Fangs

I've seen "Fangs" several times and I have always enjoyed it. It is just a classic monster picture. So one should not expect too much from it except some good, old-fashioned monsters, in the form of bats; and some campy acting by a capable cast that tries its darnedest. Considering the genre and it's history, one is either going to love these thrifty, chimerical adventures; or not. If you're a real fan of monster movies, then I think "Fangs" satisfies quite well.

"Fangs" has bat attacks; a really slimy bad guy; a cute, determined heroine; some comical teens; and even a half-effective hero. The story moves right along, and even though one pretty much knows what is going to happen, the ride is fun, and the bats are suitably scary. I say just watch it for what it is and enjoy the old monster formula worked to a tee. It's great fun.

The only thing that FANGS seems to have been made to do is make the theatrically released BATS look like it deserved every Oscar award that is given out. I was actually happy to own BATS after seeing this, because after I was done watching this film, I watched BATS just to let myself know that not all films suck this badly.

The first thing that really lets you know this film will be major low-budget and hokey all the way is that it stars Corbin Bersen. A good actor, but then again, he did star in the highly terrible, direct-to-video flicks RAPTOR and KILLER INSTINCT. So, forgetting Bersen, there is the rest of the cast. Whip Hubley (brother of Season Hubley) isn't all to bad, but the main thing that kills FANGS is sloppy direction and a screenwriter who tried all too hard to try to make this film funny. Basically, he wanted to try to make FANGS into a BATS, that had the humor that David E. Kelley gave LAKE PLACID. But, it fails miserably here and most of the 'humor' just sounds plain retarded. It's sad too. It always upsets me when somebody says something that you know was meant to be funny and it just isn't.

Having not been given very many killer bat flicks in the past (the only two I can think of would be BATS and an early 70s film called NIGHTWING) so I guess FANGS does well considering that only two other films of this caliber have come before it. But, it borrows heavily from them and end is almost laughable. Like other users said, it seems like you were almost expecting the line "The killer is really..." somewhere in there. The thing that saves FANGS from being a complete atrocity is the fact that the special effects were not *that* terrible (but still, you could obviously tell the bats were computer designed) and the fact that there are a few sarcastic lines that are given by performances that are not all that bad. But, the film is loaded with mindless cliches and has dialogue and situations that are just n-o-t belivable.

FANGS: 2/5.

What am I saying? RPM was a classic piece of quality entertainment besides this. Billed as a horror film - the reality is, this piece of juvenile tripe is a fright-fest ONLY from the script, direction and acting viewpoint! Horror - Sesame Street style! To be honest, Bert is more terrifying!

How the hell did they get Whip Hubley and worse, Corbin Bernsen (LA LAW??) roped into this? Not professional enough to be even called a "student film," this lamer than lame tale of a few genetically altered and frenetically digitised bats terrorising Bernsen's housing estate is so pathetic it defies serious critique.

Has anyone in the history of cinema looked and acted LESS like a cop than Tracey Nelson? The only thing worth watching is spunky Katie Stuart as Hubley's sexy daughter Genny! That's sexy, as opposed to intelligent!

As someone mentioned, yeah it is very clear and colorful however - just like a child's finger painting. On DVD even more so, I can't believe I wasted $6.95 on this offal!

This movie is an absolute riot! The best part about this movie was "Heather". I wanted to see more of her as she kept the movie going by taking off with it from the very beginning. Heather (Corina Marie) hits the comedic beats perfectly to make her "cliche" character of a Valley Girl real and hysterical. Her performance was completely believable...I wanted to see more!!!!!!! Make "Heather" live again!

Not really, but unless you watch the credits you can't tell. This film is like a slighly more graphic live version of the old cartoon. "The killer is really . . . "; I half expected to hear the line, "If it weren't for you darn kids . . ." or perhaps see a large CG or animiated dog.

The film redefines the phrase "tongue and cheek", and frankly I don't like the new definition. Tongue and cheek is great when used in moderation, but in excess it becomes extremely lame. When you're hard pressed to find something believable in the film, it's gone too far. When everything is cliche and exagerated to the extremes, it's gone too far. And the suspension of disbelief is not there.

I don't even feel comfortable critiquing the actors--I can't get over the terrible writing and mediocre direction. Look at Dungeons and Dragons which features a wonderful actor, Jeremy Irons, doing a way over the top performance. Maybe the writing and directing demanded this performance from the actors--I dunno.

I hate being one of those nit-picky viewers who goes through and finds it necessary to point out every single flaw in a film's premise. Especially films about scientific, medical, or police procedures--I mean, even the greatest films that brush up with these subjects are never 100% accurate to the real world, but we forgive them. If they're good enough, the average viewer won't know. But this film, I don't think I spotted more than a handful of points that were accurate.

So watch if you enjoy incredibly cheesy and corny horror films, you *might* be able to laugh at it . . . but I think it tries to hard and fails for even that. But, whatever, go for it if that's your type of film.