Bats (1999)

Its was a very creative film, i was well acted and had some humorers parts that made it more enjoyable. I like that it didn't take it self that serious and at the same time making it scary, i admit the bats looked fake in times and the CGI wasn't that great at the time but i don't consider it as bad as say birdemic. It had great characters specially the stereotypical black side kick that was funny most of the time, the only bad character was "evil scientist" that well...was evil and did not explain things well he was just that evil mad scientist.I recommend this one as just a Sunday movie to watch don't expect complex story lines. Its fun to watch and the ending was just the funniest ending you could imagine.

This movie is a wonderful specimen of near perfect cinematographic work. When looking up the word 'art', 'Bats' should be at the top of your list. This flick stands alone as unquestionable proof that acting is unnecessary to create celluloid magic. Each veteran star embraces their individual characterizations unprofessionally and with the puerility of a neophyte. The lack of script and direction dramatically adds to the aforementioned unimaginative schema, creating a meretricious masterpiece equally appreciated by both the comatose and fatuous. This inanimate roller coaster of a movie has little action or suspense. Sadly these qualities are devoured by the grating ennui. If one enjoys reasons to take naps, 'Bats' is for you. It is also well worth the time it takes to gouge one's eyes out or perform other self-mutilations – but that is not my cup of tea. If you recommend this to a friend and they will hate you.

Twenty years after Hollywood made NIGHTWING they decided to tackle the subject of killer bats once again with results that turn out to be less than inspired.It's not that BATS is a particularly bad film; it isn't. It ticks all of the boxes and runs through the scenarios with a modicum of energy and drive. The problem is, as with most Hollywood films made recently, a series lack of originality or indeed intelligence. BATS turns out to be cheesy and predictable in equal measures, delivering up its threat of genetically-modified bats without much in the way of passion or intrigue.The plot follows the likes of THE BIRDS and other classics fairly closely. Moments between the set-pieces are dull, while the bat attacks are spoiled by some average CGI effects work (Hitchcock's superimposed birds are still superior to the creatures here). In close up, the rubbery menaces are about as realistic as the bats in Hammer's SCARS OF Dracula; not Greg Nicotero's finest moment, that's for sure.Cast-wise, it's pretty lacklustre. Lou Diamond Phillips goes through the motions and STARSHIP TROOPERS' Dina Meyer displays a singular lack of presence. Leon's character reveals everything that's wrong with Hollywood's reliance on the clichéd "funny black guy" in otherwise straight films. All in all a largely forgettable movie that disappeared as quickly as it arrived; go back to Hitchcock for a decent winged-menace movie.

This film is basically about a bat attack and a scientist is brought in to help figure it out. I won't reveal more about this story but however I do have to say two good things about the film: 1.The CG was very good considering the budget was $37 million dollars.2.The bloody bat attacks were great and the R rated film is my preferred version instead of the original PG-13 versions.However to balance the issue (not like Fox news), I will say two bad things: 1.The Script was mediocre at best, being a short film screenwriter, it was made for B-level but some of the dialogue sounds like a straight-to-video movie.2.The Score is way too obvious and a little bombastic.All in all, this is a very good attempt to make a B-level horror film, now if they had made a better script and did some better marketing, this film would have earned more than $10 million dollars domestic gross I give this film 7 out of 10