VALUTAZIONE IMDb
3,4/10
1234
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
So this movie is a bit hard done by with the score at the moment I think (at a 3.8 as I write this) but unfortunately I can understand why people have given it that score.
This movie has a LOT of good points, the character writing is honestly great, the two main actors (the ships captain and the female marine biologist) are decent actors and the others are all reasonable too, the story is well thought through and keeps its focus throughout. Its also really well shot as well and the creature idea is quite unique. So why the low score?
Well despite doing all of that well, the fact is this is a creature feature film in which you really dont see the creature at all until the final scene. Before that the kills are all masked and quite unsatisfying. Its a creature feature film... which doesnt focus on the creature. Ultimately if you put this in hoping for some simple monster fun, you really dont get much of that.
Its honestly a real shame I would have liked to have given this a higher score.
This movie has a LOT of good points, the character writing is honestly great, the two main actors (the ships captain and the female marine biologist) are decent actors and the others are all reasonable too, the story is well thought through and keeps its focus throughout. Its also really well shot as well and the creature idea is quite unique. So why the low score?
Well despite doing all of that well, the fact is this is a creature feature film in which you really dont see the creature at all until the final scene. Before that the kills are all masked and quite unsatisfying. Its a creature feature film... which doesnt focus on the creature. Ultimately if you put this in hoping for some simple monster fun, you really dont get much of that.
Its honestly a real shame I would have liked to have given this a higher score.
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.
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.
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.
Lots of people are slow to admit to other people,that they love b-budget sci-fi,s .Not me,so i will watch most anything on sy-fi channel.Period. This movie was a good view.Not perfect by any means,however,if your "one of us! ",watch it .Brian Yuzna is behind the wheel,and that man needs no introduction to sci-fi .O.K.,i know i,m late to the table on this one,as it was made in 2010,but ,to tell the truth,i JUST watched it.the acting is what you expect,and sadly,the crew fails to soak up much lens time in what would be a great country to film in(India).They most likely shot it in a lot of different places.I do like the fact that,without giving anything away,they built a cool,full scale monster,from scratch!In a world with WAY too many C.G.I. flix,as an artist,i love to see this these days.There is a good mix of the computer fx,action, a sub-plot, good gore effects and ...evil! ..!...a soon to be sy-fy channel classic.
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 esecuzione1 ora 26 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Amphibious 3D (2010) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi