Murciélagos

The first time I saw this, I agreed with all the other posters who say this is a BAD, BAD movie. Watching the acting is like eating old, cold popcorn with no butter, salt or anything. And the better I knew the actor to be, the worse the acting seemed. For this I blame the director. The plot was transparent, the characters cardboard, the motivations only hinted at or missing entirely. For this I blame the writer. The second time I saw it, it was vastly more entertaining because I knew not to expect any better, and I could appreciate the flashes of creativity, humor and even humanity that are peppered through the film.

The writer, Jim Geoghan (if that really is the writer's name/identity -- have you taken a look at his photo? is that for real?), has mostly written for sitcoms. The punch-punch-punch, joke-every-ten-seconds style needed to keep the attention of the average sitcom watcher does not translate well onto the movie screen, and the 22-minute time frame doesn't lend itself to the habit of thinking deeply or extensively (or sometimes at all) about character, meaning, emotion, motive or the nature of creativity.

The director, Kelly Sandefur, appears also to have gotten his start in sitcoms, and the same comments apply. But he also seems to have mainly done Visual Effects Filmography, which explains a lot. Just as movies directed by long-time stunt performers tend to have lots of spectacular stunts, sometimes (often) to the detriment of the story and music video directors tend to create chaotic, nihilistic, iconoclastic films, this film looks just great, but the other qualities suffered.

In fact everything about the look of this film is really very good. The cinematography, lighting, staging, focus, sound -- everything technical is in fact excellently done.

The serious film student, especially one with ambition to make films of one's own some day, can definitely profit from a study of this film and its faults and its strengths. The main lessons: writing is important. Match your writer to your subject. For example, the humorous parts of this film fell flat because the writer is used to a laugh track guiding the audience to the (intentionally) funny parts. A playwright can often write a more effective script because he's not used to relying on a sound track to guide the emotion of the viewer -- he has to do it with the story. Also, match your director to the material. Don't ask a music video director to direct a tender love story, or any scene that lasts longer than three minutes. And if you ever get to make a movie (and if you can afford it), get all the technical crew of this movie to work for you! But first, see to the writing. A badly filmed great story will be easier to watch than an excellently filmed mediocre story.

This movie is an absolute riot! The best part about this movie was "Heather". I wanted to see more of her as she kept the movie going by taking off with it from the very beginning. Heather (Corina Marie) hits the comedic beats perfectly to make her "cliche" character of a Valley Girl real and hysterical. Her performance was completely believable...I wanted to see more!!!!!!! Make "Heather" live again!

FANGS is indeed a movie about genetically-altered, killer bats that attack a small town. As such, it's not unendurable. Yes, the CGI is sub-par, making the offending mammals appear like super-imposed cartoons. Yes, the town's citizenry is collectively doltish.

However, the leads aren't bad, including intergalactic mega-star Whip Hubley as the Animal Control guy, and Tracy Nelson as the visiting "big city" cop.

The real reason to watch this movie is to witness Corbin Bernsen do his thing as the reprehensible real estate magnate, Carl Hart! He's on fire here! If you enjoyed him in his DENTIST films, then you'll love him in this. Of course, this is a PG-13 movie, so, there's not much gore, but Bernsen's attitude and demeanor carry the day! No one can portray an unholy a$$#ole like he can. No one! Just ignore the preposterous premise of the movie, and watch BERNSEN!...

I've seen "Fangs" several times and I have always enjoyed it. It is just a classic monster picture. So one should not expect too much from it except some good, old-fashioned monsters, in the form of bats; and some campy acting by a capable cast that tries its darnedest. Considering the genre and it's history, one is either going to love these thrifty, chimerical adventures; or not. If you're a real fan of monster movies, then I think "Fangs" satisfies quite well.

"Fangs" has bat attacks; a really slimy bad guy; a cute, determined heroine; some comical teens; and even a half-effective hero. The story moves right along, and even though one pretty much knows what is going to happen, the ride is fun, and the bats are suitably scary. I say just watch it for what it is and enjoy the old monster formula worked to a tee. It's great fun.

Not really, but unless you watch the credits you can't tell. This film is like a slighly more graphic live version of the old cartoon. "The killer is really . . . "; I half expected to hear the line, "If it weren't for you darn kids . . ." or perhaps see a large CG or animiated dog.

The film redefines the phrase "tongue and cheek", and frankly I don't like the new definition. Tongue and cheek is great when used in moderation, but in excess it becomes extremely lame. When you're hard pressed to find something believable in the film, it's gone too far. When everything is cliche and exagerated to the extremes, it's gone too far. And the suspension of disbelief is not there.

I don't even feel comfortable critiquing the actors--I can't get over the terrible writing and mediocre direction. Look at Dungeons and Dragons which features a wonderful actor, Jeremy Irons, doing a way over the top performance. Maybe the writing and directing demanded this performance from the actors--I dunno.

I hate being one of those nit-picky viewers who goes through and finds it necessary to point out every single flaw in a film's premise. Especially films about scientific, medical, or police procedures--I mean, even the greatest films that brush up with these subjects are never 100% accurate to the real world, but we forgive them. If they're good enough, the average viewer won't know. But this film, I don't think I spotted more than a handful of points that were accurate.

So watch if you enjoy incredibly cheesy and corny horror films, you *might* be able to laugh at it . . . but I think it tries to hard and fails for even that. But, whatever, go for it if that's your type of film.