NOTE IMDb
3,4/10
1,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAt the beginning, the uncle(a sorcerer) sends tamal out to get "the power" TA monster impregnates Tamal. At the end of the movie, baby creatures are pouring out of the wound on Tamal, and it... Tout lireAt the beginning, the uncle(a sorcerer) sends tamal out to get "the power" TA monster impregnates Tamal. At the end of the movie, baby creatures are pouring out of the wound on Tamal, and it becomes obvious what occurred.At the beginning, the uncle(a sorcerer) sends tamal out to get "the power" TA monster impregnates Tamal. At the end of the movie, baby creatures are pouring out of the wound on Tamal, and it becomes obvious what occurred.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Mohammad Aditya
- Big Rudi
- (as M Aditya)
Avis à la une
When I saw this at my local shop I bought it for two reasons, it was very cheap for being a real 3D but most of all it was the new Brian Yuzna flick. I knew him from the follow-ups of the Reanimator franchise so I knew he could make some gory flicks.
Looking towards the cover of the Blu ray it was clearly a rip-off of Piranha 3D and Piranha 3DD. Don't ever think that you will see that shot somewhere in Amphibious. It even goes a bit further on the negative kind. It has an SyFy or The Asylum overlook. This isn't a straight horror it's a pure creature feature but one of the CGI kind and making it more ridiculous is the fact that it's prehistoric.
I can dig the settings but I wasn't satisfied with the gore or horror. There isn't that much in it but when it does it's okay and even a bit gruesome but in fact it's more about saving children who are working as slaves on some kind of fishing thing. Of course Skylar (Janna Fassaert) do search for prehistoric life and so it comes that the creature is found but it also has to do with black magic.
You don't watch it for the acting because some acting is wooden as hell, Fassaert is okay but still it could have been a SyFy flick. Rather disappointed for a Yuzna flick.
On part of the 3D that was okay. If you watch it 2D you never will have the feeling that some shot were done for 3D. The 3D works now and then rather good and it does work throughout the whole movie. Shark Night 3D (2011) for example was only in 3D when there was action of the shark.
Guess a lot will hate Amphibious, pure for the creature freaks. Maybe the best thing was the start of the movie with the couple going for a swim, that delivered some good moments.
Gore 1,5/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5
Looking towards the cover of the Blu ray it was clearly a rip-off of Piranha 3D and Piranha 3DD. Don't ever think that you will see that shot somewhere in Amphibious. It even goes a bit further on the negative kind. It has an SyFy or The Asylum overlook. This isn't a straight horror it's a pure creature feature but one of the CGI kind and making it more ridiculous is the fact that it's prehistoric.
I can dig the settings but I wasn't satisfied with the gore or horror. There isn't that much in it but when it does it's okay and even a bit gruesome but in fact it's more about saving children who are working as slaves on some kind of fishing thing. Of course Skylar (Janna Fassaert) do search for prehistoric life and so it comes that the creature is found but it also has to do with black magic.
You don't watch it for the acting because some acting is wooden as hell, Fassaert is okay but still it could have been a SyFy flick. Rather disappointed for a Yuzna flick.
On part of the 3D that was okay. If you watch it 2D you never will have the feeling that some shot were done for 3D. The 3D works now and then rather good and it does work throughout the whole movie. Shark Night 3D (2011) for example was only in 3D when there was action of the shark.
Guess a lot will hate Amphibious, pure for the creature freaks. Maybe the best thing was the start of the movie with the couple going for a swim, that delivered some good moments.
Gore 1,5/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5
An Indonisan sea-creature movie, that concerns a monster type scorpion, with an interesting subplot of captive kids (working for smugglers). A 'hokey' type picture you can watch and easily enjoy.
I watched this movie in lack of having better to watch. And my interest was heightened when I saw that Brian Yuzna was behind this movie.
And now that I have seen it, I sit here with somewhat of a feeling of having just sat through a late 80's - early 90's horror movie. It didn't seem like it was from 2010 at all. The storyline was pretty much what you've seen in movies back then.
The story is pretty vague. Some researcher is doing work in the ocean somewhere in Asia, and she comes upon some awakened monster that preys upon a local fishing platform. There is some sub-plots about Tamal, about children being held against their will as work slaves and such, but there never really was a greater red line throughout the movie. And you are left wondering, where did this monster come from, how could it have survived for that long, and most importantly of all, just a big why, why, why at most things in the movie.
"Amphibious" was dragged down by a tedious storyline that would have worked better back in the 80's or 90's, but even more so was weighed down by horrible dialogue and pretty bad acting. Sure there were moments of clarity, but in overall, the acting done by the native Indonesians cast for the movie was less than halfhearted. And also one thing comes to mind, why would they be speaking English and not Bahasa Indonesia at a remote location like that? It just didn't make sense.
Now, one of the two things the movie did have working in its favor, was that it worked well at building up suspense. Brian Yuzna is great at doing that, and managed to pull it off in "Amphibious" nicely enough. And the second part that worked well for the movie was the creature itself. Sure, you have to look past the fact that it is a gargantuan scorpion that lives under the water. But once you get past that stupid flaw, then the creature was actually nicely made, and it looked real enough. So hats off for the special effects team on "Amphibious".
I enjoy horror movies, and "Amphibious" was, sadly enough, below average. And I doubt that it is a movie that I will ever be sitting down with for a second watching. The movie is good enough for a single watching, then it is bagged, tagged and forgotten.
And now that I have seen it, I sit here with somewhat of a feeling of having just sat through a late 80's - early 90's horror movie. It didn't seem like it was from 2010 at all. The storyline was pretty much what you've seen in movies back then.
The story is pretty vague. Some researcher is doing work in the ocean somewhere in Asia, and she comes upon some awakened monster that preys upon a local fishing platform. There is some sub-plots about Tamal, about children being held against their will as work slaves and such, but there never really was a greater red line throughout the movie. And you are left wondering, where did this monster come from, how could it have survived for that long, and most importantly of all, just a big why, why, why at most things in the movie.
"Amphibious" was dragged down by a tedious storyline that would have worked better back in the 80's or 90's, but even more so was weighed down by horrible dialogue and pretty bad acting. Sure there were moments of clarity, but in overall, the acting done by the native Indonesians cast for the movie was less than halfhearted. And also one thing comes to mind, why would they be speaking English and not Bahasa Indonesia at a remote location like that? It just didn't make sense.
Now, one of the two things the movie did have working in its favor, was that it worked well at building up suspense. Brian Yuzna is great at doing that, and managed to pull it off in "Amphibious" nicely enough. And the second part that worked well for the movie was the creature itself. Sure, you have to look past the fact that it is a gargantuan scorpion that lives under the water. But once you get past that stupid flaw, then the creature was actually nicely made, and it looked real enough. So hats off for the special effects team on "Amphibious".
I enjoy horror movies, and "Amphibious" was, sadly enough, below average. And I doubt that it is a movie that I will ever be sitting down with for a second watching. The movie is good enough for a single watching, then it is bagged, tagged and forgotten.
There's something wrong with this movie i just can't figure out which one is the worst.
Probably the acting. I don't think they're scared enough. C'mon a little acting workshop could have helped the actors. Dialogue. I don't think it needs to be done in 3D. Dubbing. Poor decision making on the part of the characters. Some weird and unnecessary scene input.
On a positive note, I really liked the location and setting. It gives a very good scary premise because it creates an impression that they are far away to ask for rescue.I must say this is the type of movie that I'm going to enjoy watching on my "B and below movies" marathon.
Just like my review, the film is disorganized and at some point, doesn't make sense.
Probably the acting. I don't think they're scared enough. C'mon a little acting workshop could have helped the actors. Dialogue. I don't think it needs to be done in 3D. Dubbing. Poor decision making on the part of the characters. Some weird and unnecessary scene input.
On a positive note, I really liked the location and setting. It gives a very good scary premise because it creates an impression that they are far away to ask for rescue.I must say this is the type of movie that I'm going to enjoy watching on my "B and below movies" marathon.
Just like my review, the film is disorganized and at some point, doesn't make sense.
first, sorry if my English language is bad.. so yeah, after i watch this film, i've big disappoint to this film.. about script the story, sorry to say, nothing interested.. the scene, so flat..and the actor, well..i can't agree anymore.. so, maybe this film, going to B/C class film's.. i think maybe, this film has minim badget to make it, maybe the director just put in the ladies to make up this movie bad, still nothing change.. To be honest, unless this movie is aired on some late night TV creature feature program there is really no need to sit through this at all. It's a rambling, plodding movie that never really kicks into gear and despite the exotic location, it's all in vain as 90 percent of the film is shot in and around the fishing platform. 86 minutes of pure tedium is the price I paid for this steaming pile. What more to say, dialogue are pretty funny and they are meant to be that way, so one point here! The place where the action takes place, again, nice, not bad at all, you probably seen it before but still, brings a nice touch to it all. Characters, one point once again, i found them OK, they blend in great. But these are the only good things, therefore that is why i rated this movie 3 out of 10! I just can't get pass the creature, come on, XXI century, the ability to make whatever effects you want, even if a little cash short still, horrible sea-creature. And not sure if that is a SEA-monster, seriously!
maybe, you just better option to watch another movie some like this.. rate from me, 5/10. just it.
maybe, you just better option to watch another movie some like this.. rate from me, 5/10. just it.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesSkylar's laptop cover is emblazoned with the words "Miskatonic Oceanographic". This is an in-joke. Miskatonic University is a fictional university in the equally fictional town of Arkham, Mass., created by the writer HP Lovecraft. It was first mentioned in Lovecraft's 1922 story "Herbert West : Reanimator", which was filmed in 1985 with Stuart Gordon as director and Brian Yuzna as producer.
- GaffesThe textbook on the table next to Skylar's laptop during her first scene has the misspelled title "Standard Methosds" on the spine. Later 0:37:56 we can see that the correct title "Standard Methods" is printed on the cover.
- ConnexionsReferences King Kong (1933)
- Bandes originalesThose Eyes
(Mikkel Maltha (as M. Maltha))
Performed by Jolien Grunberg
Produced by Jack Pisters and Fons Merkies
Guitars: Jack Pisters
Drums: Victor Dirks
Bass: Jamie Van Hek
Recorded and Mixed by Jonas Filtenborg
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Amphibious Creature of the Deep?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Amphibious Creature of the Deep
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 78 506 $US
- Durée1 heure 26 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant