Ok, sorry if this seems like an obvious question, but I really needed to get this sorted out.
People on here are saying what a great film it was, but could I just ask, do they mean they like it because it was SO bad? Or do they genuinely like it?
I thought it was the most mindless piece of trash I'd ever seen, but I'd just like to know I'm in a majority (or reluctantly find out I'm in a minority) :)
It was so bad it was good. I watch it every time it comes on the Sci-Fi channel.
shareIt has entertainment value from start to finish. Pretty girls and jaws like atmosphere and an unexpected death. Also scenery's good. I'd let this run on the telly over the Star Wars Clone thing or Titanic. That qualifies as 'great'.
shareits bad but not really bad enough to be good. pretty much in the "kinda lame" department.
shareI thought it was an above average horror film. Some parts, like the 'twist' ending, were quite predictable but if you like horror films it can be a good watch.
"You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun."- Al Capone
this is the worst movie ever made on this plannet, I dident know if I did laugh ore cry when i saw this film,
The director should be shoot to death
...you didn't larf ore cri? Are you sure you understood the movie at all? Duh?
sharewatch savage planet. Im sure your opinion will change.
BEARS IN SPACE!
It's an awful movie, but it seems to realize that it's an awful movie -- it's pretty tongue-in-cheek.
It's big dumb fun, basically. It delivers exactly what it aims to, and has no false pretenses about what it is and what it isn't. In that regard, it's much more successful (and enjoyable) than a lot of other movies that try to be straight-up scary but end up just sort of sadly laughable.
Post-game show is brought to you by............. Christ, I can't find it---the hell with it.
I usually like b-horror creature features. A great example of that would be the absolutely excellent Dog Soldiers (2002) or, by the same director, The Descent (2005). Another good example would be Tremors (1989).
This one is probably best described as Tremors in a river. The pitch is very similar as is the build-up (a small gathering of people of various walks of life in a remote location). However, it's quite inferior to Tremors when it comes to the dialogue and direction. The f/x is sometimes kinda cool, but other times you ask yourself why they bothered at all.
To me, it's worth a rental. The thing is, you start seeing it with low expectations and then, when you feel that this might actually get pretty good, it doesn't deliver. Could've been better.
The title should win some kind of award in itself though. The clerk at Blockbuster looked at me strangely when I put it on the counter..
"...and here's the kicker; grandma's dead."
I laughed the whole way through the movie because it was so bad. It was like,"Oh my God, that guy just got eaten by a giant fish. Let's stick our face near it and see what it is!"
shareWhen you watch a movie like this, you cant be expecting an award winner. I remember when i saw it on the shelf of the rental store, i started laughing at the cover, it was so ridiculous. It looked like a B horror movie, and thats exactly what it was. I'd say it delivered quite well.
shareIMO, it was a horrible monster movie and a waste of money. That's just me.
shareIt was a great monster movie, boobs, gore and guts everywhere. Exactly what more horror movies should be like.
shareI think it's one of SciFi Channel's better Monster of the Week Movies. I actually bought a copy of it to show friends, and they all love it too. The FX range from questionable to pretty damn cool.
Is it formulaic and trashy? Yeah, but it goes down good.
Plus K.D Aubert from Buffy the Vampire Slayer is in it, so that gets it bonus points from me.
The only thing worse than a bad movie, is someone who states their Opinion as Fact.