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.

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

J.T. Perry directs this stylish entry in the giant bug series. In this entry, a diseased boy who takes pictures of neighbors begins witnessing murders. As it turns out, the murderers are surviving insects of the Judase breed (The species created in the original mimic to kill diseased insects), and soon they are eating people in the apartment building that he lives in. "Mimic 3" has good acting, especially from the wonderfully underrated Lance Hendrickson (Aliens, alien vs. Predator, the untold, super mario bros.), impressive special effects, and stylish direction. The film is truly the sparticus of the mimic series. Unfortunately, it's just too slow to get going.

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!