KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Pigalina Basically some genetically modified bats get loose and go round biting people (and a dog, which was most uncalled for) to death. My first gripe with this movie is that Heather and Diane remained alive. Oh my goodness, they were like so annoying and I was all like won't they just die already, I mean like they were just so irritating. How I laughed to see such fun when one of them got attacked by a bat. Sadly it only messed up her hair.The teenage daughter in this film of course wanted to be a reporter, ah yes, ALL teenage girls want to be investigative journalists. She of course was on the case and had a video camera with her at all times - not that it helped the storyline any, she didn't solve the mystery with it. The dad though may I say was very smart, no sooner had he seen an odd looking device he'd solved the whole thing and they all raced off to save the day. And what a lovely ending, the Dad married the police lady and they went on honeymoon with his daughter AND her boyfriend. Though, in its defense, I didn't actually get bored watching this, and it was mildly amusing when it was supposed to be.

plarkin The first time I saw this, I agreed with all the other posters who say this is a BAD, BAD movie. Watching the acting is like eating old, cold popcorn with no butter, salt or anything. And the better I knew the actor to be, the worse the acting seemed. For this I blame the director. The plot was transparent, the characters cardboard, the motivations only hinted at or missing entirely. For this I blame the writer. The second time I saw it, it was vastly more entertaining because I knew not to expect any better, and I could appreciate the flashes of creativity, humor and even humanity that are peppered through the film.The writer, Jim Geoghan (if that really is the writer's name/identity -- have you taken a look at his photo? is that for real?), has mostly written for sitcoms. The punch-punch-punch, joke-every-ten-seconds style needed to keep the attention of the average sitcom watcher does not translate well onto the movie screen, and the 22-minute time frame doesn't lend itself to the habit of thinking deeply or extensively (or sometimes at all) about character, meaning, emotion, motive or the nature of creativity.The director, Kelly Sandefur, appears also to have gotten his start in sitcoms, and the same comments apply. But he also seems to have mainly done Visual Effects Filmography, which explains a lot. Just as movies directed by long-time stunt performers tend to have lots of spectacular stunts, sometimes (often) to the detriment of the story and music video directors tend to create chaotic, nihilistic, iconoclastic films, this film looks just great, but the other qualities suffered.In fact everything about the look of this film is really very good. The cinematography, lighting, staging, focus, sound -- everything technical is in fact excellently done.The serious film student, especially one with ambition to make films of one's own some day, can definitely profit from a study of this film and its faults and its strengths. The main lessons: writing is important. Match your writer to your subject. For example, the humorous parts of this film fell flat because the writer is used to a laugh track guiding the audience to the (intentionally) funny parts. A playwright can often write a more effective script because he's not used to relying on a sound track to guide the emotion of the viewer -- he has to do it with the story. Also, match your director to the material. Don't ask a music video director to direct a tender love story, or any scene that lasts longer than three minutes. And if you ever get to make a movie (and if you can afford it), get all the technical crew of this movie to work for you! But first, see to the writing. A badly filmed great story will be easier to watch than an excellently filmed mediocre story.

Mystie3000 Confession. I will watch any monster movie, especially really really bad ones. And this definitely ranks with the worst ever. With scenes poorly revisited from almost every other monster/horror movie, this is what I refer to as a "Movie-Loaf". Shamelessly dragging "Jaws", "Carrie", and even bits of "Twister" (Aluminum cans come in sooo handy sometimes), this movie makes the entire "Piranha" series look realistic and highbrow. A pair of ultra precocious teenage surfer types add a gut churning touch for those unaffected by the cheapness of the bat effects. I almost fell off my sofa when I learned that these bats use RADAR as opposed to the usual echolocation (sonar). The computer jargon, thrown in apparently at random, will insure that this movies remains "dated" for all time, if anyone ever has the shamelessness to re-run it (thank you Sci-Fi). That said, if you love to laugh at movie making at it's worst, this is a real gem. Where's the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew when you need them? I suggest watching it with some good humored friends and a case of beer. You may want to start in on the beer before you put in the movie however.

jaywolfenstien 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.