I just saw a DVD copy of this one at my local video rental. I absolutely loved the first one, but this one has all the symptoms of being a piece of crap. I mean:
- Absolutely no one related to the first title on the credits.
- Absolutely no names that ring any bells on the credits.
- Never heard of it before.
- Runs less that 90'.
Anyone seen it?
I haven't seen it, but my little brother (age 19) has. When he was asked if it was worth it, he said, "No. No. No. Dude, it's not even worth watching on TV." That's word for word, mind. Italics and bold and all.
Take that as you will. Bear in mind that he does like Big Money Hustlas (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0193007) ("I like it because it's bad, though," he adds. "It's not good in the slightest bit.")
I heard that it was BEYOND TERRIBLE, and I haven't worked up the courage to see for myself yet.
Shame on you! You don't recognise the name "Jon Polito" in the credits? He who was in "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "The Big Lebowski" and "Miller's Crossing", those being the films that spring to mind.
However, having split that hair, I have to say I don't recognise anyone else in the credits, either. IMDB rates it at 3.9 - shading towards the unofficial classification of "stinkeroo"
I think
Mimic = Gattaca
Neville wrote:
>
> - Absolutely no one related to the first title on the credits.
False. The female lead is the former assitant of the female lead of the first Mimic
> - Never heard of it before.
New does not = bad, sometimes.
> - Runs less that 90'.
Short, like a Full Moon movie?
> Anyone seen it?
I haven't, but word of mouth has been bad. But it did well enough for Lance Henriksen to hoof it out to Romania to make Mimic 3.
It was too short and it needed more
i didn't like the first one except for the little boy going "mister funnyshoes..."
it's classic Hollywood craptacularity.
the movie, and presumably its sad abortions of sequels, are based on a short story that is exactly a PAGE AND A HALF LONG!
c'mon now! and NOTHING from the story is in the movies.
Forgive me if I make a small mistake. I have seen the film, but it has been a while. Tiny spoiler at the bottom, but nothing that I think would ruin the film for you. The short version is: pretty forgettable and when it tries to be a thriller it fails. The film is very dark throughout, the daytime scenes were even rainy or cloudy.
The movie mostly concerns the female insect expert (public school teacher). There are numerous scenes at the school. The woman also has terrible luck with men, appearing to be the sort that attracts psychos (it does not help that she is a freak). She is stalked by a stranger who appears now and then and appears to be a guardian angel. The strange, brooding man is a mimic. I think that the director wanted to make a suspense/thriller like "Se7en."
> - Absolutely no one related to the first title on the credits.
False. The female lead is the former assitant of the female lead of the first Mimic
I see. My mistake, then.
> - Never heard of it before.
New does not = bad, sometimes.
> - Runs less that 90'.
Short, like a Full Moon movie?
I know, I know. I don't use to despise short movies or unknown titles per se, but somehow I've noticed that this two details combined with other variables (such as being a sequel or having Christopher Lambert / Mario Van Peebles on it) use to make awful films.