic choices by the various characters that viewers who force themselves to watch it to the end might actually suffer the loss of several IQ points for having done so.

In lieu of actual content it relies heavily on the gratuitous T&A scenes, topless shots, etc, to raise the worth of the film to one worth watching, but that's simply asking too much in this case. The only way that would have happened is if they'd turned it into a full-fledged porno flick and be done with it. And even then it would only slightly have been "less painful" to watch.

However, if you're a fan of b-cheese shark movies with bad acting supported by a production crew lacking any sort of movie-making talent whatsoever, and you love seeing people run around like complete idiots until they become monster chow, AND you can accept the fact that you're taking your chances on getting one of the most implausible endings in movie history, then and only then... this one is for you and is absolutely a must-see.

For the rest of the world my advice is avoid at all costs unless you're trapped at a remote location with a TV/movie player and only THIS piece of crap to watch to pass the time. And even then I recommend you find something else to do.

1/10

Útil
•
2

1

CanadianBill30 jul 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
Nearly nude girls battling a two-headed shark should have been more fun than this

Don't blink or you'll miss the opening death scene entirely, in this quickly tiring shlockfest about a double-headed CG-shark chomps down on some chowderheads stranded near a small island, which they repeatedly claim is an atoll ( a coral formation, usually circular or ring- shaped ), despite the fact that it is clearly a small island ( a slab of land completely surrounded by water ).

The first 30 minutes were fairly amusing, with plenty of good looking girls wearing as little as possible, and a couple of unintentional laughs at the bottom of the barrel effects, but the film played all its cards in the first 30 minutes, and spends the next hour repeating itself, after its topless lesbian kissing

Bloody Disgusting published a review of the film in 2017, arguing that the film attempts to develop some of the extensive list of characters and "makes an effort to give them all unique personalities and character traits, even if there simply isn't enough time devoted to developing them". The review commends the film for also delivering on the titular "2-headed shark attack", but argues that "the over-the-top massacres are good fun at first, but do get stale after a while" and that the film could have benefitted from cutting some characters and making the remaining death scenes more creative.[5]

Un grupo de completos extraños se encuentran aislados por un loco rico en el complejo de su isla. Se ven obligados a entrar en un guantelete espantoso donde deben sobrevivir a un aluvión de especies de tiburones cada vez más letales. After the untimely death of his son, the affluent sadist, Tiburon, abducts eight seemingly unrelated perfect strangers. Intent on feeding them to his favourite pet-sharks, Tiburon has devised a series of devilishly cruel and increasingly challenging tests for his prisoners to endure, knowing that there's no escape from his secluded island compound. Each assault wave involves more voracious shark species than the previous, until the final confrontation with the ultimate beast of the ocean. But, human life is very cheap in Tiburon's island. Who shall live and who shall die in the bloody Shark Week?

1
/10
The Manos-Hands-of-Fate of SyFy movies.

To be fair, I only got to see the last 40 minutes, but that was enough to make this one of the absolute WORST movies I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of really stinky movies, mostly by Asylum, but all the classic stinkers too like Manos).

Patrick Bergin and Yancy Butler (who seems to have a nervous eye flutter) play a psycho couple who live in a giant mansion but spend most of their time in what appears to be a broom closet decked out with some lap tops and not-so-big video screens. They are forcing some none-too-bright people to make their way through deadly shark encounters which all look like they can be easily be avoided by simply NOT GOING WHERE THE SHARKS ARE.

There's also some land mines on a beach that are easily seen and can be outrun once they start exploding but are handy for carrying with you in case you have to hang onto a stalagmite while fending off a really hideous CG shark.

Calling the acting wooden is an insult to wood. The music is incessantly wrong for the "action" and the direction and editing are hilarious (lots of scenes of people walking and emoting for no apparent reason).

But it is a hoot to make fun of while you're watching it. I hope that all involved get better at what they're doing or find other lines of work.

Útil
•
17

6

Mr. OpEd5 ago 2012Enlace permanente
1
/10
Even for low budget shark movies this is horrible
The plot is awful, a rich eccentric drug tycoon wants revenge on 8 individuals so he captures them in order to have them play his game. The sharks in the film are horrible and in no way look real. They aren't even in the same frames as the actors, you either see a shark alone in the water or an actor being attacked or trying to escape. The acting is bad, but on par with other low budget shark movies. The movie drags on, boring you. If you can make it through the whole thing congrats, you just wasted an hour and a half of your life.

I only checked this out because I like shark movies and this was new to netflix instant stream. Don't bother

Útil
•
11

6

mikee43 may 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Saw meets Jaws but with no fun, excitement or sense of terror

For The Asylum, Shark Week is not their worst or quite awful enough to be one of them. That doesn't stop it though from being a complete failure in every area, and that's even when you know what to expect. Some of the locations are nice and exotic but others also look as though they were shot in a run-down warehouse or basement. That cheap look is made even worse by the choppy editing and terrible special effects. If you've seen the quality of the sharks in other Asylum or SyFy movies that are similar, it's pretty much the same in Shark Week, the sharks are so cheaply rendered and not only don't look real but they don't look natural in their surroundings. They also don't have any personality either, which severely dilutes any terror or tension, the actors don't even look all that terrified when really the situation would be scary for anybody. The music is at a very sluggish tempo especially in the scenes containing action, the scoring of the build-ups to the attacks is predictable. The dialogue has always been one of the weakest aspects of an Asylum movie, and there is no change here as this is very cheesy and stilted scripting. And you don't connect with any of the characters, as with everything else Shark Week doesn't give time to develop them or you the time to properly root for them. The story just doesn't seem to have any life, Shark Week is very poorly paced throughout, the action shows the worst of the editing and lifeless choreography and the shark attacks suffer from a complete lack of tension and visual cheapness, if you're expecting to be afraid of going into seas now you won't get that vibe. It also seemed rather tame, you'd expect a crossover of Saw and Jaws to have a similar impact to those movies but here it feels like Saw but without the harrowing violence and Jaws without the eerie nail-biting suspense. The acting is very bad too, Patrick Bergin and Yancy Butler are far too over-the-top and don't make any effort to reign in and give their characters depth or any quality that makes you connect with them. While the acting of victims are wooden with nobody seeming to properly care about whether they lived or died. Overall, dull, cheap and not much fun at all, more avoided than recommended. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
8

5

TheLittleSongbird29 ago 2013Enlace permanente
One of The Asylum's Best But That's Not Saying Too Much

Shark Week (2012)

** (out of 4)

Everyone's favorite studio, The Asylum, is back with their latest offering. A madman (Patrick Bergin) kidnaps the eight people he blames for his son's death and forces them to play a game. The game is that they must enter various stages where they have to fight a different breed of shark. SHARK WEEK comes from director Christopher Ray who had previously done 2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK so he's really putting his name on the genre. As for as films from The Asylum go, this here is probably one of the best from the studio but that's still not saying too much. I think the story here was actually a fairly interesting one, although there's no doubt that the producers were ripping off the SAW franchise and the Bergin character really comes across as a weak Jigsaw replacement. The story works for the most part because it's rather funny seeing humans having to battle sharks and it leads to some of the dumbest moments in any film I've seen this year. Just check out the various ways they try to fight the sharks and it leads to a really crazy final sequence against a Great White. Bergin really hams it up here but this is a good thing because his over-the-top performance at least makes you smile. The eight "players" don't feature Oscar-worthy performances but they're at least what you'd expect from a film like this. There are several problems with the film including the awful special effects. The effects are so bad but this is to be expected in a film like this. I understand they can't afford top-notch special effects but if this is the best you can do then there's no point of making a film because every time the sharks are on screen you really get taken out of the action because of how fake they look. Another problem is that out of the eight characters there's really no one to cheer for so you never really get caught up in their survival. Still, fans of "C" creature features should at least be entertained.

Útil
•
12

8

Michael_Elliott4 ago 2012Enlace permanente
2
/10
Jaw-Saw
During the opening credits, a muscular man appears in chains. The key to escape is thrown into a swimming pool by cigar-smoking Patrick Bergin (as Tiburon). Unfortunately, there is also a shark in the pool. Next we see people abducted in Los Angeles, Malibu, Echo Park, Culver City, Venice Beach and Long Beach. The abductor is Mr. Bergin. He has eight victims to throw into his shark-infested swimming pool. If they escape, there is another test. Each test involves more vicious sharks. This is a tame swipe of the mega-violent "Saw" film series. Bergin's criminal partner is mini-skirted Yancy Butler (as Elena). They hold each other up and blink their eyes very slowly, like they've just seen this flicker across the screen.

** Shark Week (8/4/12) Christopher Ray ~ Patrick Bergin, Yancy Butler, Erin Coker, Josh Allen

Útil
•
5

3

wes-connors24 ago 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
Lame and pitiful Killer Shark Torture Film

Awakening to find themselves trapped on an island, a group learns they are to be subjected to a series of encounters with the host's collection of deadly, ravenous sharks to be able to leave the area alive.

Overall this one was an absolutely terrible killer shark film that really has so little going for it that it's almost unwatchable. The biggest issue with this one comes from its idea of utilizing the creatures as obstacles that must be overcome by the group in order to survive to the next trap, effectively rendering them into a state equal to a Torture Film set-up. It's basically turning the film and the creatures into a simple slasher effort only replacing the species as it's sharks instead of a human killer which is so insulting to their existence that it effectively kills whatever fear they might have as the end result robs their specialness in the most ludicrous way possible. This basically keeps the film running along into a singular mode here because every single set-up is the same thing only done in a different cave with different sharks so the results are incredibly underwhelming. Another problem here is that the idea for the madman's scheme for revenge is so laughable that it's impossible to think it's meant to be taken seriously and really makes this one quite a challenge to even get into the concept for the film. Beyond this, another big problem here is the whole affair is mired in a series of sloppy, utterly atrocious CGI effects that are utterly terrible by having such an obstruction of the action with their rampant blurriness and darkness due to being filmed in pitch-black that they're almost impossible to make out and have no lasting impact. These here are the film's flaws which are enough to really lower this one down significantly enough that the positives here are barely even registered. What does seem to work here is the near continuous action present as this one goes about the encounters in a quick enough fashion that there's enough to keep from being bored along the way. There's a few really exciting ambushes in the caves along the way here that do rely on some ingenuity to escape, and these here go get really bloody and brutal as well which get quite exciting. As well, it does have some great pains involved in laying out the mystery and trying to get it going, as this does take a while to get the point of what they're doing rather nicely. Beyond this, there's nothing else in this worthwhile.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Language.

Útil
•
3

1

kannibalcorpsegrinder14 ago 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
Really bad
I recorded this movie on the "mighty" scyfy channel. I should have known better. I was done by the first commercial. Stupid plot, the bad ass female girlfriend of the villain is ugly and old. The villain is a moron but I guess rich.Two month old shark pups of any species are NOT flesh eaters except for fish. Almost every shark species that eats prey that are not fish do so after getting to a larger size. The great white doesn't start eating pinnipeds until growing to about ten-twelve feet. It is way too dangerous for the smaller size sharks to attempt taking on such larger size prey. The special effects are not very impressive and the acting is lame.

Útil
•
5

9

SanteeFats5 ago 2012Enlace permanente
2
/10
Even if you survive, you are not a winner...

Well before you sit down to watch "Shark Week", you already know exactly what kind of movie you will be in for, and you know exactly what to (and what not to) expect from a movie such as this.

And on that account "Shark Week" delivers. You know what you are getting here. And the package is complete with a ridiculous story, poor CGI, rigid acting and stereotypical character gallery. So no surprises on that account.

First of all let's look at the story. A group of people have been captured by a rich mad man for some reason which actually never comes to see the light of day. And they are to compete in his demented contests that include sharks and people dying one by one, if they are to survive and make it off the Island. Wow, really? Oh my, what originality and what creativity. Oscar worthy? Hardly so...

Then we have the CGI and special effects. Well, let's just say that it didn't even look like the people hired to do the effects were trying all that hard. Either that, or they didn't have enough money, training to do it better or the equipment to do it right with. I am guessing it was a lack of funding. The effects in "Shark Week" were atrocious actually, and at no point do you really buy into the effects. But of course, you already know what you went into here with a movie such as this.

Don't count on seeing anyone familiar or famous in this movie. And those people who were on the cast list, weren't exactly standing in line to harvest awards for this movie, let's just leave it at that.

The characters in the movie were one-dimensional and showed about as much personality as wet cardboard. So you never really rooted for anyone of the characters, nor did you care when one of them died in a most laughable way of questionable effects.

I do enjoy shark movies, and creature features in general, but the shark genre tend to be ridden with movies that are of questionable value and either lacks proper effects or just use actual footage of sharks in the ocean and then reverse pan the angle to differentiate on using the same shot over and over. "Shark Week" is hardly a noteworthy addition to the shark genre.

So why do we keep watching these movies? Well, on the off chance that they actually turn out to be a surprise and a hidden gem in a vast ocean of otherwise questionable movies. Or because there is just something amusing and perverse in sitting down to watch these laughable movies. Sometimes they are so bad that they actually are fun. "Shark Week" wasn't one of those times...

Útil
•
2

3

paul_haakonsen25 abr 2017Enlace permanente
1
/10
The worst ever movie I have ever watched in my life
What a shame for the actors to play a movie as bad as this. 2012? as if it was made in Charlie Chaplin era. I swear it was the worst movie I have ever seen. Worst acting worst Director worst special effects worst music . I have no idea how was this movie released . We should be able to sue them for waisting our time & money on a movie as bad as this. I would give not 1 but -10 for this movie. I don't understand how come the producers put money on films as bas as this movie. Where do they go and learn directing or producing a movie as bad as this one. I swear if I watch an arabic movie made back in the 60's it would have been much better then this. It is really the worst ever movie I have watched in my life. Even in cartoons they make better special effects then this movie.

Útil
•
2

3

miro-911-2920761 abr 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
Worst movie ever
That's 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Terrible acting, terrible graphics, terrible plot. I've seen better entertainment at a preschool talent show.

Útil
•
2

5

tiphainebrewer20 ago 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
I was underwhelmed

Útil
•
1

2

robynjanesheppard30 mar 2016Enlace permanente
10
/10
Horrible movie ... I liked it so much!
No real acting, bad cgi, no story ... but so much fun to watch. I've never seen a guy running around with a landmine under his arm, there is a first time for everything I guess 😂😂😂

Útil
•
6

1

batty-1468013 may 2021Enlace permanente
6
/10
I've watched it twice now
Horrible movie but still fun and cheesy. Guilty pleasure for sure. I enjoy B movies lmao.

Útil
•
3

2

brandonbray-3569812 oct 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Sucked.

Útil
•
1

2

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki4 sept 2016Enlace permanente
3
/10
skip it

Another entry by The Asylum so you all know what that means, trash. But I gave it a go due the director (Christopher Ray) being the son of Fred Olen Ray. Maybe that should ring a bell too, Fred's flicks aren't that great too but it has it followers. Still, you know that the Asylum do uses a lot of CGI and not the kind that will win an Oscar.

The story itself doesn't make any sense and the acting is far below zero. Just look at the opening sequence. A shark in a swimming pool, really, the pool isn't that big at all but still the shark looks big. From there on it's a bit of a Saw story. try to survive a battle with all kind of sharks. All CGI and sometimes it's okay but most of it all it looks ridiculous.

There's no blood to mention. Oh sure, the sharks do bite but the fight between humans and sharks isn't believable at all. A lot of clichés all over the flick, but no suspense at all or even horror. Clocking in at 90 minutes it surely felt like a week, a shark week;

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Coledy 0/5

Útil
•
1

4

trashgang5 nov 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Getting even with Shark Week

Novel idea features an eccentric worry-bead clutching millionaire who subjects a group of people to a perverted game in which they're hunted down by sharks to atone for the death of his son. Irish former leading man Bergin unfortunately has little to do but look intermittently distant or crazed, as he monitors the group's movements via CCTV. How he knows where to position the cameras - and the fact that they appear to move - is but one of the many questions this film prompts you to consider. Apart from Bergin, the only faces I recognised was Coker (who appears in other films by The Asylum), and Butler playing Bergin's highly aggressive girlfriend.

Abysmal CGI effects although there does appear to be at least one rubber shark if that makes any difference, most of the action occurs between the characters as the emerging friction causes tension and poor decision making leading to inevitable results. The poor sap in the Gucci flip flops who hands his fellow castaways shark teeth with which to make spears they'll use to defend themselves against the sharks is both a touching gesture, and a predictably feeble one as we soon discover.

Some of the situations imagined for Bergin's 'obstacle course' are vaguely interesting, but most are just hackneyed and repetitive taking place in a darkened cave. Puerile dialogue and continuity/ editing issues (note the constantly changing footwear worn by some of the cast, or the overhead power lines on the supposedly remote island) even if you're a shark attack movie devotee, 'Shark Week' is comically bad and one to avoid.

Útil
•
0

0

Chase_Witherspoon5 feb 2024Enlace permanente
1
/10
The worst movie ever

Útil
•
0

3

coflorida10 jul 2020Enlace permanente
2
/10
starsSHARKS SHOULD BE WORSHIPED AS GODS

Útil
•
0

3

nogodnomasters15 may 2018Enlace permanente
6
/10
Should've called it Saws

Just a few minutes into this offering and I realised that The Asylum really missed a trick not calling this movie "Saws." It's got the crazy man making people play games for their lives of Saw, and the shark bits of Jaws. What a blend.

Overall it's a fun enough silly romp of a group of strangers making their way through a series of deadly challenges involving increasingly threatening sharks, and general manufactured peril. All the while being watched by the owner of the island who is seeking his own retribution for reasons they initially cannot fathom.

Using breakthrough flesh-regeneration technology, a biotech firm creates a set of living dinosaurs. But when the creatures escape their museum exhibit and terrorize Los Angeles, a former firefighter must rescue his teenage daughter from the chaos brought on by the Age of Dinosaurs.

2
/10
It's actually worse than you're expecting

No, really. I knew it was going to be bad. Really bad. I mean, a low budget movie about dinosaurs roaming around in LA is going to be bad. You know it's going to rip off ideas and scenes from Jurassic Park. Of course it is... because that's THE benchmark for dinosaur movies. And it's going to be a clone of all the disaster/horror/animals at large movies ever made. If you're like me, you're completely aware of this going in. In fact, you crave a good Cheese-fest B-movie. But no matter how low your expectations are, this movie was still worse.

Considering how far the CG industry has come since Jurassic Park, which was 20 years ago now, I have what I consider a reasonable expectation of monster SFX to be. This wasn't that good. I mean, they actually failed to match 20 year old tech, or apparently develop any kind of realistic motion models. The flying dinos look like claymation. The matting is horrid, with poorly rendered CG dinos clearly not even remotely matching the background.

Nah, there's no redemption. And yet, many will watch this on Netflix because it's there. So if you're checking this review prior to watching, take your lowest expectations and drop them one or two levels.

It's absolutely insane that there can be this many people in the industry who have access to the means of making a movie, but still have no idea how to make a movie. Bad script, bad acting, bad CG, bad music, bad sound FX, bad audio mixing, bad foley, bad continuity, bad makeup, bad costumes, bad lighting, almost every aspect is bad, which is why you'll want to watch it for the cheese factor.

Útil
•
66

2

zapdude29 ago 2013Enlace permanente
3
/10
Jurassic Asylum... wait, ah well, just go with the flow...

This was bad on a Jurassic scale. Given it is a movie from The Asylum, then at least we as the audience have an ounce of hope that this might just be one of those movies that stand out from the rest of the movies that they spew out. But no. I must say that given the cover/poster for the movie, I had my hopes up just a little bit, but when I saw THE ASYLUM on the screen as the movie started, all hopes evaporated like dew before the rising sun.

The idea was pretty much everything that was used in the "Jurassic Park" movies; dinosaurs have been brought back to life by the hands of humans with the help of technology and research. And of course, these dinosaurs break free of their captivity and wreck havoc on a major city - in this case Los Angeles.

Right, almost textbook page by page copy from "Jurassic Park", well, and then exposed to The Asylum. What could possibly go wrong?

I will say that the dinosaurs as CGI animated creatures were actually quite alright. However, when they brought in the prosthetics and puppets it just went from alright to oh-so-wrong. These non-CGI animated dinosaurs were such an eyesore that it was downright embarrassing to watch. Especially the scene with the pteranodon in the helicopter. Look at the beak when it is CGI animated and then look at the difference in texture and color even when it is a real prosthetic used. It was just so bad.

Story-wise, then "Age of Dinosaurs" was nowhere near as interesting as "Jurassic Park", and chances are that if you have seen any of the "Jurassic Park" movies and enjoyed them, then you don't really want to spend 88 minutes on this movie. The story was as plain, predictable and textbook material as they come.

And what about the title itself, "Age of Dinosaurs"? Wouldn't that actually indicate a period of time spanding more than a single day? Well, I guess the title was just about as good as the actual movie was.

Regarding the acting in the movie, well, nothing overly interesting here. You have TV pseudo-legend Treat Williams, but he is barely making it watchable. And then there was Ronny Cox, which was actually nice to see, though this is not one of his best movies, not by a long shot.

Útil
•
15

1

paul_haakonsen14 sept 2013Enlace permanente
4
/10
You Know What To Expect
Using breakthrough flesh-regeneration technology, a biotech firm creates a set of living dinosaurs. But when the creatures escape their museum exhibit and terrorize Los Angeles, a former firefighter must rescue his teenage daughter from the chaos brought on by the Age of Dinosaurs.

We have the benefit of a film starring Treat Williams ("Dead Heat") and Ronny Cox ("RoboCop"), but that is about the best thing you can say for this film. It is exactly what you expect, with such an obvious rip-off of "Jurassic Park" that I am surprised they even bothered to make it.

If you like the cheese that comes out of the Asylum, feel free to check out this piece of work. If not, avoid it. There is no way I am going to try to convince anyone to see this turkey.

Útil
•
18

3

gavin694219 ago 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Another sad attempt to create a prehistoric monster movie

Útil
•
7

0

plutus194717 sept 2013Enlace permanente
3
/10
As Expected

A dinosaur rampage ! Not the most original idea for a movie but one that sounds like total and enjoyable nonsense , There might be a slight reservation to this and that is AGE OF DINOSAURS is being broadcast on the SyFy nearly every film you see on it is overly reliant on CGI and dumb scripting . That said the film does contain a couple of relatively well known cast members in the shape of Treat Williams and Ronny Cox and even if they're not Hollywood A listers at least it gives some hope for the movie

As Morgan Freeman said to Tim Robbins " Hope is a dangerous thing " and watching this film you know what he's getting at . Any hope that this would be an atypical SyFy channel movie are soon dashed . The dinosaurs are of course poor CGI realisation and one wonders how much fun it would have been working on this production ? " More fun than actually watching it " you cry and you'd probably be right . Once the dinosaurs make a breakout there's no internal logic on a narrative or mis-en-scene level . For example after the mad scientists and the greedy corporate capitalists have brought the reptiles back to life , they all make a beeline for the nearest cupboard because hiding in a cupboard is the only way to escape from a dinosaur . The production team realising that the audience tuned in to see on screen dino carnage try and get around this by introducing spectacle but you end up thinking maybe hiding in a cupboard best suited the story . As the terrible lizards charge down a busy LA street it's obvious this has been achieved by randomly filming an everyday street scene and generating CGI dinosaurs on to the footage . Words fail to convey how unconvincing all of this is as a cyclist peddles down the street not noticing there's a giant T-Rex a few feet away from him . The dinosaurs for some reason then attack a shopping and the first time the shoppers realise there's a lizard attack is when they're on the dino-menu . Considering the time frame involved and that there's a news copter flying around you'd think the shoppers would have been forewarned by someone calling them on their cell phones telling them what's happening . This type of clumsy ignorance is typical of the film but it does contain at least one sensible thinking when the media warn everyone to remain indoors and not to venture out in to the streets which of course negates the production team having to film scenes with lots of extras

Útil
•
7

0

Theo Robertson17 mar 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Stark Raving Hilariously Bad

Útil
•
12

2

ProfessorMegaman6 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Horrible and not in a good way

Horrible, horrible, horrible. Do NOT rent.

Don't be fooled by the juvenile cover thinking this is a kids movie. We were in a hurry and thought it would be a good choice. Wished we'd checked these reviews first. Lol!

The acting and special effects are atrocious even for a low budget film.

Don't waste your money.

As I watched the first few minutes of the film, I wondered how Treat Williams felt about doing this film. He was the best part - if there has to be a best part.

I'm not sure what else to say to convince you not to rent it, but I have to fill up 10 lines of text.

Útil
•
16

4

ewarner13014 oct 2013Enlace permanente
4
/10
A Good Day to Not Watch This

This Asylum flick has all the clichés of a good old fashioned low budget TV movie: cowardly scientists that play god, greedy corner cutting businessman bully, innocent and completely stupid teenager girl, action figure concerned father, brave American cops, Ronny Cox (a cliché all of his own), rapacious dinosaurs and really dumb special effects.

Now, I didn't really expect anything else, but frankly I felt offended by the messages in this film. You should never be arrogant, innovative or bold. Stay in your place like so many female characters in the film. If you are a teenager you are dumb. Not just dumb, retarded (in the scientific sense, not the jargon one). If you are a woman, you are helpless. No measure of protection will help you from what you fear will happen. Glass will always break, even if it is cutting edge rocket one. You can do anything to protect your children, including killing priceless dinosaurs and trying to run away from them by going inside the city, so they can kill other people as well; corollary: being a concerned parent trumps any other motivation. Always use extreme violence when threatened: bring the cops and military if possible and shoot bullets into animals rather than call animal control specialists with tranquillizers. Oh, and if you try to revive the dinosaurs, do it en masse, all species, as big as possible, before you announce it to the world in a small building with no TV coverage and let them escape.

Bottom line: this film wasn't just bad, it was offensive and completely stupid. Treat Williams and Ronny Cox rarely play in masterpieces of cinema, but this was just too much. Not even bad enough to be funny.

Útil
•
19

7

siderite23 may 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Bad. Just bad.

I expected not too much, after all it is a low budget movie in a genre defined by multi million dollar projects like Jurassic Park. But there are just tons of problems with this movie. The script is bad, the acting ranges from okay to bad, the effects are bad, the sound is bad. The script has a not very original story, no plot twists, but lots of logical errors. The effects are simply bad. As soon as any dinosaur moves more than just a little, the animations look like from a 90s computer game (close ups and slow movements actually look decent). The CG do not match the footage, it just looks like copied from another movie and dropped into this. The (way too many) explosions are better, but still no match for many 15-20 year old movies. The characters.... no development at all. I kinda liked the Chief, and Jade is cute, but wanted to just look away for all those embarrassing lines. Sound effects and music were okay, but in many dialogues you hear lots of clothes rustling on the lavalier microphones. And so many WTF moments. Why would a Stegosaur be standing on top of a skyscraper? Why would every helicopter pilot try to get within biting range?

Two stars for trying to make a movie, and failing I absolutely recommend that you do NOT watch this one.

Útil
•
4

0

matthias-ptz28 sept 2016Enlace permanente
2
/10
Lower your expectations!

How on earth they got Treat Williams and Ronny Cox to do this movie is an amazing feat. This movie is of course essentially a rip off of Jurassic Park: The Lost World - well... the final two reels anyhow. Unfortunately, the script is so horrible. (If you were a fireman, standing holding an ax, and a dinosaur was in the process of tearing into somebody 4 feet away from you, wouldn't you at least take a swing, instead of standing there for five seconds with a bored look on your face?)

The visual FX are OK for this movie. They are about one generation from being 'done' as the dinosaurs didn't seem to blend in with the lighting from scene to scene, but not entirely distracting. The "script" is just so bad, that is really what takes you out of the movie. Although, I wonder if there was any writing forethought at all, and if this really wasn't just an exercise in improv, then having the effects done to suit the filmed improv. Visually, this movie was a touch better than a similar movie called Carnosaur (1993), though this is twenty years later in the technology for the FX.

The reason for the two stars is simply because the visual FX were at times OK. And I did appreciate the fact that when the dinosaurs tear into people, they didn't feel the need to show the actual teeth tearing the flesh. There were cutaways where you only saw the blood splatter - reminded me of Alfred Hitchcock's style.

The Mythbusters once proved that "you can polish a turd", however in this case, the script is a turd that probably couldn't be polished with out a few more rewrites - or a burning the first draft, and restarting all together.

Útil
•
6

1

marimbadaddy11 may 2014Enlace permanente
8
/10
Fun and enjoyable creature feature

When a biogenetics company announces they have recreated dinosaurs and brought them back to life, their escape into Los Angeles forces a firefighter to race to save both his daughter and the city from the rampaging beasts.

This here turned out to be quite a fun if typical Sci-Fi Channel creature feature which means that a lot of the issues present are quite familiar to those with experience in this field. As expected, the CGI is pretty terrible with the usual inconsistencies present where creatures appear to shrink and grow in scale depending on the sequence provided and really don't have too many scenes where it's all consistent with everything else around them. As well, the fact that the misappropriation of size between the different creatures is another factor to deal with, as the film doesn't make any sort of historical accuracies to the different species, mangling the statistics among the different creatures and getting them wrong all-to-frequently. On top of that is the traditional stand-by of looking way too fake and generated outside the set, with their pixelated appearance and design looking none-to-real and being way too obvious about the computerized necessity for their input into the story. That aside, this one wasn't too bad, as there's a lot of fast and quite vicious dinosaur attack scenes that run the range from one-on-one confrontations to being overwhelmed by the size or numbers of the other species and even including a full-scale assault with a military helicopter firing away at the creatures which is quite exciting. The fact that the majority of those scenes are done with realistic-looking puppets or props makes it all the more interesting since they look like they're interacting with the cast for once and it manages to look rather nicely on it's own being so close to the true being. This factor alone saves the film tremendously, and in conduction with the fine action on display makes it really worthwhile.

Rated Unrated/R: Violence and Language.

Útil
•
10

15

kannibalcorpsegrinder30 ago 2013Enlace permanente
7
/10
fun

This Asylum is not too bad. I'm starting to enjoy their movies more as I appreciate them for what they are.

Yes, they could spend a few more bucks, but I'm also sick of $200 Million movies that are bloated beyond belief.

People complain about the Asylum movies, but that's their loss.

It was fun to watch a dinosaurs running through L.A.

Special effect cheap, but they leave a lot to the imagination, just like movies of yore!

Ron Cox and Treat Williams do a fine job in this movie. They make it believable.

Actually, I liked this as much or better than Jurassic Park 2 and 3. Much more variety in scenes and things that take place.

It is suspenseful, because you don't see all of the gore flashed in your face and the lead ups to the dinosaurs can be a little scary.

Útil
•
14

13

patmfisher-736-4554712 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
No words to describe how awful this film is!

Terrible CGI, terrible acting, terrible plot! The film is so repetitive- find my daughter, found her, oh damn, lost her again! Time to find her again! Rinse and repeat.

A defense for the awful CGI may be 'They had a low budget' in that case, they should have never made the movie! Simple as that! I wouldn't mind if this movie didn't exist because they had no budget.

We could have had a good movie with bad CGI, but the crew weren't trying! No movie screams 'We don't give a crap' more than this one! It just reeks of disinterest more than any film I've ever seen!

Also, as far as I'm concerned, being a firefighter doesn't mean being in the military! So I don't understand why our main character is such an expert with guns and fighting simply through putting out fires!

Útil
•
6

1

mitchomayhem10 sept 2015Enlace permanente
3
/10
A prehistoric flick not worth uncovering

Generally I have an immense dislike for The Asylum's movies, but some are watchable so I do keep watching as there is something about their awfulness that is kind of compelling. There is much worse from The Asylum than Age of Dinosaurs and it is certainly better than SyFy's Jurassic Attack aka Rise of the Dinosaurs, but that isn't saying much to praise it. The best asset is the acting, not great but not that bad for The Asylum. Treat Williams and Ronny Cox look very at ease in their roles and are solid. There are a few non-entities in some of the bitty roles but overall the acting could have been worse. The music score also wasn't so bad, it does move things forward a little, doesn't distract and I can still remember parts, again it's improved from past efforts. I cannot say the same for the rest of Age of Dinosaurs(what an inane title) though. It is a very cheap movie visually, the editing is as choppy as you'd expect from The Asylum with scenes not fitting seamlessly together, you'll also have a field day spotting continuity errors. Even worse are the special effects for the dinosaurs, they move so awkwardly and they are designed in a way that makes them look like a failed high school project from 25-30 years ago. The dialogue has layers of cheese and sounds like the actors were having difficulty uttering it with any natural feeling. A lot of the lines are clichéd and any banter has a tendency to go overboard. The story reads of a dumbed down parody of both Jurassic Park and King Kong, but with none of the charm or thrills. Instead it is utter stupidity and predictable storytelling, with cartoon-ish, unimaginative attacks and tedious pacing. It is also very thin from a structural point of view, there isn't enough to sustain the length and make it up there is a lot of pointless filler that only succeeds in bogging the movie down. The characters are as clichéd as the writing, they are also very annoying and as well as having no development are made to do things that a lot of people would deem embarrassing. The dinosaurs also have no personality whatsoever and judging from people's reactions to them they don't seem to come across as much of a threat. On the whole, I've seen worse but if you are looking for a good or entertaining dino movie you are best leaving Age of Dinosaurs uncovered. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
12

5

TheLittleSongbird27 may 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Asylum the new mark for beyond trash : still they make movies?e

Útil
•
6

2

Alexander-Ross13 abr 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Please Do Not Watch This To Support Its Stupidity!!
This movie has to be in my top 10 worst movies of all times. The people who spent money on producing it needs to be arrested. If you are going to make a GOD AWFUL movie and you have to know its this bad while making it then just give the money to charity please. Stop wasting money. I'm American and this embarrasses me to know that we blow money on crap like this.

If you are going to make movies like this at least make sure there are hot chicks showing some boobies! Thats the only way I'd put another star on this review! But I guess I shouldn't get too mad. I was stupid enough to watch the movie and waste my own time. At least I didn't pay anything for it.

Útil
•
9

6

dudeofmotown18 sept 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
If you want a movie to enjoy making fun of...

Útil
•
2

0

hal-keller-116-48107425 sept 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
No Jurassic Parking

Útil
•
2

0

wes-connors1 sept 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Worst Dinosaur movie ever
The movie is a poorly written script, lazily constructed dinosaurs, the worst CGI ever, underdeveloped characters, lack of production values. Even the very first big screen dinosaur movie Jurassic park released around 1992 (25 years ago), had much better graphics, the story and character write-up. More to it, it looks so obvious in the closeup shot that the character is talking to a rubber. You can make out the obvious difference in colour and graphic rending between two shots - closeup and far. Bottom line, it is more of senseless dinosaur behaviour and total disregard to physics results and results in a movie that is terrible to watch.

Útil
•
2

1

Ramacc28 ene 2017Enlace permanente
4
/10
Okay at best

Útil
•
2

3

SanteeFats30 ago 2013Enlace permanente
8
/10
One of the better Bad movies.
To start off with any movie that has Treat Williams is going to be great or bad. He is in that elite class of actors that know how to make a bad movie into a Great Bad movie. Dean Cain and Casper Van Dien are also in the top 10. Age of Dinosars lacked nothing for being a great bad movie. Good CG, people you cared about. I'll never understand the people that review this type of movie based their expectations of it as one would do with Aliens or Jurassic Park. Great Bad movies are just that. Pure entertainment with enough slow spots to take a quick break. As for me and my humble option plus owning over 2000 bad movies this is one that I'll add to my collection. If you want to watch something that is going to enlighten, inform and scare you. Go find another movie to watch. But if you want something that the whole family can make fun of and have a good time it is the movie.

Útil
•
3

5

hansbedlam29 ago 2015Enlace permanente
2
/10
a tribute or a mock

OK dude..i am a dino freak..huge fan..and only ever dream to work side by side my my idol mr spielberg.

good effort in making the film. good job on cgi effects , sounds,

but is this a tribute or are you mocking Spielbergs masterpiece Jurassic Park..

so many elements r a replica!!...the old man... the girl in the locked safe..lol..come on man...

but like i said well done on making the film, ateast you made a dino film .

but i think you can do better. you have the ideas, the resources etc...go for it and make a real tribute to the jurassic franchise.

Útil
•
1

1

Prashanth-Gunasekaran17 sept 2015Enlace permanente
3
/10
Dinosaurs come back to life!

Útil
•
1

1

michaelRokeefe30 may 2015Enlace permanente
2
/10
What have I just watched?

Okay so as everyone already pointed out, this film WILL be worse that whatever you expect. Poor CGI, bad acting, unrealistic reactions, basically no plot...

But, as everything has its pros and cons, this film actually has a bright side, it's ridiculously hilarious. I was laughing the whole time, the actors' reactions is just funny!

I would've called this film "Funny Dinosaurs" (Comedy, Sci-Fi) :D?

A werewolf virus is unleashed upon New York, and Major Hoffman looks for a cure while Lt. General Monning wants to establish a new canine army.

5
/10
Not entirely sure what to make of Battledogs

SyFy have a notoriously bad reputation, though there are some tolerable movies of theirs out there even if they are too far and between. Battledogs was a movie that I wasn't sure what to make of, it wasn't a particularly good one but neither was it a disaster. I am in complete agreement with the acting being the best asset, the cast were a good one to begin with and they all give fun performances, especially Ernie Hudson. Battledogs is a better-looking movie than most SyFy movies, true the CGI is not particularly great(not really much of a surprise though) but the dogs/werewolves were fairly convincing, the scenery is good and the editing is not too choppy. The music and sound mayn't win any awards as such, but they are atmospheric and sharp enough and serve their purpose well. The car wreck scene was quite an exciting set piece, and the gore isn't too shabby either. Battledogs is not without its flaws though. There is some nice tongue and cheek humour in the script, but too much of the dialogue is cheesy, unnaturally flowed and not always fitting in certain scenes. There is also a rather make-it-up-as-you-go-along feel. The story is a mixed bag. The good news is, it didn't bore me particularly and the nods to King Kong, Free Willy and Day of the Dead original were nice; the bad news is, nothing comes out as original and the mix of sci-fi and horror is confused. Maybe it would help if those two elements individually worked, sadly they don't; it is not thrilling enough to be good sci-fi and it's not scary enough to be good horror either. And it is largely to do with the overall quality of the CGI, the poor suspense and how tame and uninventive the attacks seemed to be. I'd forgive the fact that the characters are overused stereotypes if anything interesting was done with them, but despite the efforts of the actors the characters never were developed or likable enough. And how inaccurately and poorly the military are portrayed is likely to get people even more infuriated, especially if they're part of the military themselves. In conclusion, not terrible or great. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
17

2

TheLittleSongbird12 abr 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
Aside from the title, then this movie was actually alright...

It is always a nice treat to witness when The Asylum manages to spew out a movie that excels compared to the rest of their movies. Every now and then The Asylum manages to put out a movie that is actually above the usual cheesy and campy stuff they dabble in.

"Battledogs", aside from the horrible title, was actually a nice movie. It was a different take on the werewolf myth and genre, and a rather bold take. But it ultimately worked out well enough.

Mind you, I am not saying that "Battledogs" is ready to challenge the leading werewolf movies, but for a movie from The Asylum, then it is well worth checking out.

The story is about a mutated strain of lycanthropy running rampart in Manhattan. The military contains the outbreak, but want to utilize this newfound potential source of power and turn it into a weapon - of course. And they will stop at nothing in order to succeed. But when things get out of hand, the military are forced to take to drastic measures.

Storywise, then "Battledogs" was alright. It wasn't the best of stories, and it was predictable, yes, but still it was a step up compared to many other movies from The Asylum. The story is fast paced and full of action and even an occasional thrill here and there.

As for the acting, then they did have some good names on the cast list, and people did good with the characters and roles they were given. Sure, many of these characters were generic and stereotypical, but the actors and actresses still manage to get something watchable out of that.

Which leads me to the CGI. The werewolves did look good, although at times the CGI animation was wooden and stiff, but still, the effects worked to the extend that they were meant to. Just don't get your hopes up for being blown away by a multi-million dollar CGI extravaganza.

If you enjoy werewolf movies, and don't mind movies that range in the lower scale of the budget, then definitely check out "Battledogs" - don't mind the awful movie title.

Útil
•
10

2

paul_haakonsen21 ago 2013Enlace permanente
4
/10
Watch it for the cast

Útil
•
3

0

Leofwine_draca6 jun 2018Enlace permanente
The Cast Makes It Worth Sitting Through

Battledogs (2013)

** (out of 4)

The Asylum strikes back with this rather confusing mix of sci-fi and horror. An evil Lt. General (Dennis Haysbert) does battle against the good Major Hoffman (Craig Sheffer) over a woman (Ariana Richards) who was bitten by a wolf (or dog) and turns into a wolf (or dog) and goes on a rampage in NYC. With the virus spreading, Hoffman wants to try and save her for a cure but the General wants more wolves (or dogs) so that the Army can use them in wars. BATTLEDOGS is a pretty confusing picture on one major level and that's the fact that I'm really not sure what the monsters are. They act and sound like werewolves but the title refer to them as dogs. Even stranger is that throughout the film they are called wolves by some, canines by others and some call them dogs. I'm really not sure what they are but the CGI used for them makes them look decent but they're still clearly fake but this here is to be expected with such a small budget. The film on the whole doesn't work but I think it contains a few entertaining things for those who line up week after week to see what SyFy is giving us. The biggest attraction to the film is its cast members as many familiar faces from familiar films are on hand. Not only do we get Haysbert (MAJOR LEAGUE), Sheffer (A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT) and Richards (JURASSIC PARK) but there's also Wes Studi (DANCES WITH WOLVES), Kate Vernon (PRETTY IN PINK) and Ernie Hudson (GHOSTBUSTERS). Obviously the screenplay doesn't give any of them a real chance to act but I thought all of them were fine in their roles and certainly raised the material. It was also fun seeing Richards back in a film after a six year break. The CGI effects are all pretty cheap and bad but The Asylum did give us some real, practical effects, which allowed for plenty of gore. I say this after everyone of these movies but if you're expecting quality then you're not going to find it here. If you looking for cheap entertainment then this here offers a little of it.

Útil
•
17

2

Michael_Elliott10 abr 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
More Magical Than Harry Potter!

Útil
•
10

4

LordJiggy15 sept 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
Fun and original, but wolves look silly

This somewhat original werewolf flick by The Asylum is more fun than it deserves to be, thanks to a its cool premise, some neato plot elements by scriptwriter Shane Van Dyke, some attractive location shooting, and the surprising and welcome presence of Ariana Richards, who's grown as hot as you might have expected since she uttered her infamous "It's a Unix system! I know this!" as a teen in "Jurassic Park."

It is, however, nearly undone by ridiculous-looking CGI werewolves, a script devoid of humor, and a couple of "Wait� What?" turns that all remind you you're watching a film from The Asylum.

Richards plays a wildlife photographer bitten by a wolf in Canada who arrives in New York's JFK Airport, where she promptly turns into a werewolf and goes on a killing rampage, turning more people into werewolves.

Without explanation, we learn the government has immediately decided to train werewolves as soldiers. That revelation provides the film's only laugh-out-loud moment, albeit unintentional, when one character asks what any sane viewer would at that point: Wouldn't that just serve to turn the enemy soldiers into werewolves, too? And then, you know, the world?

Nice of the film to take its biggest gaping plot hole and just lay it bare for the viewer.

That said, direction by Alexander Yellen is surprisingly tight and solid for a first-timer; and the Buffalo, N.Y., backdrop is a suitable stand-in for New York City. I especially enjoyed the abandoned train station that resembled Grand Central Terminal, which served as an Ellis Island of sorts for recently bitten werewolves.

But when your werewolves look like 3D versions of various cartoon "Big Bad Wolf" characters, you have to admit your audience isn't going to take your movie seriously. Therefore, you as a filmmaker shouldn't either.

And that's the major flaw in almost every film by this company – they play it straight. A little self-referential humor (I would have LOVED to see Richards save the day with a Unix system again. Just sayin') would have made "Battle Dogs" a classic.

As it stands now, it's a decent rental at the Redbox, but worth little more than that.

Útil
•
4

1

mikemdp25 ene 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
Like Sharknado, without the humor
I can forgive the ridiculous plot and low budget. And as a career Army guy, I have learned to be tolerant of so many mistakes in portraying the military. But wow, why make them look like such slobs? Unshaven, pants untucked, etc sheesh! Even the guy playing the President (Bill Duke) wears an ill-fitting suit. He also looks too creepy for the role, hunched over and mumbling.

And one thing that really doesn't make sense - why would there be only one doctor working on this problem if it's a worldwide threat?

Útil
•
4

1

johnhsmith-000564 feb 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
An Actual Trainwreck

Útil
•
5

2

grandartistan17 ago 2018Enlace permanente
2
/10
Don't bother, it's bad
With decent actors and a decent script and decent CGI programmers you could make a decent movie out of it. But the problem with this movie is that the actors suck, that the writer is a Van Dyke, and that the computer generated images are made by an amateur. It was really painful to watch. I should have seen it before I started watching it that it would be a disaster. Last time I watched something that Shane Van Dyke wrote (6 Guns) I promised myself never watching something he is involved in again. But my mistake, I forgot to check it before I started watching this abomination. What a total waste of time. Avoid this movie(?) at all costs.

Útil
•
5

2

deloudelouvain18 feb 2015Enlace permanente
5
/10
WEREWOLVES ARE HUMANS BEINGS TOO

Útil
•
2

0

nogodnomasters12 abr 2019Enlace permanente
3
/10
Quite rough for a true werewolf fan to watch
I actually couldn't finish the movie because the CGI werewolves were way worse than the one from American Werewolf in Paris. It's bordering on cartoonish or a parody. Couldn't take the movie seriously. I'll never understand how people think they can have a werewolf movie with a horrible werewolf or in some cases no werewolf at all. I was surprised at how bad the quality was because the cast was impressive.

Útil
•
2

0

od2-102-54145615 feb 2020Enlace permanente
9
/10
Clearly there should be a sequel and maybe more

I haven't been so entertained since 'Sharknado.' 'Battledogs' is, which I thought wouldn't be possible, a far superior film.

The script allows two of the acting professions finest leading men the platform to show the wide range of their craft.

I was on the edge of my Lazy-Boy the entire film, gripped in suspense, thrilled by the action and on the verge of tears from the drama.

Stars Craig Sheffer and Dennis Haybert have set the bar so high with 'Battledogs' it's unclear why they didn't receive Oscars.

I can only think that they so outshone their peers, it was out of pure jealousy they were purposefully not recognized.

9 stars out 10, only because the Battledogs didn't bring about a nuclear apocalypse, which they were certainly capable of.

Útil
•
2

13

lunchboxwanderer11 mar 2014Enlace permanente
7
/10
Entertaining werewolf diversion

After being bitten by a wolf and given a curse that will turn her into a ravenous werewolf, a woman sides with a sympathetic Army major and a scientist friend to find a cure for the disease before a rogue general uses the creatures as a weapon for the US military.

This was a pretty surprising entry that had some pretty enjoyable aspects to it that makes it far better than expected. One of the best elements here is the film's use of real animatronics and puppets for the werewolves that lend the creatures a sense of realism that far off-sets the utterly atrocious CGI which also pops up, but the fact that a lot of it is with the on-set effects makes it more enjoyable. The relentless action allows for plenty of high-energy scenes, including the creatures running loose in a crowded airport with the turned victims rising up as new werewolves to join in the fray as well as a big battle with the military on the streets of New York that has a lot to like. Throw that in with some nice gore and a pretty involving storyline that never really gets convoluted, it's got a lot to like that really makes up for the film's few flaws in it's CGI and pretty bland beginning that never fits in with the rest of the action, causing it to take a while to get going. Otherwise, this was quite fun.

Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Violence and Language.

Útil
•
10

6

kannibalcorpsegrinder2 may 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
"Outbreak" meets "Dog Soldiers."

Útil
•
7

5

Carycomic7 abr 2013Enlace permanente
SyFy improves their production quality for Battledogs

Útil
•
9

1

mchalup7 abr 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
The Asylum Takes on Werewolves
An ill wildlife photographer enters an airport, unknowingly carrying a werewolf virus. After she transforms, dozens if not hundreds of people are left dead or infected. And then the military steps in.

We all know the Asylum makes films for little money and uses some pretty terrible computer animation for their monsters. This is no exception. The production value seemed okay, but the wolves are just as fake as anything else they have created. Let us just get that out of the way.

But really, this is better than their average story. Decent acting, a generally interesting plot -- even if it may not always make sense. And Ernie Hudson, who never disappoints. Not the best werewolf film out there, but probably also not the worst.

Útil
•
5

3

gavin694229 ago 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
The scare is not just werewolves.
Battledogs is movie for those who are 13 years old and up. It is also for those who like a SciFi Horrox mix. Battledogs is a different kind of werewolf story that most of us are used to. Usually, it is the moon which triggers the werewolf. In this movie, it is the heartbeat. Battledogs is a scary movie. The werewolf adds to the scariness, but the most scary part of this movie is what people in power can do with such weapons of power and knowledge. That makes it scary. We always wonder just what our Government has in it bio-warfare arsenal. I am sure that it all stays out of the press. Teens like werewolves and vamps so this is right down their alley. Bring out the popcorn in this movie. I give Battledogs 5 thumbs up.

Útil
•
9

14

jfarms19569 abr 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Not A Horror - It's An Action Flick

I paid $3 for this film - but it is slightly entertaining for the price.

What I hate about this film: The story. Way to much focus on the military blowing things up and not enough story about how it's a long and tedious matter to find a cure for a virus. This is my pet peeve about the film. This creates nothing more than a cheap action film focusing on destroying things like car wrecks, bombs, gun fire, etc...

I knew the military was going to be involved - which is fine IF the story was really a good story. Not the general telling the doctor to remove the tooth from the girl and find a cure in 10 minutes (which she did) -- that is B. S.!!

Watch if you like all action and some werewolves. Pass this by if you like a good werewolf horror movie.

2/10.

Útil
•
1

0

Rainey-Dawn4 sept 2021Enlace permanente
4
/10
"Make it quick. The city doesn't have much longer"

Útil
•
1

0

hwg1957-102-26570418 sept 2021Enlace permanente
5
/10
Weak script, not the Worst I've seen
Not the worst I've seen, but I've some Really bad movies! Script is very Weak! Special effects are weak. Few actors did a passable job.

Útil
•
0

0

mangoamante4 dic 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
You've got to be kidding me...

This movie was so bad I don't even know where to begin. This was like something from a drunken 16 year old comic book nerd's delirium.

Even granting this is a made-for-TV movie, with the corresponding de rigueur low budget, this was laughably bad. I kind of feel poorly for some of the actors, acknowledging that sometimes they have to take work when it's offered just to pay the bills...but still.

I've said it before a dozen times; just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Who with the money to fund movies would, in their right mind, pay for something like this?

As for the writers, continuity people, directors....can you people not do even some basic bloody research into the military if you're going to have characters who are supposed to represent the military? Come on. At least try to make it believable.

Útil
•
0

0

resipsaloquiteractual24 may 2024Enlace permanente
1
/10
Desperately terrible

Útil
•
0

0

bujcif19 mar 2024Enlace permanente
6
/10
one of the better Asylum flicks

This is one of the better Asylum productions. The cast is to say above mediocre. You will see a lot of known faces from flicks from the eighties early nineties. So on that part it's okay. This story itself is a rip-off of the Sharknado franchise which is easy to explain because those people are involved.

But normally Asylum flicks aren't worth seeing for effects or horror but here the effects are rather okay. It's easy to spot that it's mediocre CGI but there's blood attached and the bites are looking nasty. So okay, for the horror geeks.

And the attack on New York looked also believable. So for a normal flick it isn't top notch but for an Asylum flick it is, worth picking up if you are into laughable and over the top horror done on a bad way.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

Útil
•
2

1

trashgang16 nov 2016Enlace permanente
5
/10
If you like a lot, a real lot, of werewolves.

Producers The Asylum have several movies like Sharknado, Ape vs Monster and Aquarium of the Dead under their belt. They specialize in a certain type of film. Battledogs does not see them breaking into new territory.

A strain of infection that turns the bitten into werewolves is unleashed in New York. The army is brought in to exterminate or control them for military purposes. The conflict, no drama without conflict, is between Craig Sheffer as Major Brian Hoffman who adopts a gently, gently, they were human once approach and Dennis Haysbert as Lt. General Christopher Monning who is all about termination or harnessing the werewolves. Sheffer has a lot of prior form with this type of movie and Haysbert has a lot of prior form but he moves up and down movie quality scale. Both make valuable contributions to film.

In fact the cast is uniformly strong. You will spend quite a bit of time playing the 'what was he / she in again?' game.

It is ungallant but some attempt to extend their careers by embellishment. Adriana Richards for instance, playing Donna Voorhees' patient zero, claims to be 28 when she obviously passed 28 several years earlier. Similarly some of the service personal in the movie could have made up the first 3,500 Marines to land in Vietnam in 1965.

Perhaps if the conflict were between the werewolves and humankind we might have had a worthier contribution to the sub-genre.

The werewolves are in the main GGI and, as we say down under, they are dodgy. There are though, a lot of them, a real lot of them, and they do generate a reasonable amount of gore. Not as much as the opening scenes promise but enough to maintain interest.

The CGI doesn't stop at the werewolves. It is used very liberally throughout the movie.

Production values are OK; the musical score is both adequate and functional; fast in the exciting bits, slow during the heavy dialogue; locations are at the budget end of the possibilities and; the plot is linear and uncluttered. We even have a MacGyver type moment but I won't give it away.

There is a made for television feel to Battledogs and it probably was made for SYFY or something similar. I watched it on Prime, who have a particularly uneven horror schedule.

As is the way with made for television, there are problems with tension. As a horror movie, there isn't any and there really should be. Things unfold in a fairly predictable manner. There are no effective jump scares. Actually, there are no ineffective ones either. The whole 'fright quotient' hovers just above zero. Still the pacing is good and there a lot of werewolves.

It has been a while since we were offered a really good werewolf movie. The wait continues. Director Alexander Yellen, who is actually an accomplished cinematographer, does provide us with 88 minutes of light entertainment though.

Útil
•
0

0

ansell-7287922 jul 2021Enlace permanente
6
/10
Totally worth a watch.
Great movie? No.

Great cast, good acting, good script, excellent locations, above average CGI, good camera work.

When giant monsters crawl out of the Atlantic Ocean and attack the Eastern Seaboard the US Government is forced to trust a trio of mischievous soldiers, specialized in piloting gigantic robots, to defend America.

3
/10
Well... I watched it.

How can I explain this film? It goes so far beyond words. I simply cannot use words to describe it. Words are simply not suitable, they are not powerful enough to explain the range of emotions one feels when watching this... artwork.

While watching this film, I experienced uncontrollable laughter. It was wonderful at first, but then it tapered off and left me with a general nausea induced by a profound feeling of pity. I felt so sorry for the actors. The shame of being in this movie must surely weigh heavily upon them.

Enough hyperbole. Let's get to the heart of it.

The movie's production value was actually reasonable. But almost every minute of it was an assault on my brain. The acting was atrocious, the CGI was not horrible, but was far from convincing. Think Power Rangers. The soundtrack was utterly miserable, a straight run of "epic-ish-action-ish-wow-you" muzak that never seemed to fit the scenes, but instead served as the only consistent tie between them.

The flow of the plot, the aspect of a movie that ties each scene together into a cohesive storyline, was just deplorable. The director leaps from scene to scene, the actors doing things that make no sense at all, only to end up at the bar drinking as much as possible (apparently this is what the writers feel good soldiers should do). I suppose it's reasonably difficult to outline a respectable plot when the story itself is so full of haphazard clichés. The soldiers don't act like soldiers, the monsters don't act like monsters, the civilians act like cannon fodder (of course. And they do such a good job of it). I can't say the movie was completely predictable because NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE.

I felt like a 5 year old boy was leaping on his bed swinging around his Jedi light-saber telling me, "And then the robots had weapons! And then the monster threw a submarine! And then they drank too much!" And all when while I just want him to calm down and go to bed so that I can think straight and make sense of the world again.

I feel my score is accurate, but despite that, this is a must watch. It will teach you so much about good movie making, using the time honored "See what they did? DON'T EVER DO THAT" method of teaching.

Útil
•
85

4

rushknight22 sept 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
What tha heck was that???

Útil
•
21

0

ignatzmax17 mar 2015Enlace permanente
3
/10
The Asylum did it again... Can you say KA-CHING...?

Another Asylum cash-in on a summer blockbuster. Like they did with "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" just in time before the release of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" or "I am Omega" as "I am Legend" came out, so again they do it with "Atlantic Rim" in the time of "Pacific Rim".

It is just shameful, isn't it? But still, you know what you get with the productions and movies spewed out by The Asylum. Lower budget version of potential blockbusters, with failing dialogue and even worse CGI effects.

However, I will say that in the more recent time, The Asylum has started to post more money into the CGI effects, and it is paying off. The effects in "Atlantic Rim" were actually quite alright. Though the movie was just suffering from being a cheap knock off of "Pacific Rim".

The storyline in this movie requires no brain activity, just switch into auto-pilot and watch the movie as the three good guys in their mecha armor suits beat up some colossus aquatic monster that came from God knows where.

As for the dialogue in the movie, well it was bad, really bad. I have never heard soldiers talk or communicate in the way that they did in this movie. And some of the things they say was just downright embarrassing to witness.

And the acting in the movie was equally bad. Steven Marlow (playing Sheldon Geise) looked like he had a bad case of diarrhea, while Graham Greene (playing Admiral Hadley) was like a drone totally devoid of emotions at all. And David Chokachi (playing Red) looked like he was trying to do a reenactment of "American Ninja: The Musical" - if there was such a thing.

This is not one of the better movies to make it out of The Asylum's drawing board, not even by a long shot. Everything here was rushed and seemed to be half-hearted. If you are going to copy something and cash in on something, at least do it properly.

For a Sci-Fi movie, then "Atlantic Rim" was a really plain and below mediocre experience. Although I have seen a lot, and I do mean a lot, of questionable and low-budget movies, then "Atlantic Rim" is not the worst amongst those movie, but it is up there on the high ends of the scale.

Útil
•
65

5

paul_haakonsen21 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Hilariously Bad

This movie is utterly dreadful, although that is the precise point of these 'mockbusters'. My flatmate and I watch a s**t movie every other Sunday - we call it "S**t Movie Sunday." This one didn't disappoint. The highlights of this movie (i.e. the most 's**t' parts) are as follows:

The moment when a 6-second clip of a jet flying across a sunset was re-used 5 times in a 10 minute action sequence.

The 'Love Triangle' which lasts about 21 seconds.

A homeless guy getting jumped in an alleyway by the main characters for no apparent reason.

This movie is absolutely dreadful... please watch it at your own risk.

Útil
•
23

1

Smike9316 mar 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
Steaming pile of poopie.

Útil
•
54

8

Jtrujillo-736-56381712 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
School project?

Is this movie a school project? Well they don't deserve a high grade, I know of 7 year old that make better flicks than this whole movie.

Acting is non-existent. Dialogues are dumb. CGI is terrible, you can do better with a free online 3D graphic software. Sometimes you can even "see" that what they are showing you is overlay on top of another image. Youtube lamers do better jobs than this. There is no logic in the way the movie goes. Some scenes are even inverted; certain scenes comes before the actual action happened. If military would be like these people we would all be Germans right now.

So many things in this movie make no sense that I cannot even start listing them, it would take too many pages.

This is a big waste of time.

Útil
•
44

8

iamwhitewica7 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Toilet Rim...

Útil
•
18

1

Rob_Taylor8 sept 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
"...drops it, nails it, then...
........BA BOOM!!!!! Thing's gone."

Entire cast succeeded in never connecting with a high five, low five, fist bump, hand shake or any other celebratory hand or body gesture. Solid one star acting effort by all, but additional star for consistently bad from start to finish.

Útil
•
11

0

popjohns28 nov 2018Enlace permanente
Great film or Greatest film?

I have not been left so fulfilled and in such a philosophical stupor by a film for a very long time.

Once you get past the horrendously mid-level acting, the script is so well written I actually haemorrhaged blood into my bladder. With no less than 5 B-movie stereotypes per 10lines of dialogue.

The camera work leaves nothing to be desired at any stage.

With a laugh a minute this film leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling to your very core.

The ever present joy of these wonderful pieces cack is that they can't afford to employ many people so, you have minimal credits to sit through whilst waiting for the non-existent after credit scene that doesn't set up the non-existent sequel.

10/10 would not recommend.

Útil
•
29

5

KaptainJazzling22 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Was this directed by Michael Scott?
Michael Scott's movie "Threat Level Midnight" was probably better than this pile of garbage.

Útil
•
18

2

joelanzendorfer26 nov 2018Enlace permanente
1
/10
Terrible and not even in a fun way

Have yet to see Pacific Rim, but the probability of it being worse than this is highly unlikely. There are worse movies from The Asylum than Atlantic Rim, but is that saying much? The Asylum have been capable of some tolerable movies and some movies that have a lot of flaws but have a dumb sort of fun(the recent Sharknado fitted in this category), then there are some that are lame but with its moments and some that are bottom-of-the-barrel. Atlantic Rim is bottom-of-the-barrel quality, it not only is so badly done in every way but there isn't any novelty value to make it fun, whereas some other terrible Asylum movies did have specks of that. There are worse special effects from The Asylum and they are the least bad asset of Atlantic Rim, the robots are very Power Rangers-like but they do look decent though the sea creature is slapdash and doesn't seem that much of a threat. In other technical areas Atlantic Rim fares worse, the editing and camera work are rushed and frenzied, making some scenes containing action not very cohesive and the sound effects and mixing are muddied. The music is generic and doesn't come across as memorable at all, sometimes at a sluggish tempo which made it a rather dull score too.

The dialogue is just painful, the interplay between the soldiers is awkward and the actors look even more uncomfortable delivering it while the scripting itself is shallow and rambling and if you're looking for sense you won't find it. The story as to be expected shows The Asylum's complete lack of originality, it's a decent idea but executed horribly. The pacing is hugely problematic in the movie, there is a lot of irrelevant filler and exposition that bogs everything down significantly while the action is rushed and done in such a half-hearted. Anybody who expects thrills, fun and a little suspense are better off finding something else, none of those things are in Atlantic Rim. None of the characters are likable, they have cardboard personalities- once you get over the fact that once again The Asylum are using literally every cliché in the book- and are severely undeveloped, to make things worse the soldiers are annoying and the villain is like one from a bad Saturday morning cartoon. The acting gives insult to the word amateurish, with a mix of looking constipated, bad overacting, having the inability of acting scared or fearful of their situation and just acting emotionless. Atlantic Rim joins the long list of low-budget movies where a capable actor gives a lousy performance, in this case Graeme Greene, and there are the obligatory beautiful women whose acting talents don't match their looks. All in all, just terrible with no entertainment value to be had. And that is even when you know what to expect. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
28

5

TheLittleSongbird27 jul 2013Enlace permanente
10
/10
Step aside Shawshank, there's a new masterpiece in town!
There is only two words to describe this absolute Tour de force, Mint! Not since the silence of the lambs have I seen such amazing Chemistry between the actors, and performances worthy of every academy award Available at the oscars. The fact it flew under the radar for so long absolutely baffles me. Pay no mind to that cheap knock off pacific rim. If you consider yourself a cinephile, you MUST check this film out.

Útil
•
5

7

zenders-4692620 jul 2020Enlace permanente
7
/10
IT'S JUST A FLESH WOUND,

Útil
•
3

1

nogodnomasters11 abr 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
Awesome Movie LoL, you have to watch it
What was that crap?, AAAAARRRGGH it was awful, i could only bare watching it for 5m, cheap ass knock off, I could make a better movie without even spending £1. I was amazed at how GOOD the actors were at "ACTING" - OK no lets be honest, they suck, should give up on their carrier and start working at the Burger Kng or something, this movie was ATROCIOUS, not even worth downloading, waste of bandwidth and a waste of space on your Hard Drive, after watching this I had to turn off the TV and computer and start reading something to get it off my head, Damn.

Seriously watch it for yourself and judge this crap, then tell me if it was worth it.

Útil
•
47

13

latinohabanero26 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
The guy who gave this a 10 works for the production company

Útil
•
12

1

randy_kay9 mar 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Worst Movie in 100 years of film making
Sirst off i'm surprised no one noticed that the first 3 reviews that gave this steaming pile of poop 10 stars, this is the ONLY movie they have ever reviewed, and all of the accounts opened in the past year. I'm not sure why IMDb hasn't taken care of this.

Second, this is such a bad movie i'm not even sure how people agreed to release this. It's like a high school media project and the kids asked a few grownups to be the actors. I wouldn't doubt it had a budged of around $30,000. Its that bad, the director should save humanity by not making a single movie in the future. Im actually going to contact xbox to refund my $5 rental money back and I have never done that in my life.

Útil
•
31

7

rrinderknecht17 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
So bad I thought it was a comedy

Útil
•
21

4

mark-tindal3 ago 2013Enlace permanente
Almost as good as "Pacific Rimjob"

I got duped and started watching this believing it was the blockbuster "Pacific Rim". It was an impressive experience, my first exposure to a "mockbuster". To my defence, I quickly realized that I was not watching the real thing, so what the heck was I watching? I just couldn't believe that there was a market for this, so I came up with a few theories: * internet spoof: a bunch of movie buffs enjoy recreating scene-by-scene a blockbuster with intentionally minimalist SFX for release on YouTube * film school project: a bunch of students set out to recreate a multi-million blockbuster as quickly and inexpensively as possible, in order to learn the ropes What I finally settled on, was that I was watching an animated storyboard, i. e. a filmed first draft of the original movie script. I had to admire the actors for acting their hearts out, almost like in a real movie, only much more hammy. I sat transfixed through half of the movie. Never in the world, though, would I have suspected that this was an actual inferior copy of the original, made to part suckers from their money. Who would go back to a rental place that had fooled them once?

Útil
•
32

8

Karl Self8 sept 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
I am too ASTOUNDED to speak...

Útil
•
7

0

bernardlcrawford18 dic 2016Enlace permanente
1
/10
Pity Graham Greene
From Oscar award to the only explanation being Alzheimer's or absolute rock-bottom desperation for a paycheck.

Don't know what a "mockbuster" is? Watch Pacific rim then watch this. Your education is complete. Oedipus would gouge his eyes out again. You could hit yourself in the face with a hammer and your time would be better spent than if you whatch this. Even worse than Robot Jox...

Útil
•
7

0

pemigewasset6822 oct 2018Enlace permanente
1
/10
Don't get Atlantic Rim and Pacific Rim mixed up

Útil
•
10

1

MC1-125 dic 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
A Really Really Shitty Film

Útil
•
6

0

alazhars_imdb24 dic 2016Enlace permanente
10
/10
11/10 would watch again

Why do I want to write the 10th comment on Atlantic Rim? I am not sure - almost everything that could be possibly said about it has been said. But like so many other people who wrote comments, I was and am profoundly moved by this simple and eloquent depiction of hope and friendship and redemption.

The only other movie I have ever seen that effects me as strongly is Sharknado. Both movies leave me feeling cleaner for having watched them.

I didn't intend to see this movie at all: I do not like robot movies and I don't normally watch them. I work at a branch library and one day as I was checking Atlantic Rim out to one of our older patrons, she said to me, "Whenever I feel down or depressed, I check out this movie and watch it and it always makes me feel better." At the time, I thought that was very strange. One day there was nothing on TV except things I absolutely would not watch under any circumstance or things that I had seen too many times already. I remembered what she said, so I watched it. I have watched it many many times since then and it gets better with every showing.

Amazing action, amazing special effects - just men in robots fighting monsters.

Atlantic Rim and Sharknado are the best movies I have ever seen. I do not judge it by it's technical merits - I don't really care about that. I have read that Sharktopus or One Eyed Monster or this or that movie is the best movie ever made. They may have the best technique or be the most influential motion pictures ever made, but not the best. The best movies are ones that touch the soul. It takes a movie like Atlantic Rim to touch the soul.

Útil
•
12

63

maxcudworth28 jul 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Asylum Presents - possibly their worst movie ever!
Never a good sign when the opening credits start with "The Asylum Presents..." Three crack soldiers are deployed to fight giant sea monsters from attacking the USA using massive manned Transformer type robots. Terrible, wooden acting on display here, cheap CGI effects & incredibly dumb plot, plus there's not actually a great deal of monster action, so it's pretty boring too. It's a pity this wasn't made in Japan as they specialize in this sort of thing. Best avoided, a total waste of time.

Útil
•
6

0

Stevieboy6663 ago 2017Enlace permanente
1
/10
1 star is 1 star too many

Dave Pace of Fangoria gave the film two out of four stars, calling it "a testament to why there aren't many live action giant robot vs. monster movies. It's a very difficult thing to do right and keep the audience on your side. Atlantic Rim manages to be enjoyable as a bit of a goof and works on the 'so bad it's good' level."[5] Dread Central gave the film three out of five stars, describing it as "the ultimate monster movie about booze-hounding broskis in battle bots saving New York City from a crazy-eyed giant sea beast that frequently appears to be merely a lost animal, confused and irritated that these metal men won't stop hitting it."[6]

It is one of six films featured in Season 12 of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and was the first film released in the 21st century to be riffed on the show.[7]

Against all logic and the laws of nature, an unprecedented hurricane off the coast of Mexico rips out a ravenous shiver of sharks, making its way towards southern California. As the freakish meteorological phenomenon brings violent tempests and towering, shark-infested tidal waves, the former surfing champion and Santa Monica Pier bar-owner, Finley "Fin" Shepard, embarks on a peril-laden journey to Beverly Hills, fearing for the life of his estranged wife, April, and his teenage daughter, Candice. Now, Fin; his friend, Baz; barmaid, Nova, and his regular customer, George, must fight tooth and nail to stay alive, as batch after batch of the flying oceanic predators rains down on the unsuspecting Angelenos, gobbling down everything in their path. Who can stand in the way of the mighty Sharknado?

4
/10
I've seen a peanut stand, I've heard a rubber band, I've seen a needle wink it's eye, but I ain't never seen a Shark fly

Útil
•
15

1

one9eighty17 nov 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
Sharknado is a disaster movie indeed! Disasters come in many forms. But none quite like this. It was awful, but funny! It indeed jump the shark.

Útil
•
13

1

ironhorse_iv8 abr 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
A film so bad that it is good

Útil
•
27

5

TheSeaLion1 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Brilliantly Awful

While I give this one star, I strongly encourage everyone to see this movie. Not because it is good or has a single redeeming factor, but because if Ed Wood set out intentionally with an unlimited budget to make the worst movie ever, he could not have made something this bad.

The law of large numbers would seem to imply that in 86 minutes you'd have to get something right by accident, and yet this movie doesn't. A second look at Alien Apocalypse (which admittedly requires a masochistic nature to undertake) at least reveals passable cinematography and consistent lighting. And yet Sharknado rises above mathematics to give us a film that is bad in every single possible way.

Continuity is shrugged off completely. The same scene moves from daylight to dusk, rain to sunshine, storm surge to quiet beach, with every single new camera angle. It is so blatantly bad you are distracted from the more subtle inconsistencies like objects moving around, attire, wind, or quality of film from one cut to the next.

If you manage to close your eyes you are immediately taken in by the sound. How the sound editor managed to get to work on what had to be an acid-enhanced bender of epic proportions to warrant these results is beyond me. I'm reluctant to suggest using your stereo's sound-leveling technology for fear your sound system will simply melt from the strain.

One is almost loath to point a finger at suspension of disbelief when it comes to a movie whose premise is sharks in tornadoes, but whatever level you plan to come in with is almost surely going to fall far short. This movie has more WTF moments in 86 minutes than Lost could pull off in 86 seasons. And everyone gets to play, not just those with a working knowledge of wind shear or the physics that keep a helicopter in the air. If you've played pool, fished, surfed, driven a car in water deeper than two inches, been exposed to gravity, or otherwise in any way have interacted with or gained some understanding of the world around you, this movie has something for you to go "wha!?!" about.

And while you would think that once you had bad special effects, bad editing, and bad sound strung together you'd get at least one Bruce Campbell out of the cast to latch on to. Not so here, as every actor turned in a performance that shows they were more confused than the viewer about what was happening. We could guess it was because they were given the script out of order, but as a viewer of the final product I'm not sure I've seen the scenes in order, they are that disjointed.

I've tried very hard to find something that was done well or noteworthy about this movie and the only thing I can come up with is that it is the only movie I have ever seen that has failed on absolutely every level. If you tried to make a movie this bad you would inadvertently get something right purely on accident. And that is its one bright, shining point of light. That it would be almost impossible to make something this terrible ever again.

Útil
•
280

24

mafia-grim23 ago 2013Enlace permanente
A whirl wind into the sublimely ridiculous

With a title like Sharknado, you expect weird. This movie delivers.

Grab some friends, lots of snacks, and a mammoth amount of suspension of disbelief. You're now ready for SyFy channel's latest escapade into the realm of the psychotically silly. This movie acts upon the mind like a mind altering substance, taking it to a land of shark-infested water spouts, science gone mad, absurd visuals, and movie making run amok. Riffing is optional; the movie is goofy and deranged either way.

A freak-storm turns into tornadoes/water spouts that vacuum up a zillion sharks that are swimming around and whisks them off to southern California. Some of the finny predators are pitched into local freeways and everywhere else, while other sharks continue to spin around in the hurricane. The sharks take no prisoners as they swim around soggy streets and wreak havoc with laughable CGI attacks. I did notice however that they obeyed all traffic laws while they swam through the streets.

This movie swims its way ever further into the realms of the jawbone dropping bizarre, with several key scenes to be on the lookout for. Look for the random one-in-a-million rescue near the end, and the wacky idea the heroes use to try and save the day. This sort of chaos is common throughout the entire movie.

Kudos to the movie makers for this pure unabashed nonsense.

Útil
•
71

10

MartianOctocretr512 jul 2013Enlace permanente
5
/10
We're gonna need a bigger chopper!

Let me just say that I watched this movie to be entertained—not enthralled or hanging on the edge of my seat but just distracted and carefree for a couple of hours. I got what I wanted. Only, I didn't expect to laugh so much. I'm thankful for the laughter, though, because it kept at bay any sort of aesthetic sense that might have interfered with my viewing pleasure.

Regardless of genre, most movies are a construction of thoughtfully planned scenes, each of which presenting plot points and character motivations that, together, form a plausible narrative, allowing for the proverbial "suspension of disbelief." Such careful craftsmanship is never more important than at a film's beginning. The creators of Sharknado didn't bother with any of that.

There is an opening sequence involving a fishing boat on a stormy sea. On board a greedy captain in a raincoat and an Asian man in a three- piece suit squabble about money (presumably for some nefarious service performed by the captain). Handguns are soon brandished, bullets are fired, and chomping sharks are washed on deck by the waves (à la The Perfect Storm). People are shot or eaten, and a massive water spout filled with digitally-rendered sharks stretches into the sky. Then the opening credits begin rolling, and it's as if that scene never happened. Other than the brief preview of the "sharknado" to come at the end of the second act (yes, I'm taking some liberties by using standard film vernacular to describe this storyline), it was as if this scene was jumbled together from leftover footage of some other SyFy shark movie. Did this bother me? Nope. In fact, it wasn't until after the movie's end that I even remembered the ship's captain and the shootout on the water. By then, I was still grinning too much to care.

One grin-evoking moment occurs when Nova, the leading female character played by Cassie Scerbo, stabs a shark to death with a cue stick in a bar. While this isn't the first shark encounter for the protagonists or even the first shark-on-land encounter, it does seem to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Anthony Ferrante, the director, wants everyone to realize that this is not—and does not aspire to be—Jaws.

Though he need not worry about anyone mistaking this shark movie for Steven Spielberg's classic, Ferrante repeatedly makes references to it. I won't use terms such as "allusion" or even "homage" to describe these references. Perhaps "farcical" might be more appropriate, or maybe "comic relief," but even those terms lend themselves to a more contemplative critique than I am attempting.

I think Ferrante's purpose was to preemptively counter all would-be critics who might say things like "This is no Jaws." He could have just titled the movie Another Killer Shark Film That Is Not Jaws. But that would have been too self-effacing and certainly not as much fun.

In carrying out this strategy, Ferrante doesn't waste much time. Moments after the sharks begin plopping onto the streets and docks, Fin—a bar-owner, father and former pro-surfer played by Ian Ziering of Beverly Hills, 90210 fame—makes quick work of one by shooting a diver's air tank that is jutting out of its gullet, causing it and the shark to explode. Remind you of anything? Yep, there's even a corny one-liner: "That's what you get for trying to eat me."

Later we have a quasi-touching expository scene that reveals Nova's pre-established hatred of sharks. The character of Fin's son, Matt, played by Chuck Hittinger, notices an unusual scar on Nova's thigh. To get her to talk about it, he lifts up his shirt and reveals a scar on his abdomen and explains its not-so-dramatic origin. When he asks Nova how she got her scar, she says she had a tattoo removed. Not buying it, Matt prods further and Nova tells a story about going fishing with her grandfather and his friends when she was a little girl. She says that their boat sank and sharks began to circle and attack them. The men managed to lift her out of the water and onto something floating nearby, but a shark still managed to take a hunk out of her leg. In summation, Nova says: "Six people went into the water and one little girl came out. The sharks took the rest."

The scene in Jaws in which Robert Shaw's character Quint tells the tale of the sinking of the USS Indionapolis is arguably one of the most memorable scenes in film history. Ferrante knows this. Nova's scar story, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, serves to again make the director's statement: "I am aware of Jaws, as is everyone in the civilized world, and this is not that movie!"

Later, this same point is made again, this time even more comically and pointedly. After fabricating some propane bombs, Nova and Matt take to the skies in a helicopter to hunt the tornadoes. Matt flies perilously close to one of the funnel clouds so that Nova can toss one of the bombs into it. She sees an enormous shark coming straight at them and declares: "We're gonna need a bigger chopper."

If you want to be moderately entertained, then I don't think you will be disappointed with Sharknado. Don't expect too much going into it—and bring with you a willingness to suspend your own sense of disbelief. Most important, keep in mind that this is not Jaws. I don't think that fact will slip you mind, however. The director made sure of it.

Útil
•
75

26

bobmaloogaloogalooga-712-77881317 jul 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Sharknado Teaches That Cheesy Only Works When Its Entertaining

Sharknado, the hit SyFy Channel original has positioned itself as critic-proof, cheeseball goofiness incarnate. The entire enterprise is a joke. Sharknado knows it is a cheesy SyFy original movie, and it doesn't apologize for it. It is tongue-in-cheek, self aware, and sarcastic. "How can you criticize this movie?" some might ask, "It's supposed to be goofy!". Well goofiness is great if it is entertaining. Sharknado is not entertaining in the least.

I'll skip the credits, skip the plot and get right down to business, this movie is a crappy made-for-TV snooze-fest, starring D-list celebrities and made by inept "filmmakers" who seem to have trouble differentiating between endearingly cheesy and downright bad. Sharknado is "critic-proof" because of the assumption that viewing the movie critically would expose its cheesiness, which is intentional. However, the problem with Sharknado is not that it is silly, it's that it is boring.

The cast has no charm, the effects are in a dead zone between not bad enough to be funny, and not good enough to be convincing, the look of the film is murky and dull, and the action scenes are incomprehensible and poorly edited. Sharknado is an absolute bore. It is an example of how a critic-proof, self-aware, tongue-in-cheek cheesefest can still go horribly wrong. Yes, I "get" Sharknado. It is meant to be a dumb B-movie, I understand, but dumb fun does require more than just conscious stupidity. Sharknado is not entertaining, a flaw that will sink any movie, whether it has shark-filled tornadoes or not.

20/100

Útil
•
17

3

jaredpahl15 ene 2017Enlace permanente
1
/10
Doing bad movies the wrong way

People seem to think that this is the be all end all of bad movies when in actuality the movie was made this way on purpose. The thing that separates a good bad movie from a bad bad movie is intent. Take The Room for example. When Tommy Wiseau was making that movie, he had the best intentions and really thought that it was going to be a great movie. This is what makes it so satisfying to watch this movie. Wiseau put a lot of time and effort into it and it was utter crap. Sharknado was made to be dumbed down to reach their target audience and make them feel smarter than the movie. You can't point and laugh at the director because this is what he wanted all along. What makes a film "So bad it's good" is sincerity. Movies like Machete or Sharknado or the latest Asylum Mockbuster are either intentionally shitty or crass cash-grabs. Great terrible movies like the Room, Miami Connection, and Birdemic are completely sincere and honest in there awfulness, and that's what makes them special. Sharknado is just ruining the experience of bad movies for people. All in all, if you truly are interested in bad movies, I recommend you watch something like Troll 2 or Miami Connection. Then again, what do I know? I'm just some asshole on the internet.

Útil
•
53

22

extracrap199810 ago 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
Terrible...but terribly fun!

Útil
•
16

4

RevRonster3 ago 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Painful

Útil
•
36

17

bts1117 ago 2013Enlace permanente
2
/10
Where is the Sharknado?

Útil
•
13

4

andrew-732-4469213 jul 2013Enlace permanente
10
/10
Like Finding Nemo but with all sharks...and tornadoes.
For anyone who hasn't seen the SyFy original movie, Sharknado; it's a heart-warming, coming of age story about a ragtag group of sharks uprooted from their home by mother nature's fury. The sharks must band together and overcome adversity and strife while trying, desperately, to make their way back to the only home they've ever known. Battling chainsaw wielding humans and B-list actors trying, desperately, to throw themselves into the displaced sharks' mouths every chance they get. If you love sharks and tornadoes, well...now you don't have to choose! Do yourself a favor and see this one before the Oscars! Sharknado is, truly, the cinematic experience of a lifetime.

Útil
•
826

159

halen1342011 jul 2013Enlace permanente
7
/10
I literally passed out laughing

Útil
•
40

9

rschiwal20 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
The Perfect Storm
When waterspouts meet sharks they form the Perfect Storm of TERROR!! Just kidding! If you're looking for terror you'll have to look someplace else. This movie is as stupid as its title implies! I don't think Syfy is even trying to make good movies anymore. This flick looks and feels like some very silly people devoted an entire weekend to producing it. It fails on almost every level possible. It's impossible to say whether the producers intended this thing to be funny or not but I guarantee that you'll find yourself laughing at what you see on the screen. The "Oh Come ON!" moments abound in this crapsterpiece! In fact, if you can lay your hands on a DVD of this thing, the last half hour is not to be missed. You literally will not believe that anyone would ever commit something this idiotic to celluloid. So, if you're looking for spine-tingling chills, then avoid this movie at all costs. If, however, MST3K-worthy crap is your cup of tea then getcha a big bowl of popcorn, settle back and enjoy!

Útil
•
41

23

thestarkfist12 jul 2013Enlace permanente
Enough Said!

Instead of frequently used movie adjectives such as "Riveting," or "Unbelievable," the "Sharknado" billboard uses the descriptive words, "Enough Said." I don't know why but these words make me laugh, and they set the tone for this ridiculously silly movie. I love scary movies when the enemy is not a real threat to me or any other movie watcher. Therefore, I don't watch stalker or slasher movies.

There are sharks coming from every direction when they're catapulted into the sky by a freak storm that carries them everywhere. No place is safe.

Common sense is rarely used in this type of movie. I'll admit that "The Birds" is in a different league, but I always wonder why no one thinks to wear a hat that could deter at least some of the birds for awhile, especially a construction hat or football helmet. In Sharknado the sharks are vicious and hungry. Why no one in this movie can get away from these sharks baffles me. There are so many that its easy to get pelted by one. Pelted and then chewed, even swallowed. No one seems to remember that sharks can't walk or run on the land. Once they land on the ground, they would be stuck without rushing water to move them along.. Our hero---played by Ian Ziering---and his family and friends must take a proactive approach to fight these big fish while waiting for the torrential storms to pass.

This movie has some great foreshadowing. You can predict that certain characters will not be around much longer. But who cares? If you don't mind watching people get dismembered, or even swallowed, you may enjoy this movie as much as I did.

Útil
•
20

1

marshagentry24 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
If only you could vote in negative...

You have probably seen a whole bunch of reviews saying that it's so bad it's good. Well it's so bad it's worse than bad.

Do not waste your time with this movie. There is no continuity between scenes, one second it's flooding then in the next scene the streets are dry. The acting is terrible, the special effects are less than special.

Lastly, poor Tara, she had some good movies under her belt, but this is the latest in a downward spiral for her acting career. It seems like she has been taking acting lessons from the rest of the cast because her performance is no better than the rest.

Please watch something else. I beg you.

Útil
•
31

16

mathew-pike5 oct 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Bad at Being Bad

Útil
•
18

8

tommystans22 may 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Bad movie, great comic relief
The title should have been a heads-up for me. Sharknado is undoubtedly one of the most painfully stupid movies I have seen in a long time. The dialog is pin-headed, events and actions repeatedly defy the laws of nature and physics and some of the more dramatic moments were actually laugh-out-loud funny. A lame and overly ambitious mishmash of Jaws meets Twister meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Sharknado's greatest and most enduring value will likely be the comic relief it provides. Just because the movie takes itself too seriously doesn't mean YOU have to! If nothing else, it could make for an entertaining pizza-and-beer B (or C or D)-movie night with the gang.

Útil
•
25

13

Mafpmf1712 jul 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Geeky Randy's summary
Is it the worst movie ever made? No. The cinematography is not half-bad, it's not afraid to kill off some key characters, and Jaason Simmons is somewhat worth rooting for. But is it awful? Absolutely. Many viewers who have assisted this garbage in attaining some sort of pathetic cult status insist the amateur CGI, bad acting and ridiculous premise is what makes this film so fun to watch. No� just� no. There are parts that really stink of effort, which completely ruins any chance of this movie having any sort of it's-so-bad-it's-good quality. There are many turkeys to choose from for Bad Movie Night, and SHAKRNADO isn't one of them. You'll make better use of your time staring at a blank wall.

* (out of four)

Útil
•
16

7

Geeky Randy7 ago 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
Sharknado...is EXACTLY as the name suggests!

Útil
•
6

1

gavwan26 dic 2013Enlace permanente
1
/10
Is there any possible way to give it less than 1 star?
I'm going to start off by saying that this movie was absolute crap! I know that the premise is intended to be stupid but that no excuse for it's terrible casting, story structure, and character development! The actors in this movie are absolute crap! It's almost as if they aren't even human, they're cyborgs that speak very dull and have no kind of development whatsoever. It's movies like this that proves that the general public will watch whatever piece of crap is on television! If you watch this movie all the way through, I can guarantee that you will either lose a lot of brain cells, or puke at the repulsing sight of this god awful movie!

Útil
•
14

6

dgattis516 jul 2015Enlace permanente
8
/10
Gloriously Incompetent and Gleefully Terrible
And yet with a group of pals you would be hard pressed to find a better time. Absolutely nothing make sense. Physics and natural laws are ignored. Horrible CGI and cringe-worthy dialog. Outrageous continuity exceeded only by horrible color correction and clunky editing. The all together wooden acting no doubt achieved in single takes is sincere, earnest and fails on levels that should win awards.

And you can't stop watching. My friends, yelled, laughed, joked, stomped, laughed some more and had a fine time. Now how many times can you say that watching a movie? It literally becomes an interactive experience.

It is surely a classic. Not sure exactly what kind. But it is a classic.

Útil
•
393

82

flixspix12 jul 2013Enlace permanente
7
/10
It's a terrible joy.
I can't understand why the film has such a low rating, sure it's.a shocker, but for originality and sheer audacity it's a six minimum. It's almost like a zombie film was intended but at the very last minute someone burst into the office and said let's use sharks and have tornados. It's not meant to be taken seriously, I don't think the producers looked for awards, instead they delivered ninety minutes of enjoyable nonsense. Some of the effects are ok, some are pretty poor, they do however beat the stock footage shots. Plenty of continuity errors, rain one moment, dry the next etc, but I won't knock it any more, that would be too easy. It's ridiculous, outrageous, but funny and imaginative, that line 'we're gonna need a bigger chopper' felt like a thumbs up to the greatest shark movie of all time. A guilty pleasure.

Útil
•
12

3

Sleepin_Dragon7 ene 2018Enlace permanente
1
/10
Literally the worst film ever made.

Útil
•
27

18

aaronthewonderhound10 ago 2013Enlace permanente
Sharknado!!

I only wish this movie had been released to Drive-In theaters and been promoted on a twin bill with any other low rent/grade/brow cinematic masterpiece from the ill human beings at SyFy.

To paraphrase Elvis Costello- I just don't know where to begin.. Wooden acting, special effects from a Midwestern middle school science fair, a script that veers wildly from insipid to bizarre to total nonsense, actors that should face summary execution if they made only scale and still cashed their paychecks, a director that makes Ed Wood look like Ingmar Bergman. In other words a glorious triumph of B-grade movie making..

Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an approval rating of 77% based on 22 reviews; the average rating is 6.40/10. The site's consensus states: "Proudly, shamelessly, and gloriously brainless, Sharknado redefines 'so bad it's good' for a new generation."[35]

Reviewer Mary McNamara, writing for the Los Angeles Times, mentioned that the plot holes are "the whole point of movies like this: fabulous in-home commentary. Often accompanied by the consumption of many alcoholic beverages."[5] David Hinckley of the New York Daily News said "Sharknado is an hour and a half of your life that you'll never get back. And you won't want to."[36] Kim Newman of Empire called the film "cynical rubbish, with an attention-getting title and just enough footage of terrible CG sharks in a terrible CG tornado chomping on people to fill out a trailer suitable for attracting YouTube hits."[37]

Sharknado has become a cult film.[38] The film was used for a RiffTrax Live event in July 2014, where former Mystery Science Theater 3000 cast members mocked the film for a live audience and broadcast to other theaters through NCM Fathom; the idea for using the film for this was prompted by the Sharknado producers discussing the film with Fathom at the same time.[39] After the event, Ferrante said that "Being skewered by the MST3K guys was an honor."[40] In 2016, Homes.com added a page to their disaster prep guides on How to Prepare Your Home For a Sharknado.[41]

Nothing can stop the mighty Mega-Shark; not even the colossal sauroid in Megatiburón contra crocosaurio (2010). This time, the apex predator of the ocean wreaks havoc in the Port of Alexandria in Egypt; but, the U.S. Navy and the engineer, Jack Turner, have come up with an ambitious solution to this devastating problem: an AI-powered, autonomous shark-like submarine named the Mecha-Shark. Now, for the first time in a long while, humankind has an all-powerful champion on its side to crush the underwater menace; however, after a disappointing first encounter with the living terror of the sea, man's creation and Megalodon engage in battle, threatening to level Sydney. Can Jack find a way to avert the ultimate battle between Mega-Shark and Mecha-Shark?

2
/10
This Film Made My Mother Hate Me (Briefly)

Útil
•
4

0

taylormellors13 abr 2021Enlace permanente
3
/10
Mediocre

'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' is a monster/disaster film directed by Emile Edwin Smith and released straight to DVD in early 2014. The film is the third instalment of the 'Mega Shark Trilogy', successor to 'Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus' and 'Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus'. The film stars Christopher Judge and Elisabeth Röhm, with Debbie Gibson reprising her role as Emma MacNeil from the first film.

Following a similar plot to its predecessors, our protagonists are confronted by a bloodthirsty megalodon intent on causing havoc off the coast of Australia, and are left side-lined as their own creation designed to destroy the shark – a robot called Mecha Shark – begins an autonomous unforeseen attack following a communication failure. Following an encouraging opening, the film quickly delves into the series' formula of unoriginal and repetitive set pieces attempting to subdue the creatures, whilst an implausible romance blooms. The narrative of films like 'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' demands the lowest of expectations from audiences, and whilst the film surpasses these nethermost expectations, it sadly offers little to even be classed in the 'so bad it's good' category.

Performances across the board are satisfactory, but there is a gargantuan non-existence of wit and tongue-in-cheek moments which begs the question why a film entitled 'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' is taking itself so earnestly. Undeniably the film offers brief moments of gratification – a shark destroying the head of an Egyptian sphinx can only be a good thing. On majority though the film feels stale and, considering the film's title, it would have been beneficial to give much more screen time to the clash between the Mega Shark and the Mecha Shark.

'Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark' is a formulaic and uninspired film which begs for, believe it not, more destruction and mayhem. Not totally without merit, the film isn't the lowest of the low of its genre, but is certainly does not amaze or thrill.

Útil
•
17

9

JoshuaHarryMurphy18 feb 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
it had to see to believe
This is a long 1,5 hours of your life. The movie is fast paced and never stopped. So much is put it, it must have been a 1000page script. The goofs are quite numerous, it seems nobody read the 1000 page script for errors. Maybe they just didn't want to give you time to think. Or they had a brainstorm and decided to add all ideas into it.

I can't remember the music or sounds of the movie. The acting is worthy of a porno movie. The visuals are there. and literally anything is possible

Útil
•
5

1

quapsel2 sept 2017Enlace permanente
1
/10
Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark

Útil
•
3

0

jboothmillard4 feb 2018Enlace permanente
1
/10
Just as flipping bad as it looks.

Útil
•
13

7

suite922 abr 2014Enlace permanente
Bad Even for The Asylum Standards

Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark (2014)

BOMB (out of 4)

Once upon a time we were given GODZILLA VS. MECHA GODZILLA but The Asylum has delivered a giant killer shark vs. a man-made steel shark. That's pretty much the only storyline that you need as we have a giant real shark doing damage so the government creates a mechanical shark to go after it. Oh yeah, Christopher Judge and Elizabeth Rohm play a couple trying to kill the real shark. This is the third film in the series and perhaps I'm just growing tired of them but I really, really, really hated this movie with a strong passion. Yes, the first two films in the series were bad but so are countless other "one giant vs. another giant" movies. I really don't expect great acting, award-winning direction or anything of good quality but I do hope to be entertained at the very least. A lot of times these movies are entertaining simply because they're just downright fun and know not to that themselves very seriously. Sadly, that's not the case here as the screenplay, direction and everything else is so serious and so over-dramatic that you really have to wonder if anyone had ever seen one of these films before. Why on Earth this thing was made so boring, so dramatic and so unfunny is beyond me but there's just not a single second of this film that's entertaining. Even worse is that the movie doesn't really feature any good kill scenes with the two monsters and instead of action scenes we're given really bad dialogue sequences that just drag on and never go anywhere. The performances are what you'd expect from a movie like this so I'm not going to blame the actors too much. The direction certainly isn't all that memorable and especially with some downright awful and horrendous slow-motion sequences, which just made me want to hit the stop button. Again, if you're going to make a low-budget monster movie like this, don't forget you're making a low-budget monster movie. Those who view these want to have fun.

Útil
•
13

7

Michael_Elliott21 abr 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
The megalodon is back...

Útil
•
16

10

paul_haakonsen3 feb 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
Disappointing, But A Fair Attempt

A new mega shark threatens to destroy humanity. The government creates an exact robotic copy of the shark, either equal to or greater than the original. Now they must fight to the death while people and whole cities get in the way.

The best part of this film was a brief scene that was an homage to the first film's best scene. This is, of course, a showdown between an airplane and a shark... a complete load of nonsense, but highly entertaining.

Beyond that, nothing too exciting. I feel like there was more than the average effort put into the special effects, but most of this is nothing new and even by Asylum's cheap standards it is not as much fun as it could be. I get the impression Debbie Gibson shot all her scenes in one day, because she rarely interacts with anyone and is always standing in the same spot... this is even less than "phoning it in".

Útil
•
7

3

gavin694230 abr 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Not good at all.
Some of the stars from other shows must have hit the skids and been hard up for money to do this.

Útil
•
2

0

socrfan-8018228 ago 2021Enlace permanente
3
/10
Bad, even by genre standards

Útil
•
2

0

Leofwine_draca11 dic 2017Enlace permanente
2
/10
I would love to say it's so bad that it's good.
But I can't.

I gave 2 stars though purely for the fact that it had me laughing at how bad it is. Also because I now feel a lot calmer, having rid myself of any hatred in me, by focusing it on this trash.

Útil
•
2

0

TepesTheImpaler19 jul 2021Enlace permanente
9
/10
The best one yet in the series

When a massive Megalodon shark is released into the ocean's waters, a Navy team is forced to utilize a monstrous shark-shaped submarine to combat the deadly creature before it's wake of destruction covers the entire planet.

This is a massively entertaining and enjoyable effort that really has a lot going for it. One of the best aspects here is the generous helping of cheesy action spread throughout, since the massive shark is unleashed quite early on in the film which manages to get the new submarine into action as well which is quite an entertaining feat considering the amount of time the two spend battling each other is so high that they take an additional connotation that doesn't touch the past instances in the series by finally putting a worthwhile opponent into battle in an environment with the gigantic creature. The submarine being the same size makes for a truly worthwhile battle of the titans between the two and it happens frequently throughout the film, as the attack on the aircraft carrier, the assault on the carrier fleet and the later battle at the oil rig all allow for some really engaging battles between the two behemoths in an enjoyable cheesy manner, and by being spread throughout the film as a whole makes for quite a lot of fun that helps out in the latter part of the film. Having a full-scale city destruction sequence in the middle of the battle between the two accounts for even more exciting action to take place and the film is grossly overwhelming seeing the giant robot wade through the city leaving as much destruction as it does. Not to be outdone in that regard, it's certainly got the best rip on the airliner-out-of-the-sky routine here with an enjoyable cheesy take on the classic scene in the franchise which is a lot of fun. Again, though, the fact that the CGI featured here looks so bad as it does is something to get over when the robot never really gives off the metallic vibe beyond the overall design featured all sorts of different gears and lenses which reveal its' true nature even though the shark itself is easily the best-rendered of the series despite the frequent and annoying size fluctuations which have always plagued the franchise. Still, the only other true flaw on display is the finale, which has a lot of mention towards the sharks' spawning and breeding instinct but is overshadowed to make way for the city destruction sequences that contain all the action but undercuts the story since such a big deal was made about it throughout the last act of the film. Otherwise, this is a lot of fun overall.

Rated R: Violence and Language.

Útil
•
5

7

kannibalcorpsegrinder28 jul 2014Enlace permanente
6
/10
Everybody loves Christopher Judge but...
I mean sure, it's ok that the main boat keeps changing throughout the episode and licence plates are changing from location to location shooting in "Sydney" Australia, but they could have at least realized that cars drive on the other side of the road or at least attempt to show one a right side drive car. You will notice none of the uniforms have info or identifications too. The internal shark cockpit has no words on the dials which makes no sense. I hope the next mega shark movie buttons up those details. Love the franchise, keep it up

The movie was fun and silly.

Útil
•
2

2

orionmott16 jul 2018Enlace permanente
4
/10
Robo-Shark

Previously, "Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus" (2010) ended with the prehistoric creatures fighting their way into a murky abyss. They were both declared dead. How we get a third "Mega Shark" movie begins in Alexandria, Egypt. There, an iceberg cracks and releases "another" of the prehistoric shark creatures. As you might imagine, this one is also very destructive. It begins by decapitating the Sphinx of Giza. This is great loss for civilization – and an incredible feat for a water-based shark. Fortunately, the Americans have built a shark-looking submarine to fight off prehistoric sharks. This "Mecha Shark" is a mechanical version of the destructive monster. Helmed by navigating co-stars Christopher Judge (as Jack Turner) and Elisabeth Rohm (as Rosie Gray), "Mecha Shark" sets out to do battle with the new "Mega Shark"...

Compared to the first two "Mega Shark" movies, this is "Citizen Kane"...

Most obviously, the direction and performances are improved. This time, director Emile Edwin Smith and his "Asylum" crew make the most of their limited resources. The special effects are far from state of the art – but, there is a sense of place. The best "effect" is the mechanical shark's unseen computer voice, NERO, who helps navigate the submarine. NERO recalls HAL from "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) – but without the smarmy, underlying sinister tone. The co-starring couple, Mr. Judge and Ms. Rohm, strike the right acting chords and have some chemistry. We hope Rohm and NERO will keep Judge from smoking. From the first film, we see Deborah "Debbie" Gibson in a superfluous cameo. Cheers to Paul Anderson as NERO's voice. Jeers to the series' relentless degrading of the science-fiction/horror film genre.

**** Mega Shark vs Mecha Shark (1/24/14) Emile Edwin Smith ~ Christopher Judge, Elisabeth Rohm, Matt Lagan, Paul Anderson

Útil
•
7

5

wes-connors28 jul 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Embarrassingly bad
You know your career has tanked when you're the lead actor and actress in a mega shark movie. I don't know what Worf was thinking, but he's even worse here than in New Generation. The Elizabeth Rohm character is the tired old bad @as super woman character who tries to save the day by jumping into the mecha's mouth. Have these people EVER taken acting lessons? The part that killed me was her driving at high speed, while talking to Worf, with her eyes not even on the road. Good example for young drivers there lady! Maybe the fans of these travesties of film making watch them dueling bong parties or something. Please... just stop.

Útil
•
3

1

ophidiancartomancy27 abr 2020Enlace permanente
3
/10
Fish vs machine. Megalodon shark on the loose.

Útil
•
4

2

michaelRokeefe30 jul 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
The best of the Mega Shark trilogy, doesn't ever get better than reasonably fun though

The Mega Shark movies are the kind that aren't to be expected much from, but even with that in mind I personally didn't consider Giant Octopus or Crocosaurus particularly good, some fun moments, mostly for the so-bad-it's-good value there was, but mostly they were too amateurish and ridiculous to take it even for what they were. Mecha Shark is the best of the three but from personal opinion it was only passable. It is the best-looking of the trilogy definitely, the scenery is very nice as well as the underwater shots and the editing is reasonable. The score is catchy and in a way drives the movie rather than bog it down. The special effects are better than average if not great, a huge improvement on its predecessors anyhow(and I'd go as far to say that much of the underwater stuff was quite good), sure there are a few ropey ones here and there. Much of the acting is not bad at all despite not having very strong material to work with, the playing-it-straight approach is adopted and it suits the movie just fine, doing it without going through the motions. Elisabeth Rohm and Christopher Judge are commanding leads. And the last act is a lot of fun, the pace is snappier and while inevitably predictable some of it is amusing and at times endearingly silly. There is an exception regarding the acting and that is Deborah Gibson in her brief appearance, if she had a bigger role she would have come across as less phoned in. The characters are not annoying as such but are not very interesting, and that is including the shark who is more goofy than menacing. The script mistakes insultingly cheesy for snappy, the jargon is really stilted too and a lot of scenes have dialogue and voice-overs that over-explain things. If there was one word to describe the script, bloated would be it. The concept was ridiculous in the first place, but two thirds of Mecha Shark is rather indifferent until the last act really picks up. That it's predictable is to be expected, but the suffocating pacing, lack of tension or suspense and scenes that are very derivative, with a few parts reminiscent of those from its predecessors(like the mid-air leap jet chomp from Giant Octopus) but also reading too much of inferior copies. They were mildly fun previously while making you feel stupid at the same time, here they were just tired. All in all, at best it's reasonably fun and it is easily the best of the Mega Shark trilogy. But while it is a significant improvement technically and acting-wise, there could have been room to have more fun and the improvement does not translate into the writing department, with a sense of not just trying to do too much but also feeling very bland and indifferent. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
9

10

TheLittleSongbird14 feb 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
Great Camp
I came into this movie seeing the title and hoping for an amazingly terrible movie and I was not disappointed. This movie made me laugh harder unintentionally than any movie has intentionally in a while. This is a great movie to sit down and make fun of with your friends.

Útil
•
3

2

estalebr6 may 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
worse than bad
A movie can be bad for several reasons. The actors can be bad, the dialog can be bad, the special effects can be bad and the script can be bad. I guess that is OK. It just means that it is bad in every way.

What is worse is that this movie is evil. In a world where sharks are on the red list, about to be extinct, from some depth this demonic movie surfaces. Lo and behold, the mega shark threatens mankind. If anything, the mega shark saves shark kind from humans! Had the film makers had anything at all to contribute with, that would have been the plot. How could they turn the good guy into the bad guy without realizing it? This is the kind of script that a 5th grader could have written, an evil one, that is.

Útil
•
14

26

the_oak13 abr 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
Better than expected

Note: I watched "Mega Shark vs Mecha Shark" from Amazon Prime streaming to a Roku 3 device in the United States.

Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark is the third entry in what became a series of films released by The Asylum. In this entry the Mega Shark returns somehow and the United States builds a robot shark or Mecha Shark to fight against it. No reason is given for why Mecha Shark is especially effective or why it has to have jaws. The film drops you into the dialog, yes dialog, and not action immediately.

Those expecting a big monster fight are going to be frustrated. There is one genuinely good clash between the two near the beginning in homage to a famous scene from the earlier films. Aside from the big moment, we only see the sharks bounce off each other a few times.

The director, Emile Smith, wisely understands the limitations of the budget and scope available. The CGI is passable for late 90s standards and therefore jarringly bad for today. Thus, there aren't many instances where Mecha Shark fights Mega Shark. Both look too fake for us to care for long. The film suffers from instances where there is a jump in time in a scene. It's like watching an edited version of film during an old horror double bill. For instance, a fat man is shown running from the terrestrial Mecha Shark. The camera focuses on him exclusively for a shot. In the next instant his upper body is seen and he spurts blood. Presumably he is crushed or he just laid down and died, I guess?

Most of what appears on-screen is dialog in the same computer control room many of these films feature. It tends to get boring after several minutes of contacting the army or explaining scientific hullabaloo. At least the main actors, a husband and wife duo, have enough chemistry to keep us interested. The wife is obsessed over saving lives at all costs while the husband is more calculated and thoughtful. It's a welcome contrast to the gendered stereotypes we would expect to see in a film like this. The two complement each other's personalities and we get the feeling they have love for each other beyond the mere words. Also noteworthy is the digital assistant, Nero, who serves as operating system of Mecha Shark. Nero has an erudite, British manner of speaking and interacting with the main characters.

In the era of Sharknado, it may be surprising to see that the film mostly plays itself straight. The script and acting are competent enough to mitigate any bad movie night potential here. The film is watchable and that's good enough for its scant runtime.

Útil
•
2

1

doctorsmoothlove19 abr 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
Will this series ever finn-ish?

Útil
•
1

0

mark.waltz24 ene 2021Enlace permanente
10
/10
Terrifying Science Fiction
Gifted director Emile Edwin Smith keeps the suspense high and the thrills intense in this superb science fiction film set in exotic Australian locales. The screenplay by H. Perry Horton is intelligent and sharp witted, pulling no punches as it questions the wisdom of modern science while confronting humanity's misguided efforts to control the earthly environment. The special effects are quite good indeed and some of the sweeping vistas of vast destruction are unrelentingly haunting. There are several moments when the graphic violence and mayhem is overwhelming and it becomes necessary to look away from what is horrifically depicted on screen. A superb cast brings depth and realism to their characters, with Elizabeth Rohm especially good as a woman fighting to save her family as well as mankind. The shattering climax, with helicopters and explosions that recall the iconic, surrealistic impact of Apocalypse Now, is simply unforgettable.

Útil
•
6

12

dianerpessler-4616421 jul 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
Meg goes down under like a brick in this limp action-thriller

Abominable shark movie stars Rohm as the pilot of a mechanical shark prototype (dubbed Nero) designed with the intent of destroying its living nemesis, the megalodon. Judge and Rohm share good on-screen chemistry, and both appear to be enjoying themselves in spite of the tripe in which they find themselves (I assume willingly), but it does nothing to improve the quality of the movie, nor it's entertainment value.

After taking a hiatus from 'Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus', former teen idol Gibson reprises her role from the earlier 'Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus', which at least featured some tongue in cheek humour to lessen the pain, alas there's no sign of that comedic flair on display here. Steve Hanks is the only other recognisable name in the cast (to me) playing a naval captain (as he often does in these Asylum pictures).

This 'mega shark' instalment features an Australian angle with the Sydney Opera House in the firing line (!) as Meg migrates to where her natural ancestors apparently originated. Atrocious acting (e.g. The extraneous scene in which a journalist approaches a disgruntled fisherman for his opinion on fishing bans is so amateurish and disconnected it's laughable) and appalling CGI (shark vs aeroplane gets another inglorious encounter) ruins whatever remote chance of success there could've been, whilst the film is so light on plot it's duller than a daytime soap opera.

So dull that the chess game being played by the tugboat crew in the film's early stages was the most captivating moment, although I couldn't understand the move made by the first mate, nor how the pieces stayed on the board in the rolling seas. It's bad (not in a good, ha-ha way) and yet somehow still manages to spawn another sequel ('Mega Shark vs Kolossus') which is just as lamentable and best to avoid.

Útil
•
1

0

Chase_Witherspoon21 feb 2024Enlace permanente
1
/10
This is beyond bad, this is horrible
You can actually read my opinion in the title. This is beyond bad, this is an absolute mess, the animation of mega shark is far beyond horrible even for 2014, the cyber girl looks like a fake hacker from a bad movie from 2000's, her acting is so dumb i dont have words to describe it, you just have to watch 2 minutes of her in the movie to realize what a mess is this. Honestly i would be so so so so so embarased to put this movie in a theatre with my name in the direction. I didnt even lost my time (not entirely) cause i watched 5 minutes, skip 15, watch 10 minutes (at this point i mostly suffered), then skipped 20 minutes, and at the end i just quit the movie. I didnt even finished this, im so disappointed that i told a friend of mine about this horrible absolute mess of a movie i saw online and she laughed so bad only with the title. Like what should i expect about a movie called "mega shark vs mecha shark", its so dumb from the very beginning.

Útil
•
1

0

celomardelcorte9 feb 2024Enlace permanente
1
/10
Dumb and Stupid
My son who is six years old thought this was the dumbest and stupidest movie Hes ever seen in his life

Dread Central gave the film two out of five "knives", commenting that "It must be a testimony to the level of schlock The Asylum has been churning out over the years that I can watch a movie called Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark and come away underwhelmed due to a prevailing sense that it’s just going through the motions."[10]

A violent tempest and a set of lightning flashes above the infamous Bermuda Triangle takes out one of Air Force One's engines, and President DeSteno narrowly escapes in his pod. As Chief Trip Oliver and Admiral Linda Hansen's Special Forces team comb the ocean to locate the president before he runs out of oxygen, monstrous tentacles emerge from the bottom of the sea, attacking the ships and everything in sight. Now, modern weapons are completely ineffective against the gigantic adversary, and the clock is ticking. Can they stop the beast from the sea?

2
/10
Not the brightest moment in SyFy's history...

Well, given the synopsis for this movie, you just know that it is going to be one of those awful movies that you wonder how got around to seeing the light of day. And sure enough, "Bermuda Tentacles" was exactly that.

The story is about Air Force One going down in the Bermuda Triangle, and as the military and navy is in the vicinity to search for the president of the United States of America, strange, fluorescent tentacles emerge from the deep and start attacking the boats. It is up to a small group of soldiers to set out in an experimental prototype submarine to venture into the deep to retrieve the president in the escape pod.

This is low budget Sci-Fi in every aspect of the words, and this is far from SyFy's brightest moment. While they have other very questionable movies to their name, then "Bermuda Tentacles" is in the top 3.

The effects were adequate, though often at the lower scale of being proper. Don't except anything major here or anything to blow you out of your seat.

What the movie did have working for it was some adequate acting and list of talents on the cast list. It is always nice to see John Savage in a movie, although he had very little to work with in this movie. People were doing good enough jobs with their given roles and characters, despite having a poor script to work with.

If you enjoy Sci-Fi movies, then I would suggest that you watch something else, because "Bermuda Tentacles" doesn't really deliver on any accounts. This is a poor addition to the vault of Sci-Fi movies, and it raises more questions to the storyline than it gives answers.

Útil
•
13

2

paul_haakonsen5 may 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
What a wonderful B movie!
An Iowa-class battleship defending herself by M-16s and other assorted handheld weapons ... and F/A-18s fighting worms. :)

Útil
•
6

1

Josef_Schweik14 oct 2018Enlace permanente
2
/10
Really Bad

Útil
•
6

1

kymeera19 abr 2014Enlace permanente
Linda! No!
Linda! No! No! Please, no! Think of all those great TV series you were in. All those great movies you were in. Do you really want people to remember you in this piece of total garbage? Do you really need the money that much? I'm now going to have to try really really hard to delete what I just saw and pretend that it never happened. I didn't see you in this nonsense. I didn't see you looking about 84 years old. You are still in your 20's. Still beautiful. You still touch my heart with your poignant acting.

You were never in this SyFy rubbish. Never. I don't remember it. It is gone, deleted. I will never remember it.

Útil
•
55

11

mboyd198611 jun 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Horrid, even for SyFy

Okay, Bermuda Tentacles may not be the worst SyFy has done or quite down there, but it is incredibly bad and worse than any of their offerings from last year. It looks cheap, well the photography is okay if rather drab but the editing is choppy and the whole movie just looks both drab and garish. The special effects are truly laughable, and that's at best as well. The monster looks so fake, one of the worst-looking I've seen in a while and poses no real threat or even a personality to speak of. The sound is murky and the music is sluggish and over-bearing, reminiscent of a poorly-scored overblown CGI extravaganza but worse. The story plods like thick, sticky mud and any tension, fun, excitement or horror is practically non-existent here. Mainly because it looks like none of the actors give a damn about what's happening to them and that everything is so ridiculous and lacking in any real sense. The script is a real disaster here, no wonder the dialogue delivery was so awkward often, it's cheesy and incoherent and much of it, especially the more wordy exposition dialogue, sounds like utter gibberish. The characters range from underwritten to annoying, with any conflict between them not believable in any way and coming across as forced instead, while the acting is atrocious. That is particularly true of Mya, whose performance is pretty embarrassing, in fact the younger members of the cast make it all too clear how inexperienced they are. Linda Hamilton looks worse for wear here and also gives a surprisingly lazy performance. The best performance is by John Savage, the only halfway decent one and quite possibly the best thing about Bermuda Tentacles, that he has very little to work with and what he has is poor, I wouldn't go as far to say that he is enough to save the movie. Overall, Bermuda Tentacles is not quite among SyFy's worst but even for a company notorious for mostly bottom-of-the-barrel to mediocre(with a handful of tolerable ones) this was just horrid. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
28

7

TheLittleSongbird17 may 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
crap

Hi Guys,

Every time I see one of these "movies", I say, they can't get any worse. Then I watch the next one and it's worse.

This one really sucked. The marines or what ever they were didn't even shave and the women had about a pound of makeup slapped on them. I ,also, like that cannons and planes don't hurt them, so, let's shoot at them with 9MM pistols.

That being said, next week is "Big Ass Spider" and I will be watching hoping for the one good one.

What are the chances that this won't be the one ?

Útil
•
35

10

sgm31913 abr 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Bad script plus horde of non-actors trump three good actors.

Útil
•
21

5

suite9212 abr 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
Aliens beneath the sea
Aliens hiding under the sea within the Bermuda triangle abduct the president of the United States (John Savage). A fleet under the command of Admiral Hansen (Linda Hamilton of 'Terminator' fame) enters the area to save the president and kick some tentacle-thing butt! Funny coincidence that they already have a scientist on board, namely Dr Zimmer (Jamie Kennedy), who can tell them all about alien organisms. Chief Oliver (Trevor Donovan) disobeys the admiral's orders and goes on the rescue mission with a prototype submarine. In an underwater cave, he discovers more about the enemy. Ancient shipwrecks reveal they have been here for a century or more, time to put an end to that...

"Bermuda Tentacles" is a hilarious piece of trash, certainly a lot funnier than its makers intended it to be! I've been disappointed with a couple of other Asylum productions recently, but this one delivers.

Útil
•
9

1

unbrokenmetal20 oct 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Bermuda Testicles

only really need to say..

absolute garbage of the highest order and like the Ebola virus it should be avoided at all costs even for free or bored to death do not attempt to watch this drivel its truly shocking..

Linda Hamiltons career has spun into the bargain bin anyway and this will only falter it further..and i think this goes up there with the other films like Sharknado 2 and Prehistoric Rex which are both equally bum films

Bermuda Testicles this is indeed .. a far better and fitting name for it

utter pap

Útil
•
15

5

raidenspirit14 sept 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Oh dear...........

Straight off the bat I must confess to only watching the first 52 minutes of this movie before I had to relieve the agony by sticking red-hot needles in my eyes. This movie is both puzzling and depressing in equal measure. Why do Messrs. Rimawi and Latt appear in the opening credits, yet there is no mention of The Asylum? Why does Linda Hamilton appear? (I'm assuming that post-divorce from James Cameron she doesn't need the money). Why has she lost all acting ability? She's the same age as me, so why does she now look about 103? (Sorry Linda, but it's the truth). Why didn't the producers spend the money on a well-scripted and acted story rather than blow it on 3rd rate CGI and dodgy sets? I don't know the answer to any of these, but I do know that I found the experience of watching this movie to be quite saddening. Apart from the disappointment of seeing one of your cinema heroines being reduced to this dross, the very fact that films as bad as this continue to see the light of day engenders a sense of ennui akin to that felt when contemplating the end of mankind.

This movie's plot and the quality (or otherwise) of the lighting, music etc. are irrelevant in this case. The overall sense of crapness drowns out any potentially less than awful aspect of the film. Go and watch some paint dry, or some grass grow, or just gouge your eyes out - any of these are preferable to watching Bermuda Tentacles.

Útil
•
14

5

ianb330-112-34457914 sept 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Boringly bad

Útil
•
4

0

doctorsmoothlove21 mar 2020Enlace permanente
10
/10
The Linda Hamilton...Wow

Útil
•
5

8

PartialMovieViewer22 ene 2016Enlace permanente
7
/10
This one's O.K.
I never thought I'd ever say this, but, Bermuda Tentacles is pretty good. The CGI as is usual for Asylum features is vastly underwhelming, however the script, involving a very unusual take on the Bermuda Triangle, has a certain style that allows the cast something to work with. Linda Hamilton appears to be doing an impersonation of Kate Mulgrew's Captain Janeway at times, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Other actors more than keep their dignity with controlled performances for the most part. Director Lyon really did a good job with this. The final scenes, with it's horrible decision to be made actually got an emotional reaction from me, something no feature from this company has ever managed to do. Like I said the special effects are below par, with a little too much stock footage, however,one has to wonder what this might have looked like with quadruple the budget. Congratulations Asylum, this time you did good.

Útil
•
17

20

Mark-12917 abr 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
Air Force One goes down. Tentacles come up!

Útil
•
6

1

michaelRokeefe23 ago 2016Enlace permanente
2
/10
Bemuda Stenchicles

You'd think that after all the years the Sc-Fi Channel and Asylum have been churning out absolute dross, one day they'd actually get a half decent movie out (law of averages). All it would take is the budget of say, four of their dumb movies, a decent script and FX team, and a few well known faces to star on screen. and they might produce something worth watching. Instead they keep trying to feed us eyeball melting,coma inducing trash like this movie. And believe me.......this is a real stinker!! Lynda Hamilton and John Savage must have been hard up to appear in this one. What WERE they thinking? The extremely thin plot involves the Air Force One being downed in a thunder storm over the Bermuda Triangle. The President escapes in his escape pod only to become stranded at the bottom of the ocean. The ensuing rescue effort wakens an alien see monster who's not very happy and procedes to cause havok among the U.S Naval rescue fleet. Cue special effects of the worst kind and even worse acting and music. It's all very gung-ho and cheesy, and very much NOT in a good way. It doesn't even fall into the catagory of "I't so bad it's funny. If you've watched one Asylum movie then you 'll pretty much know what kind of viewing experience you're going to get, so don't say you haven't been warned. If on the other hand you haven't, trust me. You'll be asking yourself why for the love of all that's holy did you bother.

Útil
•
3

0

freezageeza196624 ene 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Just horrible
I won't review what others have already said about this movie but couldn't they hire at least someone from the Navy to help with protocol? They're sailors, not soldiers, sailors don't salute uncovered (that's without a hat for you civilians) let alone on ship. Speaking of salutes, who taught them to salute, Beetle Bailey? I could go on but could only stand this driver for about 15 minutes.

Útil
•
3

0

moskolar-701-11569317 mar 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Another problem
Another problem Is that when the seals get into the Prometheus they all take specific positions to operate the submarine only problem is the Prometheus is brand new they haven't trained on it and seals are not trained to operate that kind of vessel it's not their job

Útil
•
3

0

stetler-942-35190311 mar 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Disgusting
Most worst movie i hve ever seen. even graphic is too bad

Útil
•
3

0

infonahin24 abr 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Worst Movie
One of the worst Movie i have ever watched. Funny VFX, Graphics, Actings etc.

Útil
•
3

0

Skywalker97726 abr 2020Enlace permanente
4
/10
Had a good laugh.
You will be surely disappointed if you go in expecting a serious monster movie. It was definitely intended to be one, but the awful VFX work and the over the top acting make it a hilariocity.

Pretty much every actor in the movie was terrible, yes, even experienced actors like Linda Hamilton. And towards the end if seemed like they were going for some kind of a love interest between the Lieutenant and the guy rescuing the president which fell flat.

Overall a pretty terrible movie that is so bad it's unintentionally good.

Útil
•
2

0

kiolamika3 nov 2019Enlace permanente
1
/10
Just get a big hedge clipper and chop it in two.

Útil
•
2

0

mark.waltz24 ene 2021Enlace permanente
8
/10
Awesomely terrible.
I enjoyed the movie. Cheesy, ridiculous, horrible effects. Everything you love about a syfy movie.

Útil
•
1

2

laciesly8 feb 2021Enlace permanente
6
/10
Not bad :)
It's a decent sci-fi movie. The acting's decent, the special effects are not bad - they are believable enough. The concept's interesting and different. Don't quite know why this is getting so much hate - I've seen so much worse sci-fi lol I'm kind of a fan of bad sci-fi and disaster movies, and this one is a pleasant surprise. Only one little complaint - if anyone, even the president, pointed his finger at me like that, I'd be really pissed, and probably decide he's a jackass ;> All-in-all, a fine Sunday afternoon, folding the laundry while it's raining out kind of time-waster.

Útil
•
3

2

asage194 ago 2020Enlace permanente
2
/10
Hoping I never have to watch this again - a steaming pile of squib

The first review I read about this, titled "Linda! No!" by Mike Boyd (https://www.imdb.com/review/rw3032065/) actually captured my feelings about Linda Hamilton's involvement in this terrible film perfectly.

Air Force One crashes somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle. The Navy is sent to rescue the president, headed up by Linda Hamilton's Admiral Linda Hansen, and her charges. Things get weird when they are attacked by alien-esque tentacles which have the ability to shoot. The entire Navy is ground to a halt due to the giant tentacles. A maverick Naval officer, Chief Trip Oliver, who has had run in's with the admiral before manages to steal a sub and talk a crew into falling him into rescuing the president. They discover an underwater cave which is also a graveyard for everything that has been lost in the Bermuda Triangle, also in this cave though is an alien space ship, presumably which was controlling the tentacles too. They rescue the president but have awoken the alien force. The space ship takes flight and starts destroying things, slowly heading for land and larger populations. It's up to the Navy to destroy is and save the world.

Bad acting... actually let me be clear - REALLY REALLY BAD ACTING with a terrible script to work from judging by the lines that are delivered. Everything felt flat, including the terrible acting when the sub was being thrashed about - William Shatner and the original Star Trek cast looked more authentic when they were getting shaken around on the Enterprise - and that was cheesy and camp - this film is just awful at it. Terrible and cheap special effects which could have been beaten by a preschool class and a box of play-doh. A plot with more holes than cartoon Swiss cheese. Poor pacing which mixed a sprint with a crawl at different and inappropriate times. Obvious continuity mistakes and gaffes throughout - did you not see the holes in the atmosphere suit, or the helicopter than changed make/model between different shots. Worse of all, despite all the above, the thing I really couldn't overlook - the film gives the impression it's taking itself seriously!!! At least with things like "Sharknado" you know that its tongue in cheek and it's not taking itself seriously. This film seems to think it's the next "Independence Day". If Linda Hamilton had of turned to the camera after delivering some terrible dialogue, and winked to show that she knew this was a steaming pile too, maybe then I'd have forgiven the film for not thinking it was an undiscovered masterpiece of B-Movie movies.

Sorry, I can only give this 2 out of 10, and that's only because I didn't turn it off. I really wanted to, but managed to resist the urge. I really hope I don't have to watch this rubbish ever again.

Útil
•
3

1

one9eighty28 ago 2018Enlace permanente
1
/10
Can SyFy produce any good movies?

Writing for online website HorrorNews.Net, Shawn Handling gave the movie a highly negative review and concluded, "I think it’s one of the worst that has been produced and should have been sunk with the rest of those missing ships."[4]

After chomping through the fish population, thousands of starved lampreys begin attacking the citizens of a sleepy lake town, and the community scrambles to stay alive.

3
/10
Killer eels slither up Christopher Lloyd's butt

In this movie, killer eels go through the plumbing, slither up Christopher Lloyd's butt, then pop out his mouth.

That's horrifying on oh, so many levels that have nothing to do with this being an effective horror picture, which it is not.

That the famously reclusive character actor apparently needed the dough so badly that he'd add this call-in DTV role to his Reverend Jim / Doc Brown / Uncle Fester repertoire is sad enough. That he shakes and gesticulates in every of his few scenes like he's got the delirium tremens makes me worry for his sobriety.

But when the scariest thing in your horror movie is Shannen Doherty's face -- most specifically her Botox-frozen lips and cig-poisoned skin pallor -- you're gonna want to use your digital effects to make your lead actress look at least a bit less revolting than your vampire water snakes.

You didn't here. Ugh. Not ugh blood-sucking eels. Ugh Shannen Doherty.

Nobody dies spectacularly; none of the hot girls take their clothes off; the ending's a letdown. The Asylum, ladies and gentlemen.

Netflix "Night of the Creeps" or "Slither" instead for a movie that takes awesomely better advantage of its similarly dumb premise.

Útil
•
12

4

mikemdp8 ago 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
Just when you thought it was safe�. Ah, forget it! It's never safe to go back into the water!!

Knowing (and dreading�) the The Asylum production studios, it has to be said immediately that "Blood Lake: etc�" is a lot less rubbishy then their usual work. By no means should you expect a great movie, obviously, but at least this isn't as insultingly retarded and preposterous as for example - oh I don't know - "Sharknado" or "Mega Piranha". The main reasons why this film is more or less a success, I presume, are the original choice of animal species (so original even that Animal Planet aired the film) and the fact that it's largely an old-fashioned type of 'creature feature horror flick in terms of plot, characters and structure. Haters could of course quote this last argument to claim that "Blood Lake" is very clichéd and derivative, but I firmly believe that ALL animal attack movies are fundamentally a rip-off of the almighty "Jaws". Although filmed in sunny California, the events supposedly takes place in a little lake town in the state of Michigan. They struggle with a lamprey infestation, and after the aggressive eel-like monsters devoured all the fish in the lakes, they break through the hydraulic turbines and into the city's water reservoir. The simple plot easily allows all the familiar clichés to be present. There's the obnoxious mayor who severely underestimates the dangerous situation and absolutely wants to avoid at all costs that his town gets negatively portrayed in the media, the hero's disobedient teenage daughter who flees from her bedroom and ends up in peril and the chaotic beach attacks. It's all very enjoyable since director James Cullen Bressack assures there is sufficient action and not too much idiocy. The Asylum has the bad habit of over-sizing their monsters, but the lampreys luckily remain their natural modest size. The film stars a few familiar faces, most notably Christopher Lloyd as the outrageous mayor and Shannen Doherty as the concerned family mother. Shannen got a little chubby in the face, but hey, she's a woman over forty now and no longer the rebellious Breda from "Beverly Hills 90210".

Útil
•
10

4

Coventry1 ago 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
This Movie Should Have Been Filmed In Michigan
This movie wasn't bad considering it was done by the Asylum. The same Asylum who did all those "cheesy" SyFy movies. The only thing that ruined this movie was the fact that I've lived in Michigan most of my life, and the scenery was not Michigan. It was California. Not taking anything away from California, but I'm familiar with that area, and it is much more beautiful than in the movie. They didn't use a fictatious lake in the movie, and they could have added to the movie by filming it in the area. The only thing that was Michigan in this movie was the license plates on the vehicles, and maybe the Sea Lampreys. The movie seemed to be well done otherwise, and the acting was OK. I was surprised to find this movie airing on Animal Planet. I missed a good portion of it, but it showed again, so I was able to record it to my DVR. If you like a decent monster flick this one will work in a pinch.

Útil
•
8

5

gjburton5626 may 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Why???????

As someone who grew up watching good monster flicks, it kills me to see what has happened to the genre over the years, what with the crappy CGI and lack of effort from everyone involved. Sadly instead of getting better, things just keep on getting worse as demonstrated by the recent "Blood Lake: Attack of the Killer Lampreys". Airing on Animal Planet (Animal Planet? What the hell!!!) it presents your run of the mill nature gone wild story when more aggressive than normal blood sucking lampreys (scary, real-life snake like fish) invade a lake near a small town in Michigan. Now in the right hands, this may have ended up being some what of a decent flick. Unfortunately, it becomes a prime example of bad movie making without the so bad it's good quality. A big problem with the film is that there is not a single ounce of tension to be found anywhere. Instead, people just die violent deaths and you end up with something more disgusting than scary. Second, the special effects, (if you can call them that!) would make even the crappiest effects from fifty years ago look spectacular in comparison. But perhaps the biggest reason why the film fails is the lack of care from the actors. In the old days, when actors did monster flicks they undoubtedly knew they weren't doing Shakespeare. But that didn't stop them from giving everything they had to the part and as a result, even a cheap grade B movie could end up being something memorable. Here, you can just tell the actors' hearts just aren't in it. Even Christopher Lloyd (Yes, that Christopher Lloyd!) fails to give his usual eccentric, bigger than life performance. Then again, looking at what he has to work with, I can't say I blame him and the same would probably go to all the other actors involved. If Animal Planet wants to have its own drama shows, then maybe they should bring back productions like "Lost Tapes". It may have been a bit of a rip off of "The Blair Witch Project", but at least the people involved there gave a damn about what they were doing. I could go on but you get the point. My best advice to you is to avoid this film at all costs and as for the actors involved, disavow and deny that you had any part in this disaster what so ever!!

Útil
•
23

10

bayardhiler27 may 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
Terrible Acting !!!
I normally like to watch these types of movies, once in a while. I enjoy them as comedic entertainment. But, I have to say this movie was not even entertaining. The acting was just awful from everyone, especially the guy in charge of eliminating the problem, and husband to Shannon. Ugh. Skip this one, there are others much better than this.

Útil
•
2

0

ThothsGirl195911 ene 2022Enlace permanente
1
/10
Invasive lampreys cry, "Havoc!" and let loose the eels of war!

Útil
•
9

7

plattfamily525 may 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Really?
Anyone that even remotely liked this movie is ether brain dead or worked on its production. There is just nothing good to say about it except it does end. The story is stupid, the special effects are as fake as the setting, there are no palm trees in Michigan, the music sounds more like it should be playing in a funeral home, the acting is really bad, I am just amazes that Americans waste there time making something so bad that a person feels robbed of his own time watching it. I would have not even given it one star but there is no option for that. The people that made this movie should be ashamed of themselves. Christopher Loyd has sunk to a low level and I really like him and it is sad that this is all he can get as a acting job. The only thing I wanted to happen to the cast is they all should have been killed by the Lampreys, that would be the only justification for staring in this mess of a movie.

Útil
•
11

11

mrlmann16 nov 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Oh Jeez
I only downloaded and watched this movie because of Zack Ward. But I couldn't bear to watch any other scene without him in it, it really seemed that he was the only one that actually was good at acting out of the entire cast. I'll at least give this a two because I really love him. It also made me mad that they didn't give him a role as the main character, come on people! Give my boy some love and give him the role of the main character. If you love Zack Ward just watch the scenes that include him, but if you don't really know who he is don't watch this awful film.

Útil
•
3

1

alexandriadziura16 nov 2017Enlace permanente
4
/10
My Review Of "Blood Lake: Attack Of The Killer Lampreys"

Útil
•
3

1

ASouthernHorrorFan8 dic 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Messy, very messy

As awful as Blood Lake: Attack of the Killer Lampreys is, I didn't think it was entirely without redeeming values. Christopher Lloyd(often has been one of the better aspects of bad movies, and he's had a fair share of those) is immensely fun to watch, Ciara Hanna is very sassy and actually seems to give a toss about the situation and there are some nicely composed shots here and there. However, the CGI effects are suspect at best and for me the lampreys weren't enough of a threat, we learn absolutely nothing about them, where they come from and why they're attacking and their attacks are not well executed at all. Instead they are very repetitive and come across as silly and lacking in variety, relying on silliness and excessive gore rather than genuine tension and suspense. The most inventive the attacks get is that facial expression freeze frame when one gets impaled, which did raise a good laugh. The music could and should have been used much less and plays too much of an over-dramatic dirge. The script is very flimsy, it's corny and underwritten and never allows us to identify with the characters or care about the situation. Suspense levels are next to non-existent, the movie is often too stupid and repetitive to be fun and there are exposition and melodrama parts that really plod and come across as ham-fisted. The story is very erratically paced, mostly on the dull end when ranked on the pacing spectrum, with absolutely no surprises, while not one single character is likable. Apart from Lloyd and Hanna, the acting- from people who have actually shown some degree of acting talent- is not very good. Most of them seemed oblivious to their situation and come across as annoying and charisma-free. Shannen Doherty also looks tired and acts it too. Overall, apart from a few shots, Lloyd and Hanna(and to some extent the freeze frame) Blod Lake: Attack of the Killer Lampreys is a mess. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
7

6

TheLittleSongbird14 jun 2014Enlace permanente
8
/10
Fun and enjoyable creature creature feature

After a strange series of deaths around a small Michigan lake, the discovery of the culprit being mutated lamprey fish forces the animal control agents to take action against the creatures and the mayor who doesn't want the information getting out.

This turned out to be quite surprisingly enjoyable creature feature that has quite a bit going for it. One of the biggest pluses here is the fact that the creatures are a threat from the very beginning, with the actual attempts to coral the creatures constituting the opening moments which brings up the fact that this was an ongoing problem before we joined the story and makes for a nice change-of-pace over the usual cliché of them springing up out of nowhere and forcing the characters to deal with a suddenly-emerged threat. Here, the fact that this has been going on for awhile and there's a time limit to keep makes for a nice bit of suspense in the first half as well as the rather impressive amount of kills this one dishes out. Since the creatures are known for awhile yet their actual danger is still very much a mystery yet the creatures are loose, there's a lot of fun to be had with the multitude of amazing swarming and attack scenes here as the various creatures emerge from out of nowhere and becomes quite cheesy with the CGI creatures getting on the attack. While this in effect does give the film a lot of rather fun action scenes, especially in the later half with the house sequence coming up from every hole and drain as the continually-growing number descended upon the victims or the absolutely enjoyable and cheesy assault in the lake that manages to become far more entertaining as it goes along with the swarming creatures and disassembled bodies, the fact that the CGI done for the creatures still looks terrible is a major hurdle to overcome. Even when they're quite decent-looking, they're out-of-scale to the scene and rarely interact well with the matching plate for the human action, which really hampers it somewhat. The last thing bugging this one is the reliance on clichés to deliver the goods, for there's the reluctant mayor more obsessed with the money-making events in town than keeping people from being injured, the scientist who knows more than he's letting on despite being willing to help with the containment efforts and the family drama about just moving to the suburb away from everyone that gets old quite fast. Otherwise, there's a lot to like in this one.

Rated Unrated/R: Violence and Language.

Útil
•
8

11

kannibalcorpsegrinder28 may 2014Enlace permanente
6
/10
Movie Description
Starring Shannen Doherty (Beverly Hills 90210), Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future) and Jason Brooks (Days of Our Lives), Blood Lake: Attack of the Killer Lampreys is directed by James Cullen Bressack (Hate Crime, Pernicious) and sees the cast battle lampreys – eel-like fish with huge teeth and funnel-shaped mouths – after they slide their way into the city's sewer system and start terrorizing the residents of a small Michigan town. Brooks plays Michael, a fish and wildlife expert who moves to the town with his wife, Cate (Doherty), after being summoned by the town mayor, Akerman (Lloyd), to help deal with its attacking fish problem. River Monsters star Jeremy Wade also makes a cameo. But with these blood-suckers on the loose, the town's residents quickly learn that a casual dip in the pool or routine trip to the toilet can turn deadly as the lampreys hunt for their next victim.

Útil
•
8

16

demona_325 may 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Really???
This movie is so dumb it actually has moments of unintended humor.

Útil
•
2

1

goniometer27 jun 2021Enlace permanente
3
/10
Equal opportunity film making

Just seen this movie on Pick TV channel.

Well, I was entertained but just not in the way that was intended... Or was it?

Honestly, everything about this movie is atrocious. Literally EVERYTHING.

But despite that, I watched the whole thing. Why? Because I can only assume it was filmed on a shoestring budget and presumably without a script or any any idea about continuity or without considering if the cast could act - everyone could have a go at acting. Lovely. They even went to the trouble of hiring people with zero sense of balance as at every opportunity people would run up to water or places in general with the Lampreys in the vicinity and just fall over.

Honestly I don't want to go into detail as it's not really worth the effort but if you like awful movies which waste an hour and a half of your life then this is worth a go.

Útil
•
2

1

jonathancolley-885-70486024 jul 2018Enlace permanente
5
/10
Surprisingly, it's not all that bad

BLOOD LAKE: ATTACK OF THE KILLER LAMPREYS is the latest monster movie from those schlock purveyors at The Asylum. It's as cheesy as it sounds, but somehow also quite nifty for an Asylum film and certainly nowhere near as bad as I'd feared. It comes across as a rip-off of PIRANHA 3D in its depiction of a multitude of underwater menaces and even features Christopher Lloyd to hammer home the similarities.

The story is simplistic and barely worth recounting. A local water supply is contaminated by lampreys with a taste for human flesh and various authority figures have to combat the menace. I like the underwater nature of these monster flicks as you get all the scenes of swimming pools and showers being invaded by the creatures as well as the local lake. Plus, the CGI isn't too bad here. It's no better than in a giant monster film but the fact that the creatures are small just makes them look more realistic.

Shannen Doherty is the big name here, but she's clearly past it and looking embarrassed by the whole thing. The rest of the cast are as wooden as they come, aside from the hammy Lloyd. It's a predictable, action-focused romp that nevertheless offers plenty of creature action and death and destruction, and it's also a notably gruesome offering with blood everywhere. It doesn't take much for a monster flick to entertain me and BLOOD LAKE just about gets by in this respect.

Útil
•
2

2

Leofwine_draca6 dic 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
A movie about SCIENCE!
Behold, we are the human race, and this is a movie about people getting eaten by fish. What we are is half ape half machine, fleshy automatons programmed by words and beliefs rather than computer code. Also, since this is a made for TV movie, there is no nudity. The good news is since it's a TV-14 movie, while no nudity is shown, sexuality and sensuality are on in full lurid display. Lamprey! It's a fish. Fishes are what we used to be before we walked out of the sea. The sea is what we used to be before we were fish. I do not eat fish often, but that's mainly because I live in a land locked place and any fish that comes our way was long ago shipped and frozen.

Útil
•
5

13

jessegehrig23 oct 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Awful

Útil
•
2

4

adriangr2 ago 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Shannon Doherty takes on an army of starved Lampreys

2016 brought us:... Blood Lake: Attack of the Lampreys. About "starved" Lampreys who scramble to land everywhere to attack Shannon Doherty and a handfull of other brave trouble-seekers just waiting and willing to fall in to a myriad of dangerous plot devices involving aggressive lampreys. If this were made in the 1980s with the right creepy score, atmosphere and dark ambiance, it could've been a classic. But instead we have a tv-grade production that takes place in broad daylight here with cheese ball production quality its more like a glutton of bad cgi & decisions. Watch as our carefully selected heroes fling from one moment of terrifying peril to the next. Works more as an unintentional comedy than it does horror. No real thrills or scares at all. The plot is mostly just silly survival decisions that amounts to unintentional comedy. Watch as a random family (alone?) struggles to cope with aggressive hoards of Cgi lampreys. A paycheck was needed. These characters are clearly ill-prepared to take on such an army of Lampreys. I have to wonder why only this one family are involved in cleaning up this mess. Silly tv grade family movie possibly made for kids based on the style of it. The music screams tv family movie. Odd schlock.

Útil
•
1

2

influxtwo9 may 2020Enlace permanente
5
/10
Another take on the original "Piranha," but with lampreys (eel-like creatures)

A town in Michigan is threatened when myriad aggressive lampreys infest the reservoir and get into the water system. Jason Brooks & Shannen Doherty play the main protagonists with Ciara Hanna as their daughter, Nicholas Adam Clark as her beau and Zack Ward as a Fish & Wildlife worker. Christopher Lloyd is also on hand as the mayor.

"Blood Lake" (2014), sometimes subtitled "Attack of the Killer Lampreys," is a creature feature very similar to "Piranha" (1978/1995), but with bits of other flicks like "Beware, the Blob" (1972), "Squirm" (1976) and "Night of the Creeps" (1986). While this is a production from The Asylum, it's pretty much on par with those films, disregarding the heavy use of cartoonish CGI. The original "Piranha" (1978) is easily the best of the bunch and should be one's first choice.

The trailer makes it seem like "Blood Lake" is more comedic than it is, but actually has the same tone as "Piranha," which means mostly serious with a few bits of humor thrown in, such as the creative fate of Lloyd's character. Despite being a TV production, the principles take the material serious and give it their all. Brooks makes for a great protagonist, Doherty looks good at 42 during shooting, and Ciara Hanna is winsome enough.

The film runs 1 hour, 27 minutes, and was shot in Los Angeles County, particularly Santa Clarita, which is located in the high country just north of L. A., as well as Long Beach. The problem is that most of the locations don't look like Michigan, but rather SoCal. The aridness and mountains are a dead giveaway. In one scene they forgot to switch the license plate of the Fish & Wildlife truck.

GRADE: C.

Útil
•
1

2

Wuchakk7 nov 2021Enlace permanente
1
/10
Absolute Garbage
If 0 were possible id rate it that. The CGI is absolute garbage and the only scar thing about it was that an amazing actress such as Shannen Doherty wasted her time on this sh*t when she could've been off trying to bring back Chamred. I do not and never will understand how this movies flame was provided enough oxygen to burn and live

Útil
•
1

3

sapphyblake4 mar 2017Enlace permanente
10
/10
A pretty darn good comedy.
A great comedy feature that was filmed excellently and is even better when watched in 3-D. To add 3-D capability, go out to lake Michigan and swim into the lake a bit and become bait. Its really grand, trust me. The movie was all and all good. It was hilarious when the weed whacker whacked up all those dang lamprey fools! It was stupendous. Being from the Gambia it cost me a great deal to get to Michigan to see it in 3-D, but it was completely worth it. I sincerely suggest that every human goa nd enjoy this movie. My dog and my son really enjoyed it, the wife not as much as she was attacked by lampreys at the age of 4, but the rest of us loved it. I loved the movie. A great movie, would recommend for young children and in 3-D. Enjoy away my Blood Suckers.

Útil
•
0

4

woltei14 dic 2016Enlace permanente
6
/10
Why is everyone trashing this movie?

Útil
•
2

4

gilligan196516 ago 2016Enlace permanente
5
/10
Something kills on land and in the water...

Útil
•
0

1

paul_haakonsen29 dic 2015Enlace permanente
3
/10
Predictable, and this ain't Michigan!
First of all, since when are there mountain ranges at Lake Charlevoix? And Lake Charlevoix is way more beautiful, not to mention bigger. Why not just leave the setting in California? The acting is ok, but the plot is nothing original; it's standard sci-fi, done with lampreys this time. I will say they are well-crafted and creepy. There are a few "big" name stars, and some comedy is thrown into the mix, which I appreciate in this type of movie. The special effects are okay, the little brother is cute, and the dialog isn't real corny, so there are some plusses to this movie, but if you never see it, you won't have missed much.

Útil
•
0

0

lauraaelliott9 nov 2024Enlace permanente
5
/10
THOSE BITES ARE JUST HICKIES

Having escaped death by the skin of their teeth after the unprecedented meteorological phenomenon in Sharknado (2013), the lucky survivors, Fin, and his former wife, April, find themselves en route to Manhattan, to warn the world about the freakish incident. However, once more, heavy, shark-ridden storm clouds gather in the sky, setting the stage for yet another blood-drenched disaster in the making. This time, the unsuspecting Big Apple is the epicentre of the ferocious tornado, as not one but two violent cyclones are converging into a massive atmospheric anomaly, threatening to level the entire city. Now, veteran Fin has to brave the elements and do what he does best before New York City turns into an endless all-you-can-eat buffet. But, the first Sharknado was already too much to handle. Who can survive a second one?

5
/10
Equally as bad (good) as the original plus cameos

Yup "Shark happens" This is definite junk food for the brain in a so bad it's awesome kind of way. The ultimate in guilty pleasure, Sharknado 2 is equally as bad (good) as the original although you can tell they had a bigger budget for the sequel because the special effects are better and there are a ton of cameos.

Ian Ziering, I have to give it to him here, he really gives his all and was fun as hell to watch running around New York saving the day, kicking shark ass with his chainsaw.

Lots of laughs, a good time, exactly what I was expecting from a made for TV B-movie. The opening scene with Robert Hays (Airplane) is awesome, it does drag a bit at times but filled with enough blood and epic cheese moments to make it through. Tara Reid is still god awful. The GMA guys were surprisingly hilarious. 7/30/14

Útil
•
35

4

juneebuggy25 sept 2014Enlace permanente
4
/10
The novelty is already wearing off.

Having survived the Sharknado in Los Angeles, pro-surfer Fin Shepard (Ian Ziering) and his ex-wife April (Tara Reid) fly to New York City to promote their book, How To Survive A Sharknado, where they find the same thing happening all over again, only on an even bigger scale.

I usually prefer my crap movies to be bad by accident, although I do admit to enjoying intentionally crap disaster flick Sharknado just a bit more than I probably should have done. With this sequel, director Anthony C. Ferrante attempts to outdo his first film in terms of sheer silliness, and largely succeeds with some truly ridiculous set-pieces, but with essentially the same plot (full of gaping plot holes, not that that matters one bit), and equally dire CGI effects, I found that the novelty soon wore off, leaving me rather frustrated by the fact that there are now at least two more sequels, and a bloody good chance that I'll make myself watch them.

Útil
•
5

1

BA_Harrison18 nov 2016Enlace permanente
5
/10
Sharknado 2: The Second One

"Sharknado 2: The Second One" is a 2014 disaster movie and a sequel to the 2013 film "Sharknado". The film is directed by Anthony C. Ferrante, and stars Tara Reid, Ian Ziering, Vivica A. Fox, Kari Wuhrer, Kelly Osbourne, Benjy Bronk, Judah Friedlander, Andy Dick, and TNA superstar Kurt Angle. A freak weather system turns its deadly fury on New York City, unleashing a Sharknado on the population and its most cherished, iconic sites - and only Fin and April can save the Big Apple.

In a sort of twisted sense, I kind of love this movie. Not that I think it's good from a filmmaking level, but on the amount of entertainment value "Sharknado 2" provided me. For any film I saw this year, it gave me some of the year's biggest laughs. Said laughs did come because the film basically murders logic in every sense of the world. Jumping the shark doesn't cover it. Compared to the first film, it both bigger and ridiculous, and it's so much fun. It feels like everyone behind the project knew what they are doing, and just have a ball with it, and so did I.

As I stated earlier, the film definitely isn't a master-class of filmmaking. The acting is the quality of what I expect from a film like this(Which is either average or really bad.). Also there were a few characters in the film I failed to see their purpose being in the story. Yet strangely though it strangely fit's the film absurdity, plus characters that actually play a part of the story, are pretty fun to watch. The visuals are pretty horrid form a technical perspective, though again, it's fits the movie better than if they were actually good. To avoid being repetitive, "Sharknado " does fail in what a film should do, but it gives it a charm that I can only find in this, and the original.

Útil
•
11

6

ILoveFilm199830 jul 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Why do people like this!?

Útil
•
26

14

wildcard972 ago 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Actually is a Hurricane.

Útil
•
19

12

interstellar888810 ago 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
So completely and utterly silly but entertaining!

Útil
•
9

6

MsMovie30 jul 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
This time New York must brace for the Sharknado.

Útil
•
2

0

Aaron13755 ago 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
The Top Forty Reasons I Wasted My Night with This Number Two

Útil
•
17

17

thesar-29 ago 2014Enlace permanente
7
/10
From a shark's belly to the Big Apple.

Útil
•
12

2

michaelRokeefe8 ago 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
Life is way too short.
The Sharknado series has to be one of the dumbest of all time. I don't understand what all the hype is about. People are saying they love this movie. Anyone who says that has obviously never seen a good movie. The first one was bad. The second one was almost as bad. The acting, the dialogue, the characters, the sharks, the story, the whole concept. They all suck.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for horror flicks that don't take themselves seriously. Piranha, for example. Or the Feast trilogy. Stupid, yet entertaining. Sharknado 2 is just plain stupid, as is the original.

Life is too short to waste on trash like this.

Útil
•
9

9

doubleb5823 ago 2014Enlace permanente
10
/10
The Whimsical Adventure We All Deserved.
After viewing the tour DE force that was the original Sharknado (2013), most viewers were left in awe, and with a roaring hunger to enter this magical world again. Thankfully these brave viewers did not have to suffer for long as the Man Wizard, Anthony C. Ferrante, quickly got to work on his next masterpiece, Sharknado 2. Naturally Sharknado 2 was given the title "The Second One". What else would you call it. He quickly enlisted the A List of Tara Reid, and Ian Zering. Both probably swamped with scripts from the likes of the Coen Brothers and Tarantino said, "We need to revisit this story". And with that the world won that day. It is hard to think that a movie can end wars, hunger, famine, rape, but this movie can. I can imagine that after the national viewing tonight that the war raging in Isreal will likely sease and a wave of global peace and harmony will overtake the gentle minds of a soft warm generation. This is the movie we asked for, this is the movie the world deserved.

Útil
•
62

39

ChrisMichael8130 jul 2014Enlace permanente
7
/10
Tornadoes and sharks and cameos, oh my!

Caution: Falling sharks alert. Get out your buzz saws, or Kelly Rippa's high heels.

Once again, sharks have hitch-hiked along with tornadoes in order to dive bomb victims from the sky during a perfect sharkstorm. Our finny friends have flown 3,000 miles east of LA to hammer a bunch of cameo appearance stars in New York. Speaking of flying, we open with the finest Sharks-On-a-Plane sequence ever filmed.

The Weather channel's shark funnel graphics of sharks spinning around and the "War on Sharks" bit are comic genius. Shark density reports such as "sharks are falling at a rate of 2 inches per hour," so you will not be caught off guard. Unless, of course, you stay outside, where all the sharks are flying around, which seems to be what everybody in this movie does.

SyFy has been the biggest master of camp and cheese on cable, and they readily admit it with self-mockery such as this. It shows a lot of humorous imagination, and the many celebrities in cameos take a good turn at poking fun at themselves.

Whether you like this or not will depend upon whether the approach of psychotic silliness hits your funny bone or not. If you do like that style of humor, then I recommend it wholeheartedly.

Útil
•
28

11

MartianOctocretr531 jul 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Sharknado 2: Sharknado

Disappointing followup (which I enjoyed even less the second time I watched it) begins with an over indulgence of glaring Airplane references left and right, reference to the Twilight Zone episode, Terror at 40.000 feet, followed by some of the most obvious product placement I can recall. Subwaynado would almost be a better title for this one. I enjoy Subway sandwiches, I have them once or twice a week, but I don't want to watch a 90-minutes long commercial for them. More obsessed with product placement and cameo appearances than schlocky laughs, this drags for too much of its run time- not enough shark action this time around. Fin's brother was a pain to endure, his character served no purpose but to draw out the film's run time, and to add Mark McGrath solely for any name value he might bring to this one. The opening scenes of him in New York are curiously photographed from low camera angles and in constant motion, which made me feel like I was sitting in a chair, rolling around on wheels, and looking UP at them.

The makers of this film knew people would watch and laugh at anything that had Sharknado in its title, and therefore dropped the ball and decided not to revel in the plots absurdities, but resort to continuity porn, product placement, and celebretard cameos. They even sunk to using the exact same shark images for the promotional poster.

This Second One is almost a satire of the first film; a satire of a satire of bad horror films, with the screenwriters too obviously laughing at their own jokes. The opening theme song, "We're all gonna die in a Sharknado!" is an obvious example.

If (when) there is Sharknado 3, or Sharknado III, or Sharknado! Sharknado! Sharknado!, here's to hoping the screenwriters return to the enjoyable absurdness which made the first film so funny.

Útil
•
13

18

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki31 jul 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Nothing special in this sequel...

Útil
•
9

12

paul_haakonsen31 jul 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
No More, Please

Útil
•
10

15

PartialMovieViewer30 jul 2014Enlace permanente
2
/10
Sharknado 2 is a bore from beginning to end and actually the type of "boring" that requires an energy drink to keep awake. Yep, that type of bad.

The first Sharknado aired on July 11 of last year and became a sensation for the SyFy Channel. I do admit that it was a film that helped me get introduced to the channel but Sharkando was really no different from what other films typically are on the Syfy Channel. It has a low budget, actors who careers are long gone or who are no-name actors and as Sharknado is, Syfy films are always filled with the most ridiculous plots.

Even if you didn't like Sharknado, Sharknado 2 was going to happen no matter what. It is a money- maker idea used to help promote the SyFy channel even more and yeah, the movie sadly had its fans. After a dangerous flight to New York that shows signs of another shark attack, Fin (Ian Ziering) must lead his family members through a shark attack in the Big Apple in this new sequel.

You must admit that the Sharknado films are original and there are no films like it. This sequel though can compare to sequels like Hangover 2 or Home Alone 2. They are all sequels with a different setting but they really do nothing new. Here, it's just that attacking-shark plot though it has less sharks this time around. The characters all have no substance. The budget is of course low and the effects are typical SyFy effects which to put it mildly isn't saying much. With the action scenes, let's just say I've seen enough of them, sorry.

Maybe the only thing that I got out of this movie was the atmosphere. As a fan of major league baseball who enjoys traveling to a handful of MLB Stadiums through the year, it is clever for this film to use actual shots inside and out of Citi Field. It has cameos every so often which is a little different considering this a SyFy film and shows ultimately what an impact the first film was that actors would want to do cameos for the sequel. It has a cheap little theme song which sounds kind of like that corny band Bowling for Soup with a similar vibe. These are nice little things to the film but not enough and nowhere close for this film to get by.

With a third sequel already set to come out next year, this series is far from over and I expect it to be no different from what we have already have seen. For a film trying to run off what they thought was previous success and old formulas, Sharknado 2 is a bore from beginning to end and actually the type of "boring" that requires an energy drink to keep awake. Yep, that type of bad.

Útil
•
6

7

alexcomputerkid28 ago 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
Go-go-go- Go, Go, Go - we're all gonna die in a Sharknado

Útil
•
3

2

one9eighty17 nov 2014Enlace permanente
1
/10
Sharknado 2 has no laughs and no energy

I vividly remember a sweltering Saturday night in July of 1975 when my wife and I stood in line with a couple of thousand other people at the Park Theater in Memphis, Tn. We finally procured our tickets, found a couple of empty seats and I purchased two large Cokes� to quench our thirst and returned to my seat. Every seat was occupied as we prepared to watch a sizzling movie that changed forever the way humans viewed the ocean and it's horrifying contents. I'll never forget Clint's nails on the chalkboard and I'll never forget the 2 hours of the same that I endured last night as I watched a travesty called Sharknado 2.

Sharks have been on this earth around 450,000,000 years. I'm confident that if they could assemble and communicate, they would gladly agree to jettison 100 million years of streamlining evolution just to peacefully live in an era of time that did not include Asylum Films and Tara Reid. Never before in the history of film have these magnificent creatures been so misrepresented, disrespected, taken out of their natural element and Subway�ized.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time with this review. Sharknado 2 was awful on all levels of bad and was stripped of all the energy and humor of the first offering. The initial ten minute plane landing scene that was trying to tribute to Airplane was painful and seemed to drag on for an hour. My hopes for an early exit of Tara Reid's were dashed as she survived the mid-air shark attack and only lost a hand. I think that one huge reason that this movie went down the toilet is that they went out of their way to try to humanize Tara Reid in this issue, and failed miserably. Gone was the brooding indifference that we all loved in the first film. She was even more horrible when she tried to smile and act, and what in the hell was the point of the scene where she rescued Little Orphan Annie from behind the dressing screen at the hospital? WTF?

The plot was worse than horrible with Fin's goofy brother and family being in the way of everything...Why were they even there? As the movie mercifully progressed, we had flaming sharks from above and lurking sharks from rising waters below. Without going into any more painful details, the New Yorkers were rallied and with brooms, pitchforks, torches and Booyahs!, they managed to defeat the sharks and tornadoes and restore order to the city.

I must mention the relentless product whoring that began immediately with two Coors Light� cans on the airplane and continued with Subway� everywhere, with even that worthless Jared making a cameo. There were homages to Airplane, The Evil Dead, Happy Days w/Fonz and continuous product slutting with Yellow Cab�, Citi Bike�, more Subway� and no telling what else I missed while I was dozing off. What made matters even worse were the incredibly long commercial breaks, but considering what I was watching, these may have been a blessing in disguise.

Útil
•
13

25

RuthlessGoat31 jul 2014Enlace permanente
6
/10
A good time
Who thought they could top the first Sharknado but they have. This time the sharknado hits New York City. From the opening airplane sequence to sharks in the subway to the Empire State Building Sharknado 2 is truly awesome. Who doesn't want to see sharks in a skyscraper?! There is a ton of celebrity cameos in this movie. There's nothing like Matt Lauer and Al Roker reporting on a sharknado. The terrible cgi in the movie makes it even better. The end of this movie is one of the most epic endings ever. It even tops the chainsaw scene from the first Sharknado. I don't think I could have asked for anything more from this movie. I don't know about you but I am for sure looking forward to Sharknado 3.

Útil
•
26

14

boisenb31 jul 2014Enlace permanente
3
/10
It's raining sharks in New York City
This second Sharknado movie has Ian Ziering and Tara Reid coming to visit some of Ziering's family in New York City. But they're not even arrived when while the plane is preparing to touch down and those ominous storm clouds appear and it's the Sharknado once again. They attack the plane but it's Ziering to the rescue as he brings in the big jet.

That's how it begins, but believe me folks it only gets more ridiculous as things go on. Like King Kong there's a climax on top of the Empire State Building, a romantic one. No Ziering does not marry one of the sharks.

There was an audience for these things. But they get more ridiculous as the sequels are churned out.

Útil
•
2

1

bkoganbing22 mar 2019Enlace permanente
10
/10
Mind-numbing entertainment. Loved it!

Útil
•
23

16

vcvicente31 jul 2014Enlace permanente
6
/10
When Sharks Fly

Things have calmed down since the first "Sharknado" (2013), but not for long� Romantically inclined Ian Ziering (as Fin Shepard) and raspy-voiced Tara Reid (as April Wexler) are on a flight to JFK International Airport in New York City. She is scheduled to give a speech, after authoring the successful book "How to Survive a Sharknado". He just wants a slice of New York pizza. Can't blame him. Accompanied by a theme song swiped from The Ramones, the opening credits get us off to a rollicking start. After an attack by sharks, whipped up by a sudden tornado, Mr. Ziering makes an emergency landing. Despite the fact that several passengers have their heads eaten by flying sharks, and others are whisked out of the plane, many people are reluctant to believe Ziering's dire warning about another "Sharknado". Mostly oblivious to the foreboding weather, citizens go about their everyday business...

Then, the shark hits the fan...

For years, the Syfy (formerly Sci-Fi) Channel has been slaughtering science-fiction film aficionados with the some of the worst "original movies" ever to see the green light of day. The cheap, lurid and derivative stories would sound promising during promotion – then proves themselves a cinematic disaster when viewing. The best of the quick, low-budget productions had a sense of humor. Spoofing the genre, "Sharknado" and "Ghost Shark" (2013) were surprisingly fun. Mindful of this, director Anthony C. Ferrante, writer Thunder Levin (his real name) and the "Asylum" crew respond by treating this sequel as a comedy. They seem to be saying, "We know you're laughing at us, we're laughing with you." The shark attacks are hilarious – and they wouldn't be funny with fantastic special effects and great acting. There will certainly be more "Sharknado" movies, but topping this one will be a challenge...

****** Sharknado 2: The Second One (7/30/14) Anthony C. Ferrante ~ Ian Ziering, Tara Reid, Mark McGrath, Vivica A. Fox

Útil
•
15

8

wes-connors31 jul 2014Enlace permanente
5
/10
Striker!
Worth it for the cameos alone! Not a good movie in any artistic sense, but if you want pure stupid enjoyment, here you go.

Útil
•
1

0

dagryffyn19 jul 2018Enlace permanente
4
/10
Still bad, but so enjoyable.

Having survived the great Los Angeles Sharknado, our heroes Fin and his wife - back together - are on their way to New York. The opening scene on the plane might play like a dream sequence, but proves just how unpredictable these films can be.

Ian Ziering is back as Fin, and as handsome and sexy as ever! (Gosh, he looks so good on screen). 'Sharknako 2' features seasoned actor Judd Hirsch and country superstar Billy Ray Cyrus. The acting is much better than 'Sharknado', and the entire production in general is much better. The shark effects are still very bad, though - especially for a movie made as recent as 2014. You'd think with sharks being the film's main draw card, they'd spend more time and money designing the shark effects. Then again, I suppose this is the humorist look they were aiming for...

'Sharknado 2' was seriously very entertaining - in a strange kind of way. It is faster paced than 'Sharknado', with more action and more suspense (although still a comedy). The script and dialogue are also a bit better. There's great enthusiasm from the characters to stop the Sharknado. There are a number of very unexpected kills, and there are some very funny moments (some scenes are simply funny because the visuals are so bad!!). Either way - again - I enjoyed this much more than expected.

Would I watch it again? I think so, yes.

Útil
•
1

0

paulclaassen10 oct 2020Enlace permanente
1
/10
Got everything WRONG the first one got RIGHT

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 61% rating based on 31 critics; the consensus states: "The schlock factor for Sharknado 2: The Second One is not as entertaining as its predecessor's, though fans of the brand will likely enjoy it."[11] On Metacritic, the film has a rating of 50 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[12]

Brian Lowry of Variety said the CGI sharks looked terrible.[13] Neil Genzlinger of The New York Times said that it seems nothing more than dumb fun.[14] Verne Gay of Newsday said the film doesn't take itself as seriously as the original. He also said the film is not as good as the first.[15]

Don Kaplan of the New York Daily News said the film was "a slightly better, more watchable movie than its predecessor."[16] Caroline Framke of The A.V. Club gave the film an 'A', stating the "over-hyped sequel has zero business being this much fun".[17]

In the wake of the deadly confrontation between monster and metal in Megatiburón contra mecatiburón (2014), yet another Megalodon sees the light of day after the Russians' shady drilling operation for extremely potent crystals of red mercury. As a result, the gigantic Cold-War robot of mass destruction, Kolossus, wakes up from hibernation, while, elsewhere, Dr Alison Gray is struggling to come up with a way to contain the unstoppable underwater menace. Sooner or later, nature's most effective killer and man's deadliest creation will cross paths, and then, there's no telling what these two killing machines can do. Who shall live and who shall die after the final battle between Mega Shark and Kolossus?

4
/10
While one of the better movies in the Mega Shark series, it's only passable at best

The Mega Shark movies are the kind that aren't to be expected much from, but even with that in mind I personally didn't consider either of them particularly good, some fun moments, mostly for the so-bad-it's-good value there was, but mostly they were too cheap and silly to take it even for what they were. Mega Shark vs Kolossus is one of the better movies in the series along with Mecha Shark, but for me it was only passable at best.

While the special effects are usually terrible in the Mega Shark movies, and Asylum/SyFy movies in general, they don't look too bad here. The two title monsters are not as cheap as feared and succeed in giving their scenes personality. The shark could have looked far worse as far as low-budget sharks go, a good amount of detail went into it actually, and is actually pretty fiercely menacing, rather than being goofy or bringing unintentional humour like most low-budget sharks. The kolossus character is imposingly designed and a cool, heroic character, the two's chemistry is great and help make their scenes (of which there's generally not enough, and they're a little too short) watchable. The last act especially is a lot of fun, and makes one wish that it came earlier and that the rest of the movie was to its level. The scenery is very nice and the underwater scenes are shot well. Didn't think much of the acting on the most part, but Amy Rider did a nice job.

However, the rest of the acting is pretty dire, especially from the captain whose actor seems to be channelling Samuel L. Jackson and doing so while overacting embarrassingly poorly. Illeana Douglas is also somewhat bland. The script is a mess, with the human drama scenes with its messy mix of scientific gobbledygook and military jargon struggling to make sense and they doesn't ring true at any time (actually sounding made up on the spot), and the humour parts are cheesy and contrived, the dialogue being so awkwardly awful it's cringe-worthy. It also does nothing to develop the characters or make them engaging or identifiable, they're little more than walking clichés written in the most cardboard way.

Despite coming to life in the last act, most of the movie's story is tiresomely ridiculous and dull, trying so and too hard to over-the-top and fun (even in the serious scenes, that as a result became overheated and ham-fisted) that it's tiring, especially when all the Mega Shark movies take that approach (concept-wise there's not much new either) and when you see it so many times with The Asylum/SyFy. The editing tends to be haphazard and the movie is lit in a drab way, while the direction only shows some personality in the last act but is flat everywhere else and the music is at best generic.

Overall, while one of the better movies in the Mega Shark series it is only reasonably passable. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Útil
•
9

2

TheLittleSongbird7 ago 2015Enlace permanente
3
/10
Typical Asylum studio fare.
I love the way that Asylum actively promotes recycling by throwing in random clips from U.S. Navy stock footage regardless of whether this or that particular ship has previously been used in this movie. This one has clips of an Iowa-class battleship firing its big guns that I am pretty sure were used in American Warships, as well as the mandatory sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier using the same special effect that was previously used in American Warships and Age of Ice. We also have the obligatory black actor as the senior Naval officer. No problem there, but will somebody please tell Asylum that Admirals do not tool around in destroyers, and that if you are going to film the Admiral on the bridge in open sea, it would be good not to have trees and land visible out the non-military window of the bridge they are filming on. Three stars for the three drinks you will need to get through this one.

Útil
•
8

4

tkmdelorey18 jul 2015Enlace permanente
3
/10
A new Mega Shark appears.

Útil
•
2

0

michaelRokeefe23 ago 2016Enlace permanente
5
/10
Everybit as expected...

Another "Mega Shark" movie, and with the entire series being questionable and cheesy, then there is still something alluring about creature features that involve sharks. So naturally I did sit down to watch "Mega Shark vs. Kolossus" as I had the chance to do so.

As for the cast that starred in the movie, well I can't really claim to be familiar with anyone who was in the movie, aside from Illeana Douglas . Now, that is definitely not a bad thing for me, because I do enjoy watching new faces and talents in movies. And people were actually doing good jobs with their given roles and characters, given the cheesy and campy concept of the movie.

The story in "Mega Shark vs. Kolossus" was as to be expected, and you know what you are getting yourself into here if you have seen any of the other movies in the series. If you are new to the series of "Mega Shark" movies, then do not take the movie too seriously, because it is definitely rather outrageous in concept and idea.

It should be said that the effects in this particular movie were actually quite good, and might very well range among the better of CGI and special effects seen in the "Mega Shark" movie series so far. However, I just can't grasp the concept of having sharks growl. Sure, because a silent killer is not as menacing as one making sound. But come on, a growling shark just makes it seem ridiculous.

Now, the concept idea of a massive kolossus doomsday machine was just a bit too far out there. But it did fit in well enough with the rest of the campy concept of the movie in a way.

While "Mega Shark vs. Kolossus" is not a movie experience of Shakespearian proportions, then it is still entertaining enough for what it turned out to be. If you enjoy these cheesy and campy shark creature features, then "Mega Shark vs. Kolossus" should prove entertaining for you.

Útil
•
4

0

paul_haakonsen22 ago 2017Enlace permanente
A New Low for the Series

Mega Shark vs. Kolossus (2015)

* (out of 4)

Considering how awful this movie is, I'm not going to spend too much time with the plot since we've basically got the good ol' U.S.A. going up against Russia, which leads to our giant shark battling a large robot.

MEGA SHARK VS. KOLOSSUS is the fourth film in the "Mega Shark" series and it's certainly the worst to date. I say it every time I watch a film like this but you really can't go in expecting anything in terms of quality but instead you hope to just find some cheap entertainment. Sadly, there really wasn't anything entertaining here as the entire film was a real chore to sit through and at just 90 minutes the thing feels three times longer.

I'm really not sure who thought it was a good idea to have a screenplay full of dialogue but it really backfires because this film is simply boring from start to end. The worst thing is that we're given subplots dealing with science and politics and it's just downright awful and makes for some horrid melodrama and lame comedy. The CGI effects of the two monsters were better than you'd expect but why the two didn't battle more is anyone's guess. Either way, this is a really bad movie that should just be skipped.

Útil
•
15

8

Michael_Elliott28 jul 2015Enlace permanente
2
/10
Monster Hug?

Off the coast of Brazil, a conflict erupts between the United States and Russia. A submarine, ship and weird helicopter are involved. Unfortunately, another "Mega Shark" is released. The characters thought they'd seen the last of them over a year ago, in "Mega Shark vs Mecha Shark" (2014), the best of the four stories in this series, so far. Baseball-capped Ernest Thomas (as Admiral Titus Jackson) is peeved. Elsewhere, a giant robot called "Kolossus" is released. A relic from the US/USSR Cold War, "Kolossus" is in a nasty mood. For some undecipherable reason, the two monsters meet. Maybe they want to have sex - it's difficult to tell...

Mr. Thomas makes a wise exit from this disconnected disaster. He was likewise smart as "Raj" on the old TV sitcom "What's Happening!!" Splitting the leading female star duties are spectacled commander Illeana Douglas (as Alison Gray) and tightly-attired agent Amy Rider (as Moira King). Mr. Thomas is the granddaughter of golden age Hollywood actor Melvyn Douglas. Blond Brody Hutzler (as Joshua Dane) has a little fun near the end. Apparently, director Christopher Ray and the crew were given a string of Christmas tree bulbs to use for lighting. The story makes very little sense and is almost impossible to watch with any attention.

** Mega Shark vs Kolossus (2015-05-16) Christopher Ray ~ Illeana Douglas, Amy Rider, Ernest Thomas, Brody Hutzler

Útil
•
8

6

wes-connors26 jul 2015Enlace permanente
2
/10
Pitiful addition to the series, despite the cool robot

This is one of the worst of the Asylum 'giant monster' films I've watched yet. It manages to be a much bigger disappointment than the original MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS and also wastes a premise that wouldn't have been out of place in a kaiju flick: a giant shark is once again terrorising international waters, and the danger is compounded when a giant Russian colossus comes out of the depths to also wreak havoc.

It simply feels like the guys at The Asylum weren't trying at all with this one. The special effects are very poor indeed, particularly the underwater stuff, although I admit I did get a kick out of the few scenes of the Kolossus walking around and destroying stuff (it goes back to my childhood experience with Talos in JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS). The giant shark stuff is really, really, pitiful and has a hackneyed, 'seen it all' before feel.

There aren't even any recognisable stars in this one, just a bunch of bad actors going through the motions. The CGI is horrible, the lighting is inefficient, and there's no gore or violence to speak of. It all feels like a half-hearted cartoon and is even worse than comparable stuff like BERMUDA TENTACLES - and that's saying something!

Útil
•
4

4

Leofwine_draca14 dic 2015Enlace permanente
4
/10
another ok addition to the series
Here we have the fourth instalment of the mega shark series. This time throwing in a doomsday robot called kolossus into the mix, that our heroes have to battle. The cast do ok in their roles with what they are given. The cgi is the same as always but hey its what I expected and something to watch thats entertaining enough. Altogether ok but what more do you expect from an asylum film. One thing I would like to know though is what happened to the blonde woman from the beginning.

Útil
•
1

0

LetsReviewThat2631 jul 2022Enlace permanente
4
/10
not a financially colossal movie but watchable

Útil
•
3

3

mbgdowska20 jul 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
Mega Shark vs. Kolossus

Útil
•
2

3

jboothmillard7 mar 2022Enlace permanente
2
/10
What's happening with the shark now?

Útil
•
2

3

mark.waltz24 ene 2021Enlace permanente
9
/10
The Best Mega Shark Yet!

If you're not down with SyFy Channel creature features, just save us both some grief and skip this review. If, however, you love the bargain basement Godzilla-style spectacle of The Asylum's Mega Shark series the way I do, rest assured that Mega Shark Vs. Kolossus will leave you giddy. It's a fun and fast-paced affair involving an even bigger, smarter, meaner prehistoric shark and an out-of-control Cold War robot on a collision course with one another. The cast all has a blast playing one ludicrous scene after another with deadly earnestness, the monsters are both well-rendered and imbued with more personality than they have any right to have on this budget, and the whole thing feels like a loving throwback to the Japanese monster movies I used to watch on Saturday afternoons as a child. Sure, the fights are too brief and the science is laughable. But what the film lacks in credibility and budget, it more than makes up for in energy and enthusiasm. Plus, the curvy cuties of Team Unicorn are on-hand to amp up the eye candy quotient. In all, a highly satisfying piece of direct-to-video schlock.

Útil
•
19

10

madmaxrockatansky-754207 jul 2015Enlace permanente
7
/10
Great! If you take it in the spirit it was made...

You could try and rate this movie by realism, acting prowess of the cast, and the excellence of the story. But that's like trying to rate the Shawshank Redemption by the amount of comedy, and its suitableness for kids.

This is a mega-monster parody.

It's the kind of movie you watch with your friends while laughing and generally having a good time. And its excellent at that. The movie is chock full of action sequences, special effects and interesting twists that keep your attention. At the same time, it doesn't make the mistake of taking itself too seriously with the drama and art.

The acting is not great, but good enough to prevent you from gouging your eyes out. The characters are likable clichés from all of your favourite movies. And the story makes sense almost half of the time.

You don't HAVE to see this movie. But if you're looking for something fun to watch that's not too heavy; this is as good a choice as any.

Útil
•
8

4

gaboonviper-605-44151811 ago 2015Enlace permanente
1
/10
Its Nintendo Wii for megalodon & kolossus

Formula-fed mega mess stars bookish Douglas (Melvyn's granddaughter) as a naval scientist entrusted to destroy the mega shark which has been awoken due to a Russian deep-sea drilling mishap. At the same time, a Soviet era robot juggernaut 'Kolossus' is reactivated causing a double headache for special agent Amy Rider and her incompetent computer analyst sidekick.

I also enjoyed the pained acting of the naval commander (Price), whose intense facial expressions become more smug looking (including some sarcastic backchat) when she assumes command after the Admiral (Thomas from TV's 'What's Happening') spectacularly loses the plot. And if you manage to withstand the forces of nature threatening to send you off to slumber, you'll also get to see Patrick Bauchau wasted in a strange cameo as an eccentric cold war scientist.

Insofar as the 'mega' franchise films go, this one is right down there with the absolute worst, a virtually incoherent plot attempting to combine both the mega shark and Marvel universes on a micro budget. The plot device our villain uses to manipulate the two mega antagonists is truly laughable but then there are so many moments of ridiculousness and despair it's almost too much to bear.

Despite looking occasionally bewildered by the plot (or her acting choices) I give one star to the nasal perkiness of Douglas' buxom nerd scientist, who keeps this garbage afloat even as it sinks deeper than the origins of its titular antagonist. She's a bright spark in an otherwise dim place. And just when you thought it was safe to watch movies again, stay tuned after the titles have rolled by, and prepare to be disappointed all over again.

Útil
•
1

1

Chase_Witherspoon16 ene 2024Enlace permanente
1
/10
Incredible!
I gave 1 star because there is no option for zero.

I couldn't say what is the worst item, script, performances, special effects, photography, direction, etc.

Útil
•
1

2

efmendiburu19 jun 2022Enlace permanente
1
/10
Made me appreciate the Octopus movie...
This was bad; really bad. The director should go hide under a rock for his work on this movie. If you can get bad the bad CGI, there is still no excuse for the bad acting, Tim Abell's horrendous fake Russian accent, and the amateur-ish storyline. This one deserves a big fat zero.

Útil
•
1

2

kjc-3220512 ene 2022Enlace permanente
2
/10
Not true to the Mega shark cult classic

The makers of this movie don't understand why Mega Shark makes it into cult classic status in such a short period of time

First of all, there are cleavage bimbies who actually live in this movie, such characters living in Mega Shark is against god.

Mega shark gets taken down, sort of, nothing takes down true mega shark, not nukes, not bimbies, nothing

One thing this movie does do is make the size of Mega shark a sliding ruler, to very large to absolutely Ginormous, in True Mega Shark movie style

Another big mistake is classifying Mega Shark, the real Mega Shark needs no classification, Mega Shark is all the classification necessary

So at the end of the day, the makers of this movie have very little comprehension of what a Mega Shark movie is, this thing is more Hollywood in nature and script.

Útil
•
1

3

the_doofy1 jul 2021Enlace permanente
1
/10
A catastrophe indeed

Útil
•
1

3

billcarr3119 ene 2023Enlace permanente
2
/10
Mega lol
Just for the laughs. When a movie like mega shark vs predator? 😂

Útil
•
1

4

bishopexcons13 abr 2020Enlace permanente
4
/10
Wow

Útil
•
0

1

BandSAboutMovies17 jul 2021Enlace permanente
10
/10
singlehandedly changed my life
I was bald, depressed and had no nuts before watching this movie. Now i make twenty figures a second and my fifty wives love me all so very much and keep saying "I love you but not as much as i love "Mega Shark vs Kolossus, the 4th movie in the installment of the mega shark series" and then we proceed to make some hot love just like the robot making hot love to the shark at the end of the movie.

Truly, a spiritual, physicsal, mental and philosophical masterpiece of a movie. Puts movies like "Shawshank redemption" to shame. Compared to this movie, they are nothing but a kindergarten play made by children.

Útil
•
4

1

h-95811-487295 may 2023Enlace permanente
8
/10
Nuttily Brilliant

Útil
•
7

7

By-TorX-118 jul 2015Enlace permanente
10
/10
Asylum isn't always bad. This one isn't bad at all.

Every Asylum film gets rated 2-3 and gets a load of negative reviews. Yes, some of them are bad, others terrible. But lots are OK, some are actually pretty good (like "Sharknado 5") and many are more entertaining than the big budget Hollywood garbage they are based on. Like this one. I gave it 10 in hopes someone might read the review. In fact it's worth about 5 (the Statham originals about 3).

OK the concept is completely ridiculous, just as it is with those originals, but there's nothing in here nearly as silly as our Jason shoving off a megalodon by bracing feet against its nose and the story makes a lot more sense than lazily written trash like "Tomorrow War". OK, the acting is not Oscar-worthy but compared with the likes of Statham and Chris Pratt (to say nothing of T Cruise, K Reeves etc.) it's actually pretty good. And this is FUN! It's not meant to be taken seriously like the Hollywood guff you guys pay all those millions to watch, just to be enjoyed for what it is. The characters are fun, the script OK, the action may sometimes be silly but it keeps coming.

So why all the hate? I think because there's no budget, therefore no expensive stars and the effects look awful - especially true here. Do we have no imagination any more though? Can we not enjoy a fun action story which doesn't have well-known (yawn) faces and a bunch of expensive CGI? For me it's worth 5 for the enjoyment I got from it and all those useless Hollywood money-wasters - maybe 2 or 3 maximum. If we're talking entertainment for its budget, this is pure 10/10.

One area Asylum often scores heavily is with the action roles it gives to women - always well-represented when soldiers, agents or police are involved. This one opens with the all-female crew of a mini-sub bravely sacrificing themselves. The pint-sized rogue female CIA agent (the excellent Amy Rider) not only takes out heavies of all nationalities with the extremest of prejudice, but physically kidnaps a male specialist who has the knowledge she needs to get things fixed. The smart scientist is female, the dumb one male, and even the obsessed psycho admiral has a sensible and sane female #2 to take over when he finally flips. All pretty well spot on, I'd say. Thanks Asylum, maybe one day Hollywood will catch up with you.

Útil
•
1

0

freydis-e17 may 2024Enlace permanente
10
/10
Among the best in the franchise

Following the appearance of another Mega Shark, a CIA Agent and a technology mogul team up to take it down only for the sudden reawakening of a Cold-War era robot to throw a further complication into the battle to stop the deadly creature.

While this one doesn't quite manage to make it to the top of the franchise this is still a wholly worthwhile entry. As was the case with the previous efforts, a lot of this one is due to the massive cheese here which is based on the efforts of the shark here getting the most amount of screen-time possible here. The majority of this one is spent with the military's attacks trying to cut it down, from the opening battle in the mini-subs to the full-scale assault on the open seas and finally the creature attacking the fleet with it's trademark high- altitude jumps of it leaping out of the water and taking out the destroyers in marvelous action scenes that keep up the spectacle and excitement from the rest of the series. As well, the addition of the giant robot here manages a great deal of fun by also managing to incorporate more land-scenes here with the race to understand it's motives as it rampages through the countryside leaving a great sense of destruction behind it, and also giving this one some spectacular early fights between the two in all sorts of cheesy spectacle. There's a lot of great fun to be had in the final half as well with the naval battle taking place in the inlet that distracts the shark enough to wrestle control of the robot during the encounter, the big battle with the Air Force in a fine aerial battle that comes off really nicely and the big battle at the end that manages to leave both creatures with plenty of high-spots since they put together a nicely detailed battle that's far more engaging than expected. These here are enough to hold this off from the few small flaws here, with the biggest one again coming from the rather weak CGI found throughout this one keeping it from really being taken seriously despite the spectacle of the story here. The robot's initial reactivation scene, the big battle with the destroyers at sea and the final battle are all way too obvious about their qualities despite the fact that there's a rather exciting series of action scenes overplaying during that time, and the fact that there's other times throughout this that aren't as obvious about the nature of the effects really causes those to stand out considerably. As well, the film also suffers with the needless subplot about the deranged scientist secretly working to gain control over the robot that comes out of nowhere, is accomplished with ten minutes to go in the film and really feels like an after-thought to get the film up to a respectable running time rather than doing anything of any coherent value and logic really makes it odd and really distracting. Otherwise, this one had a lot more going for it to make it enjoyable enough.

Rated Unrated/R: Language and Violence.

Útil
•
9

17

kannibalcorpsegrinder20 jul 2015Enlace permanente
10
/10
i wish kolossus would throw me into the atmosphere
I really enjoyed the symbolism in this film around the climate crisis i thought it brought attention to the big issues. I also thought it was clever how it brought attention to racial injustices. I would have enjoyed to see more about the global economy but i'm excited for the sequel!! This movie was the best movie of all time it gave me explosive diabetes.