VALUTAZIONE IMDb
3,4/10
1236
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAt 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... Leggi tuttoAt 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.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Mohammad Aditya
- Big Rudi
- (as M Aditya)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
OK, so it is not really a horror but a creature movie! And it starts quite nicely, some humor, some unexpected things, everything seems to head to a nice flick in the end. Faaaaar from it, pretty much all goes down the drain once you get a look at the sea-creature itself! I mean really? That was the best they could come up with?
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!
So all in all, if you are simply too bored, and i mean really really bored, and you can't seem to find anything else instead, i mean it, anything else at all, maybe, just maybe, this could work...but i doubt it. My advice, look harder, you will find something out there you will like.
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!
So all in all, if you are simply too bored, and i mean really really bored, and you can't seem to find anything else instead, i mean it, anything else at all, maybe, just maybe, this could work...but i doubt it. My advice, look harder, you will find something out there you will like.
There's a great monster in Amphibious, and in that regard no-one will be disappointed. The story is sound, though hardly believable, but this is a movie. The script is cliche and seemed somewhat stuttered, as if made up at the time of filming. The actors can't do much with it to add to the believability, and in a lot of instances don't even try. Pretty good casting/characterisations. I suspect a very young filmmaker was behind this, as there are a lot of edits where it's pretty obvious there had been a cut in the filming, and insufficient care was taken to ensure a smooth continuity. The soundtrack, however, was very good. The sea location set was inspired and that alone managed to drag the piece to above average. I enjoyed it. It's not overly long, and there are plenty of interesting deaths, though a lot suffered from that lack of continuity I mentioned, and only basic attention was often given to various body parts emerging after attacks. It's a pass from me.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizSkylar'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.
- BlooperThe 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.
- ConnessioniReferences King Kong (1933)
- Colonne sonoreThose 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
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Amphibious Creature of the Deep?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Amphibious Creature of the Deep
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 78.506 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 26min(86 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti