Mimic 3: centinela

`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.

At first, I couldn't help but wonder why the opening credits for Mimic 3 were rendered in a Saul Bass style typeface; it seemed a rather unusual choice for a film about giant killer cockroaches.

However, as the film unfolded, all became clear: writer/director J.T. Petty clearly fancies himself as some kind of modern-day Hitchcock, shamelessly ripping off the master of suspense's classic thriller Rear Window for this totally unnecessary second sequel to Guillermo Del Toro's rather disappointing original.

Petty, however, clearly possesses none of Hitchcock's flair for storytelling, and apart from some lingering shots of Alexis Dziena's cleavage, his film is an absolute snooze-fest. Even consummate professional Lance Henrikson, who usually provides value for money whatever the project, looks totally bored (and who can blame him?).

Hopefully, Mimic 3 marks the end of this second rate series, but you never can tell... like roaches, bad horror franchises are hard to kill.

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 believe the village idiots came together and decided to make a movie. The sister character was horrible. The mother character was horrible. The detective character was horrible. The main character was badly written-but the actor did all he could to save the part. I only watched the movie through to the end to see if it would get any better. It did not!!! Could somebody explain the plot to me? Three quarters of the movie is the main character looking through his camera at various uninteresting people in the city. The movie is not very scary. The characters' motivations were not defined even once. They simply do things for no apparent reason. Let's not even talk about character development. I believe the word is non-existent. I blame the writers. This movie should have had much more thought put into it.

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!