Mimic: Sentinel

I'll have to say, this third sequel was quite good for it's simplicity. Instead of scaring you with the actual Judas Breed man-size insects -created in the first- it relies on it's plot to creep you out, while taking a totally different approach to the evil of this bizarre 'cure' for a childhood disease. After 'Mimic 2' I felt quite wary about this movie, having never even heard one was being made. It's just that this plot intrigues me so much, I don't seem to care if it's a bad approach or acting (as in part 2; NOT this one -part 3). I felt pretty good about this movie and it SIMPLY was entertaining, as well as scary in it's own rite.

7/10 - thank you

`Rear Window with giant roaches.' That concept alone puts it above Mimic 2. It's different . . . it has potential . . . overall I'd say I liked the buildup (when convenient dilemmas were not advancing the plot), but damn, did Petty ever blow the payoff. I appreciate the slow paced plot versus fast/hard hitting shock fests, unfortunately, JT didn't really capitalize on it so in effect . . . the film can get boring, stale, and it (like the characters) don't have much of a personality. This would have been great if in the writing we had some Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith-esque dialogue. What do these characters do? Who are they? What does Marvin think/feel in his freetime (which he has lots and lots of?) All we ever see him doing is staring through the camera, which okay, we know what he does but that doesn't mean we know him nor should we care. We learn as much about the people Marvin spies on as we do Marvin, himself.

Folks, that's a problem.

Everyone in this film lives and dies for the sole purpose of serving the plot in typical horror fashion. I'm being overly harsh on this film than I would for most other horror sequels solely because it wants to be Rear Window. Rear Window may have been about a man with nothing better to do at the moment than become a voyeur; however, there was far more to him than looking through a camera. If you're going to deliberately mimic Hitchcock (no pun), they need to do it on more than just a surface level.

Compare Mimic Sentinel to its predecessors and it's not too bad, compare Mimic 3 to its Hitchcockian inspiration and it's pretty pathetic (and Rear Window is a far cry from my favorite of Hitch's work.)

After seeing Mimic 3's payoff, I'm not so disappointed in Rear Window's anymore. Rear Window intended the finale to be simple and somewhat underwhelming, but at the same time Hitchcock maintains his steady buildup even thought the film is technically paying off. Mimic Sentinel opts for all the bells and whistles, explosions and blood – after all, this is a half century later right? The action comes at the expense of an unwelcomed plot `twist' which was not necessary and comes across as gratuitous (even if Lance Henriksen is involved.) I prefer simple and underwhelming . . . screw the extras.

Once again, despite harsh comments above, in light of typical horror sequels this is about as average in execution as you get. I tend to bump it above average for the sole fact that it at least had a clever idea at the conception stage, which is more than most sequels/remakes have going for them.

A young man who must remain in an environmentally controlled apartment discovers that the Judas Breed bugs are back in this second sequel the film Mimic. My review will probably be the mirror opposite of most of the reviews here because, frankly, I was completely underwhelmed by the original Mimic film. (I think it was all the glowing reviews I read before I saw it.) I missed the second film entirely. This film, however, I enjoyed. If only because of the residual power of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window," which is where they lifted the structure of this film, I found myself entertained throughout. And newcomer Rebecca Mader wasn't so bad either! (Check her out in the much more interesting "21 Eyes.") Not a great film, but definitely worth a look. It makes me want to see Petty's first film -- "Soft for Digging."

What do you get if you take Aliens, Rear Window, Boy in the Plastic Bubble, and some other stuff, and mix it with a small budget? It may sound like a mess, but the film surprises a bit.

Giant mutated bugs going berserk is nothing new, but this theme still works somehow. In the film, the lighting is kept low, making attack scenes difficult to see. This was intentional: it leaves to the imagination what the lack of funding could not deliver in special effects. The set up of the movie is painfully slow, but the film picks up later on. Characters are written as typically shallow horror film victims, but the acting (except for the usual screaming girls) is above the script.

The whack lead character is the main weakness. He looks like he belongs in a medication info-mercial. He's written as a paranoid, bi-polar, angst ridden, stalking clod. Every relationship he has is dysfunctional; he argues incessantly with everybody. Then he wonders why nobody will listen even when he shows photos of things he's seen. The sub-plot involving his mother and a cop is just childish. Since when does a grown man fit in a small refrigerator?

Frankly, you'll root for the roach invaders to shut them all up. Good fast-food entertainment, though.

This is a horror film, or at least intended to be, so I'd like to point out something good - but the only thing I can come up with is that it ONLY lasted about 77 minutes!

First off, it's VERY easy to see where the writer got the inspiration for his lead character in this film - a man with no life, sitting all day in front of a window, observing people living across the street, and suddently he observes something suspecious... Wow, who called Hitchcock, cause this writer obviously saw "Rear Window (1954)" ..but anyway, all films these days are inspired by others somehow..

Secondly, the role of Rosey, "Dziena, Alexis" (qv), is acted out so annoyingly, you grow an instant dislike to her. Never saw her before, don't know if she was meant to play an annoying character and then did a hell of a job, or if she is just THAT plain annoying..

Third, I have NO idea what Amanda Plummer and Lance Henriksen is doing in this film - they must have been desprately out of cash or totally unable to see how horrible this film was.

The only horror you stumble across in this film is how terrible it is carried out.

A definate 1/10, only because a "0" won't affect the overall evaluation!