Search - Bottom Feeder (Unrated) (WS) on DVD

Decent little monster movie.....2 1/2 Stars

M. Farineau | 03/28/2007

(3 out of 5 stars)

"The plot is a little convoluted with the antagonist billionare skulking in the back of his limosine in an abandoned building's parking garage, while the action happens below in tunnels. The monster's creation it is genre standard stuff. All of the charactors are cliche'd in one way or another. The creature effects were decent, as were the practical effects overall.



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.



Overall Bottom Feeder was a mediocre little monster movie for a small budget feature. Too bad, because with more preproduction/postproduction polishing this could have been a lot better. Not campy enough to be funny, and too serious to be taken seriously, so I doubt it will be able to ever reach "cult classic" status. Most of the cast did a fair acting job, and as usual Tom Sizemore puts in a good performance. One exeption, I couldn't wait for the bum to die because his acting was so bad.



One of the trailers included on the DVD was for the upcoming zombie flick "The Mad" with Billy Zane. Looks to be a fun time as one of the "so bad it's good" campy horror releases."

Bottom Feeder Says it All

David A. Mills | 12/06/2007

(2 out of 5 stars)

"Bottom Feeder actually grabs your interest while you're browsing the DVD section with its intriguing cover, however, if only the movie was that direct. This movie capatalizes on the scientist and the villian plot that takes a turn for the worse when the villian decides to use the experiment on the scientist prior to himself, what an original thought, if you believe that...Tom Sizemore leads a lackluster cast through underground trails to investigate a disturbance brought to his attention by the obnoxious member of his gardening team. When they come across the poor inflicted scientist he has already started to become the horrific creature that the villian suspected he might evolve into. The villian sends his cohorts down to investigate the scientist only to discover the hideous creature, which in turn, destroys them. This movie is barely a B film more like a D. I don't know what happened to Tom Sizemores' career that catapulted him down to this level, maybe he needed the money. I purchased the film for $5 used, I would be very fortunate to get the value of postage back. I can't even recommend this film to a group of friends that thrive on B films. If you enjoy films that have absolutely no innovation, depth, creativity or acting ability, this is the film for you."

Nothing new, but nothing horribly wrong either

Some Guy | Redwood City, California United States | 09/27/2007

(2 out of 5 stars)

"There are only 3 other reviews here at the moment, so I won't rehash the plot since others have already done a good job of that and you won't have to dig through 50 reviews to know the basic plot.



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."

Fun!

Robert P. Beveridge | Cleveland, OH | 05/22/2009

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Bottom Feeder (Randy Daudlin, 2006)



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. Unfortunately, they're all stuck with a silly script that's all too short on even the cheap jumps that have passed for horror in recent Hollywood genre outings. This is more an action film than a horror film, and let's face it, even the action isn't all that hot. Still, the acting is enough to make it marginally watchable, even if you'll find yourself staring, in the final scene, at a plot hole big enough to drive a truck through. ** ½



"