Rating: 
Summary: Do what I tell you
Review: Remember when you found that porno mag in the abandoned shack out in the woods behind yer house, remember that dirty feeling and how you scrubbed yer hands for hours. That's kinda how I felt when I saw the first Mimic in the theater. It was so bad it was criminal. Poor Roc and Mighty Aphrodite, how would you like to come off of a career making Woody Allen film and be known for Mimic.
That aside, Mimic 2 was one of those TBS flicks that you pass by on a sickly sunday morning nursing a headache and a gin. You are not sure if you are going to be sick and if you are then you have better things to watch out for then this blasted flickering on the TV.
Mimic Sentinels is as close to a real movie as I never thought you could get with 8 ft. cockroaches. Now don't get me wrong, there is no hybrid romantic comedic interlude with the line, "Now that bugs me" though there shoulda been. It's a straight forward, well shot, and paced little homage to two of our favorite things, Hitchcock and B-creature flicks. The actors were great, the characters were off the wall and inventive that gave the movie a strange feeling of completeness, you could have shot the movie without "The Garbageman" but then...what would be the point. I think this movie will be greatly appreciated by two types of people. Those that thought the first MIMICS were trash, and those that don't know there were a first two. I fer one just have to feign ignorance.
If you are in the mood, for a decent, (weak word), good (sounds better) direct to video release this is it. Shotguns, blood and enough content to keep yer significant other amused and maybe he/she won't think yer so dumb. Like the time you took him/her to see Demolition Man in the theatre....How did it last so long?
Buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: Demise of the Series: No Scare, No Logics, and Fewer Bugs
Review: 'Mimic Sentimel' is the result of mixing two kind of films -- look how Marvin, a patient confined in a room, watching through a camera the people living in the opposite apartment, AND how he gets invloved with a series of death by the killing human-bugs.
While spending time taking photos of the outside, Marvin and his sister Rosie come to think they have witnessed a murder, and call the police. The standard plot device means that the cop would not believe in the story, or at least remain sceptical, and the thrill continues. In this movie, inspted of that, the cop starts to have a date with Marvin's mom (Amanda Plummer). Do you think we need this kind of plot development?
Anyway, after while the story strays into the alley, another girl comes into the room, named Carmen, and the two become Nancy Drew-like amateur detectives, and there is a strange man nicknamed 'The Garbageman' (Lance Henriksen, 'AVP' and many others).
But you don't see Grace Kelly here, nor Hitchcock's assured hand as director. The film suffers from a very disjointed script, which doesn't know how to scare, or even amuse us. The bad construction of the filmed shots only lead to the confused impression on our side -- actually, we don't know exactly whether some of the characters are killed or not, or how got killed. The bad acting from the leads only lessen the scare, and first of all, you don't see the lethal bug itself very much.
The only good thing is the photography that captured the creepy mood of the backyard of a decayed apartment. But the film is another disappointment from Dimention Films that once gave us 'Scream.' And someone please send e-mail address of Tarantino to Amanda Plummer, who was in the epoch-making 'Pulp Fiction.' (You remember that terrific diner scene, don't you?)
Rating: 
Summary: Not Bad At All
Review: Despite all the bad reviews of this movie I have read, I actually found it to be a pretty good film. I mean, in some parts it may have been slightly lethargic, but over all, I found it to be a good film. The actors all did a very good job--they all have a lot of talent. I actually bought the film before I had even seen it, because my favourite actress played Carmen. I had heard bad reviews of the film, but I have never been one to rely on other people's judgement of films, because I usually enjoy films that get bad reviews. I guess you just have to be the right kind of person, because a great deal of the film does revolve around Marvin looking through his camera and taking pictures. If you haven't seen it, you should probably not buy it until you have, because like I said, you may have to be the type of person who enjoys most films as a whole. I guess it takes a real appreciation of the art.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly solid entry in mediocre series
Review: I've never been a big fan of the mimic series. The premise, bugs that have evolved to imitate humans, is intriguing, but I never thought it was realized in a compelling way.
This movie however, brings some interesting elements to the otherwise lackluster series. Karl Geary plays a homebound man, Marvin, afflicted with the remnants of the same disease that the bugs were created to destroy. From his room in his mother's apartment, he photographs his neighbors and lives, through them, the life he cannot otherwise live.
Then he and his sister (Alexis Dziena) spy what they believe is a murder, in classic Rear Window fashion, but the police don't believe them. Most of this short (76 minutes) movie is spent staring through the lense of the still camera, through which Marvin views the world, with a sudden, violent climax, in which horror movie favorite, Lance Henriksen (Aliens, Alien 3) plays a small part.
Lots of good cinematography here and some very interesting tributes to Hitchcock, as well as a startlingly disturbing scene involving Marvin and a refrigerator overcome the otherwise poor production values and out-of-date CGI that mar this movie.
Definitely worth a look, for anyone looking for a quick little diversion and some new twists to the B-Horror genre.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the worst horror films I have ever seen!!!
Review: Speechlessly disappointed!!! Why made a film so messy like this!!!
Rating:
Summary: Not much of a film
Review: The first MIMIC was a strong horror film, but the series gets progressively cheaper & worse with every entry.MIMI 3 open with an establishing shot of the New Jersey shore overlooking Manhattan. Seems the story takes place in a New Jersey city, but once we see the depressing building courtyard, I immediately thought, "Hey, New Jersey looks like Eastern Europe." And sure enough, the end credits reveal the film was shot in Bucharest, Romanina. That's okay, except that it LOOKS like Eastern Europe, not New Jersey. The story is very "small." Everything occurs in one apartment and the couryard it overlooks. (Yeah, we also see people in the other windows.) Only a few actors, and a couple of Judas Priest bugs. I suppose some find the film "claustrophobic" or "grungy" but I just found it small and cheap. The whole film is an hour and 12 minutes long. That's a movie? (Claims to be 76 minutes, but four minutes are end credits). The story is a REAR WINDOW ripoff, except that MIMIC 3 acknowledges it. The sickly character (who can't leave his room) says, "I saw the movie," implicitly refering to REAR WINDOW. Essentially, the sickly character sees Judas Priest bugs killing people in the courtyard, but at first no one believes him. In the end, the bugs come to his apartment, and there's some more violence. No-name actors, aside from supporting roles for Lance Henricksen and Amanda Plummer, who probably each shot their scenes in a couple of days. I don't see how anyone can understand this film unless they've first seen MIMIC, since the back story isn't much explained. Newcomers to the MIMIC series may wonder where all those giant bugs came from. This is an okay film for hardcore horror fans and horror completists, but mainstream viewers who only occassionally watch horror will want to pass on this. There are many better horror films out there (such as LOST SOULS, the Winona Ryder film released in 2000).
Rating:
Summary: Not much of a film
Review: The first MIMIC was a strong horror film, but the series gets progressively cheaper & worse with every entry. MIMI 3 open with an establishing shot of the New Jersey shore overlooking Manhattan. Seems the story takes place in a New Jersey city, but once we see the depressing building courtyard, I immediately thought, "Hey, New Jersey looks like Eastern Europe." And sure enough, the end credits reveal the film was shot in Bucharest, Romanina. That's okay, except that it LOOKS like Eastern Europe, not New Jersey. The story is very "small." Everything occurs in one apartment and the couryard it overlooks. (Yeah, we also see people in the other windows.) Only a few actors, and a couple of Judas Priest bugs. I suppose some find the film "claustrophobic" or "grungy" but I just found it small and cheap. The whole film is an hour and 12 minutes long. That's a movie? (Claims to be 76 minutes, but four minutes are end credits). The story is a REAR WINDOW ripoff, except that MIMIC 3 acknowledges it. The sickly character (who can't leave his room) says, "I saw the movie," implicitly refering to REAR WINDOW. Essentially, the sickly character sees Judas Priest bugs killing people in the courtyard, but at first no one believes him. In the end, the bugs come to his apartment, and there's some more violence. No-name actors, aside from supporting roles for Lance Henricksen and Amanda Plummer, who probably each shot their scenes in a couple of days. I don't see how anyone can understand this film unless they've first seen MIMIC, since the back story isn't much explained. Newcomers to the MIMIC series may wonder where all those giant bugs came from. This is an okay film for hardcore horror fans and horror completists, but mainstream viewers who only occassionally watch horror will want to pass on this. There are many better horror films out there (such as LOST SOULS, the Winona Ryder film released in 2000).
Rating:
Summary: For completists
Review: The lack of money shows especially on the 'street scenes'. They're always in the same spot in the middle of the 2 or 3 buildings where all the characters live, in 'the rear window' style. This is OK given the plot's nature, the problem is there are almost no extras and no sound effects of city life either, it's like a post-apocalyptic movie where half the population are dead. The main character's room is under-produced too.
Otherwise it's quite entertaining. Strangely, the movie succeeds to hold your interest during the more subdued first and second act, but falls apart in the last act, when all the action and special effects start kicking in. I think this part was ackwardly edited and isn't very effective.
The dvd has a good widescreen anamorphic transfer, and the cast's audition tapes make a curious extra.
Rating:
Summary: "Rear Window" Meets "THEM"
Review: This is the third entry in the Mimic series; this time a shut-in and his hoochie sister have a run-in with the giant cockroaches. The movie starts off slow, maybe too slow in my opinion, but Mimic 3 gets real good at the end. The whole picture has this grungy look, contrasting the main character's immediate surroundings and lifestyle.
Rating:
Summary: Rear Window and the Judas Breed
Review: This is the weakest of the Mimic movies. A young man (23ish) is living the life of a bubble boy. Surviving Strickler's disease has left him with respiratory problems. To bide his time he takes pictures of the neighbors in the building across the way. His younger sister helps him with his hobby. But then a young boy disappears. As the guy becomes more and more obsessed with the neighbors he sees a possible murder. He doesn't realize that the Judas Breed is behind it, but he does get the police involved. Things quickly build an it becomes obvious that the big bugs are back. I am not sure of the ending in this one. It is a little vague. If one character was right, then the Judas has already won and humans will be wiped out. It also seemed like there was something missing from the film. Something that would explain what was going on with the birds. Much different from either of the first two and worth seeing once but probably not more.
|
