IMDb RATING
3.4/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
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... Read allAt 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.
Mohammad Aditya
- Big Rudi
- (as M Aditya)
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
Brian Yuzna is one the few remaining, and still active, producers/directors who can pretty much afford themselves everything. After all, he's the man who made the world a much better place with immortal horror classics like "Re-Animator", "From Beyond", "Society" and "Return of the Living Dead III", and therefore we still owe him gratitude. Of course, it's been thirty years, and with duds like "Rottweiler" and "Beneath Still Waters", Yuzna's untouchable status started declining fast. The inept, derivative, and - quite frankly - boring "Amphibious" won't do his credit much good, neither.
Even in 2D, how I watched it, "Amphibious" clearly has good potential to be an undemanding and amusing creature-feature/giant monster flick. The opening sequences are also promising, with a young couple on holiday in Indonesia getting ripped to pieces by the tail of a humongous kind of sea-scorpion. Unfortunately, though, the plot then becomes unnecessarily convoluted and absurd. The monster is somehow spiritually linked to a child, and the marine biologist suffers from traumatic flashbacks. Who cares, we only want to see filthy Indonesian slaved traders getting devoured! Luckily, there's still a fair amount of gore the computerized special effects are reasonably decent. Yuzna is clever and experienced enough to only reveal small parts of the creature, and only show it in full during the finale.
Mildly interesting also, at least to some people, is that "Amphibious" is a co-production with unusual countries involved, like Indonesia and The Netherlands. Many of the crew members are Dutch or Belgian, and also lead actress Jenna Fassaert can't hide her ugly accent. I don't criticize her, though, since the entire cast terrible.
Even in 2D, how I watched it, "Amphibious" clearly has good potential to be an undemanding and amusing creature-feature/giant monster flick. The opening sequences are also promising, with a young couple on holiday in Indonesia getting ripped to pieces by the tail of a humongous kind of sea-scorpion. Unfortunately, though, the plot then becomes unnecessarily convoluted and absurd. The monster is somehow spiritually linked to a child, and the marine biologist suffers from traumatic flashbacks. Who cares, we only want to see filthy Indonesian slaved traders getting devoured! Luckily, there's still a fair amount of gore the computerized special effects are reasonably decent. Yuzna is clever and experienced enough to only reveal small parts of the creature, and only show it in full during the finale.
Mildly interesting also, at least to some people, is that "Amphibious" is a co-production with unusual countries involved, like Indonesia and The Netherlands. Many of the crew members are Dutch or Belgian, and also lead actress Jenna Fassaert can't hide her ugly accent. I don't criticize her, though, since the entire cast terrible.
Did you know
- TriviaSkylar'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.
- GoofsThe 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.
- ConnectionsReferences King Kong (1933)
- SoundtracksThose 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
- How long is Amphibious Creature of the Deep?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Amphibious Creature of the Deep
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $78,506
- Runtime
- 1h 26m(86 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content