Bottom Feeder (Unrated)
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Top Customer Reviews
My biggest gripes are:
1. Lack atmosphere, which I think had to do with the choice of lighting, lenses, and editing for the underground scenes.
2. Lack of tension. Without spoiling anything, there was more intensity in one particular line given by Sizemore at the begining of the third act than any menace given off by the monster in the whole film. The monster actually peeks around corners like a shy child and was slow enough to be outrun for most of the "chase". Bottom line: not scary.
3. For people running from a monster in fear for their lives , the charactors kept stopping in the middle of the hallways to stand around and spout out extended expositional dialogue.
And a word of warning: the DVD cover art touts this as "UNRATED" in bloody red letters, but I put forth that they just didn't bother to submit it to the MPAA. There isn't much blood, some standard gore (lopped off heads, nothing really new there), no nudity, and no swearing that I remember. It's actually closer to a PG-13 than an R in my opinion, and with very little editing you'll probably see it on basic cable soon.
The "Making Of" feature was a basic collection of short interviews with the director and selected cast talking about the filming experience intercut with scenes from the movie. Everyone seemed to be enjoying the themselves, but tired from the quick shooting schedule.Read more ›
Silly, but kind of enjoyable, flick about experimental medicine gone horribly awry. Not really scary, but fun enough that you won't turn it off if you stumble across it during a bout of insomnia.
Nathaniel Leech (Land of the Dead's James Binkley) is a doctor who's been working on a drug that will regenerate damaged tissue. Charles Deaver (16 Blocks' Richard Fitzpatrick) is a billionaire who was burned over most of his body in a horrible accident. He got wind of Leech's work, and has offered Leech an incredible sum of money for a course of the treatment. When the two finally meet, however, and Leech tells Deaver it's still experimental, Deaver's reaction is less than pleasant; he has his security agent, Krendal (Alien Apocalypse's Wendy Anderson), beat Leech to within an inch of his life and then test the drug on him. If it works, well, Deaver will take the cure and pay him. Problem is, the drug's got some side effects. Leech has accounted for those with a second shot, but the ingredients for that one were left on the other side of a locked door, and so the side effects take over. Meanwhile, in another part of the underground complex, a maintenance crew led by Vince Stoker (Tom Sizemore) are canvassing the tunnels to make sure no homeless folks have decided to bunk down in there. Obviously, what they find is not a homeless person...
First, the good: some of the acting. Sizemore has been a notoriously inconsistent actor for the past decade or so, but his performance here is competent at worst, and has some real moments. Also, don't overlook Amber Cull as Sizemore's niece, who would go on to a role in Lucky McKee's The Woods later that year. Pretty much everyone here does well.Read more ›
So, on to how good or bad it is. Well, you can tell by the stars that it's not particularly impressive, but there's no huge faults and the acting is solid.
It makes for a good popcorn movie and there is some decent gore for those who like it, but you've seen it all before. This is simply another monster in shadowy hallways movie; nothing more, nothing less.
It does have one of my biggest pet peeves, though. This is probably best put down to personal taste, but there are two cliche's with horror movie monsters that I'm really getting tired of seeing: excessive drooling and a wet, slimy sheen to the body. Can't anything have dry skin and not slobber like a Saint Bernard? Does it always have to be like this?
It's a shame, too, because our hungry friend gets a lot of good screen time. This isn't one of those movies that keeps the creature hidden.
I give it two stars because I like the basic concept. A guy takes a metabolic drug that gives him an out-of-control appetite, and he takes on attributes of the things he eats (rats, a dog, etc.). So you end up with a fairly unique critter with one big rat ear, a wolfish snout, rat's teeth and bumpy, discolored skin. Shame about all the wetness and drooling. He would have looked much better with a toweling off and better spittle control.
And let's face it, a 4-star monster in a 2-star movie means a lot of fast-forwarding after the first viewing. There's nothing else here worth seeing again.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Good for a laugh. Good low budget effects and decdnt acting. Hopefully therd is no sequel, but I laughed at this one enough to suffer through another.Published on February 23, 2013 by Darryl
This is a generic monster flick that offers nothing new, not it execution or story-wise. It's standard stuff with stock situations and characters. Read morePublished on January 13, 2013 by Einsatz
Bottom Feeder: Movie Review
...Yes, that is seriously a line that Tom Sizemore say's in the movie. Read more
Bottom Feeder was, by no means, academy award material. Then again, if it was, it would probably suck. Read morePublished on May 4, 2009 by Fred Rayworth
Bottom Feeder (Unrated) (WS)THIS IS ANOTHER GREAT MOVIE THAT I ENJOY I SAW IT MORE THEN ONE TIME.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GOOD HORROR MOVIES
I like to take chances and purchase unheard of titles. Some are winners, some are losers. This one falls into the latter category.Published on August 16, 2008 by MDD
Great effects, good gross factor, culd have used more scares. Good story and leaves it open for more carnage. Over all great horror film.Published on August 14, 2007 by Deimos