ChicDragon
It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Aulia_Rachman
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.
Mark Landingin
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.
Paul Magne Haakonsen
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.
dadatuuexx
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.
