Mimic: Sentinel (2003)

The thing that seems to drag "Mimic 3: Sentinel" down is obviously a low- budget. Cripplingly low, I would even go so far as to say. You can tell that writer/director JT Petty has a lot of interesting ideas, a unique angle from which to tell the story, and a lot of funky, quirky tricks up his sleeve... but the final product only feels about half-realized. This is quite blatantly a $20 million film that was forced to be produced on a more meager $10 million budget, in order to maximize profits from its direct-to-video/DVD release.There's so much here that has the potential to work wonderfully. And indeed, there is much about the film that does function and work well. But that issue of a lower budget (and likely a hasty shoot) does betray the material. With more time and money, this very well could have been up to the standard of the original film, which I found particularly well-made and exceedingly enjoyable. However, as it stands, it's just not quite there. It is, however, still extremely watchable and often thrilling and enjoyable, despite its faults.We follow Marvin (Karl Geary), a 24-year-old man who was one of the last children affected by the dreaded "Strickler's Disease" from the original film. Forced to spend much of his time alone in his room (due to the respiratory hypersensitivity the disease caused him), with only his 35mm camera to entertain him, he has made a habit out of "spying" on his various neighbors and surroundings, taking photos and building collages out of them. However, things take a turn for the strange and twisted when he begins witnessing strange occurrences that may or may not be tied to potential surviving members of the "Judas Breed"- the massive insects that learned how to mimic, blend in and hunt humans. With the help of his sister (Alexis Dziena) and a beautiful neighbor (Rebecca Mader), Marvin attempts to keep an eye out and solve the mystery of what is happening in his neighborhood.The acting is something of a mixed bag. Geary is obviously trying his hardest, and often he serves as an adequate protagonist, but I frankly found him to be a bit too... out there. I wouldn't go so far as to say "hammy", but I feel he often is putting too much effort. If he was more subdued and subtle, I think his performance would have benefited greatly. Dziena is a lot of fun, but I found her early scenes to be a bit cliché. It isn't until the second half of the film that she really comes to encompass her character and begin to feel likable and compelling. Mader is quite good, though. Very convincing. Very likable. And supporting roles by the likes of Amanda Plummer and even Lance Henriksen are very well-played. Plummer in particular likely giving the best performance of the film.Petty's script is quite interesting. It's a fairly common fact that Petty took inspiration from Hitchcock's "Read Window" for his screenplay, and I think it's a fascinating direction to take the series. (Particularly after the second film, which I felt was too much of a retread of the original, lacking much soul or identity.) It creates some real suspense and an almost "foreign" atmosphere, which helps to put the audience on edge, as we don't necessarily know what to expect. However, I did find some issues with the writing. Mainly in some wonky dialog early on, and a lack of pay-off in the end. Without spoiling anything, the film's more deliberate pacing early on quickly gives way as we approach the final act, and the climactic scenes feel sort-of out- of-left-field as a result of a sudden change in the pacing. I also felt some of the plot lines weren't particularly well-developed. And occasionally even lacked a coherent payoff.In contrast, outside of obvious issues caused by time/budget constraints, I found Petty's direction extremely good for the most part. It has a touch of del Toro's flair from the original, while also feeling unique. As with the script, Petty seems inspired by Hitchcock, giving us some wonderfully unsettling long-shots from the point-of-view of Marvin's camera, and lingering shots showing the aftermath of the more brutal scenes. It also has a slight touch of more modern directorial stylings, with a few well-executed sequences that make good use of fast- cutting and "gritty" up-close camera-work. It compliments and contrasts nicely with the more slow and deliberate moments, creating a very cool directorial atmosphere and "character."It's hard to really compare this film to the original because of the obvious changes in tone, style and storytelling, and obviously because of the low-budget nature of the production. And I do think that there are a few issues in the film that are inherent and not necessarily the result of those budgetary constraints.But still, I found this to be quite watchable and even generally enjoyable. As far as direct-to-video sequels go, there are some that are better... but this one is definitely worth checking out for fans of the original.I give this an average 6 out of 10. If you like the first film, check it out. And heck, even if you just like Hitchcockian style films, it might even be worth seeing once.

It was simply boring from the beginning till the end. There were also some flaws, like how the Judas breed mimics its human like face.I had high expectations but it didn't give me the excitement i was looking for. Just too bad. :(I didn't like it. Wouldn't recommend it. Mimic 1 and 2 were good. 3 *vomit*.I read a review who said the 3 movies weren't connected except for the theme. But in the second movie the leading role ( forgot her name for a second) has memories of the female in the first movie...

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.

I won't labour the details since I think most of the points I would make have already been made by others. The acting is pedestrian at best. The plot is as thin as clingfilm and is a rather poor homage to Hitchcock's Rear Window (Please note: regarded as something of a masterpiece by many).Rear window works because we see everything from the main character's (Jimmy Stewart) perspective, namely the wheelchair, in his bedroom. Everything the audience sees is from that vantage point. Jimmy Stewart's character is a helpless observer who plays no part in any activity outside his bedroom. This creates an atmosphere of claustrophobia and racks up the tension continuously. This reaches an unbearable point when he sees the murderer returning home to his apartment, which his girlfriend has just broken into, looking for evidence. This tension is created by the knowledge that Stewart is powerless to warn or help her.The same scene is recreated in Mimic: Sentinel but is completely flat and offers us absolutely no tension whatsoever. There are various other nods to Rear Window which immediately tells us that the writers didn't really have anything new or novel to say in this film. There are various plot elements that seem to do little other than fill in time (in a film which seems overly long at 78 minutes). For example when he attempts to report the danger to the police, his mother starts an intimate affair with the officer whom she had met briefly once before several years ago? Then there is the kooky, doped up sister, who walks around flapping her arms all the time. The main character is too active to be the impotent character Stewart plays but he's also too feeble to be a real hero character.Leaving the Rear Window connection, there's very little rhyme or reason to the rest of the plot. No explanation is provided for many plot elements and very little motivation is given to any of the characters. It's all just an excuse for some atmospheric shots of not very scary giant insects dragging people off into the dark and some occasional shots of blood splatter. No attempt if made to create a feeling of impending dread as any real person would have in such a situation. None of the characters are in any way sympathetic and it's hard to get worked up enough to care about the film when we don't care about any of the characters.We're left with a film which lacks the substance of Rear Window and which fails to provide any substance of it's own. I wouldn't bother spending money to rent it but if it's on TV and you're a completist who liked the other two Mimic films, then go ahead.