VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,5/10
6329
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA group of troubled teenagers are led by social workers on a California wilderness retreat, not knowing that the woods they are camping in have become infested by mutated, blood-sucking tick... Leggi tuttoA group of troubled teenagers are led by social workers on a California wilderness retreat, not knowing that the woods they are camping in have become infested by mutated, blood-sucking ticks.A group of troubled teenagers are led by social workers on a California wilderness retreat, not knowing that the woods they are camping in have become infested by mutated, blood-sucking ticks.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
Virginya Keehne
- Melissa Danson
- (as Virginia Keehne)
Recensioni in evidenza
If you are in the mood for a fun horror movie that doesn't take itself too seriously and has all the right gross out gimmicks- check it out. If it wasn't for a friend mentioning this movie title I would have passed it up. But I trusted his judgment since he is a horror aficionado- and I read some decent reviews in some of my old issues of Fangoria/Gore Zone.
The acting is silly, but it is obvious that this is the way it was written. The key difference between a movie like Ticks (Infested) and some really bad Sci-Fi Channel movie is that everything is done in the Evil Dead 2/ Bad Taste slap stick kind of way. And they go for the gross out money shots in every other scene (lots of pulsating blistering skin waiting to explode, etc). And thank God this didn't have any of the cheesy computer animated gore and FX. I love the latex, goo, and prosthetic body parts of the old school- even if it does look fake. At least you know the actors are actually interacting with it rather then a "green screen".
So, gather a few friends, kick back a few beers or Mountain Dews, and be prepared to rewind a few scenes so you can watch them again!
The acting is silly, but it is obvious that this is the way it was written. The key difference between a movie like Ticks (Infested) and some really bad Sci-Fi Channel movie is that everything is done in the Evil Dead 2/ Bad Taste slap stick kind of way. And they go for the gross out money shots in every other scene (lots of pulsating blistering skin waiting to explode, etc). And thank God this didn't have any of the cheesy computer animated gore and FX. I love the latex, goo, and prosthetic body parts of the old school- even if it does look fake. At least you know the actors are actually interacting with it rather then a "green screen".
So, gather a few friends, kick back a few beers or Mountain Dews, and be prepared to rewind a few scenes so you can watch them again!
I don't really understand the criticism about this film ; maybe if it had a 50 millions $ budget, everybody would find it "cool"? Tony Randel did his best and the movie still boasts good production value despite the numerous troubles they had on the set. This one's mean, politically incorrect (no "back-to-the-nature" crap) and without the shoddy humour and cute one-liners everybody seems obliged to include in his horror just because Freddy said so (c.f. "Nightwatchers"). I saw it three times with friends who enjoyed it as much as I did. And I don't care if some of the actors ended up in some moronic TV fodder for brainwashed teenagers. Not a great movie (unlike Brian Yuzna's "Return of the living dead 3"), but strong, however.
I know this is a low budget horror film, but I liked it anyway. Not a lot of gore by today's standards, but the make-up and special effects were good. It was also enjoyable to look at Ami Dolenz, and to watch the bad guys get "ticked". Two thumbs up!
...and this is a average one with a few real great scenes.The typical "at camp" when things go buggy story line that we are all comfortable with.
Above average humour and effects makes this one worth watching,only the first fifteen miniutes were slow.
Above average humour and effects makes this one worth watching,only the first fifteen miniutes were slow.
A jaw dropping 1990s anti-drug movie, Ticks is infested with genre and period typical cliches. With its ridiculous story and awkward script, the film is clumsy in its approach to serious issues like trauma, racism, and black market crime. However, it excels at gross out horror and intentional camp and improves (in entertainment value) as it blunders toward its over the top finale.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDespite the movie's subtitle, ticks aren't insects. They're arachnids, more closely related to spiders and scorpions.
- BlooperWhen Dr. Kates anatomizes the Tick, an audio recorder appears at the left top of the picture.
- Versioni alternativeThe 2021 UHD/Blu-ray from Vinegar Syndrome offers the film in a never released extended edition running two minutes longer than the theatrical version
- ConnessioniFeatured in Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater: Still More Girls with Big Guns (1995)
- Colonne sonoreBaby Talks Dirty
Written by Steve Plunkett & Lara Cody
Performed by Steve Plunkett
Courtesy of All nations Music/Music of the World
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Ticks?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Especies mortales
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 2.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 25min(85 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti