'Bats' are no 'Birds'
Rating: 6 of 10 
The bulk of reviews for this little horror film would be rather negative. Having seen the movie before having read the reviews, however, led me to a partly similar, partly different, all in all unbiased reaction, which - this is to say - moves towards the more positive side.
Rarely have I seen a horror film as scary as this one. I don't mean to have been screaming and hiding behind a pillow while watching it; it would be quite unmanly to do so, would it. But I felt scared. Great horror films enlarge your perspective, help you getting a different look on something. And I have to tell you, I think different about bats now. The "dark side", so to speak, has been exposed, however unreal the scenario may have been. The fear but has been real. The horror has been real. Don't tell me the X-filean Fluke Man was real.
The featurette exposed the wish of the creators to make something like 'The Birds' but with bats. This isn't 'The Birds', the director is no Hitchcock either. The scenario is rather conventionally contrived, almost entirely predictable. Bad scientist (played by someone who always plays the bad guy) messes with Mother Nature to create a perfect killing machine for the DOD. Young and beautiful female scientist succeeds where the army fails. A Texas Sheriff does a decent John Wayne. All of this neither new nor nice to watch, except Dina Meyer of course. The effects however, contrary to what I've read, are great and believable, especially the sound.
In the end, this makes a movie with an intelligence quotient slightly higher than 'The Phantom Menace', but in terms of visuals, landscape, horror and effects this is thoroughly positive. The stupidity of the setting may also be satirical, but that's a long shot probably. As a satire, this would be brilliant, but can a satire be satire when it isn't recognizable as such? Thus remains a good horror flick and an average movie.
April 30th, 2000
|
