|
Title: RATS (1983) Post by: zombie no.one on May 12, 2010, 05:18:40 PM Oooh my god, I've definitely seen the worst acting in the world ever now. worse than THE MUTILATOR, worse than EATEN ALIVE
worst acting ever...hilarious. serious lolz anyone seen this? Vipco release in the UK, possibly different in US. >bad movie score 10/10 - and 5 years later the director went on to direct TERMINATOR 2??? talk about humble beginings... :EDIT: it's not James Cameron, but some guy who did a lot on Terminator 2. Title: Re: RATS (1983) Post by: retrorussell on May 13, 2010, 01:11:26 AM The film has nothing to do with the James Cameron film at all.. it was released as an unofficial sequel (very unofficial, as Cameron and co. of The Terminator would not allow the use of that character's name) and had to be retitled "Shocking Dark" or "Alienators" in the US. Anyways, on to RATS:
Man, this was a bad film.. and for the most part, not in a good way. Very boring, very fake and very bad acting. Rats NEVER look like they might be attacking anyone in any way, they are ALWAYS THROWN at people. And that ending.. wow. I did laugh at that, I must say. The only fun I had in this whole crappy movie. Title: Re: RATS (1983) Post by: zombie no.one on May 13, 2010, 12:26:34 PM yeah the ending is ridiculous. I laughed.
The film has nothing to do with the James Cameron film at all.. it was released as an unofficial sequel (very unofficial, as Cameron and co. of The Terminator would not allow the use of that character's name) and had to be retitled "Shocking Dark" or "Alienators" in the US. really? how strange...thanks for the info.Title: Re: RATS (1983) Post by: retrorussell on May 13, 2010, 11:29:28 PM really? how strange...thanks for the info. If you want a better "rat" movie, Williard, both old and remake, is halfway decent. |