Jeremy Ritchie This film makes no sense whatsoever, it doesn't work as a horror movie and it doesn't work as a psychological thriller.As other s have said, the film takes "Rear Window" and adds roaches. But it's not a very good copy of "Rear Window" and there's no real suspense or horror. And just when it might be getting somewhere, everyone starts acting insanely. The roaches finally appear and I start asking why is he doing that, why is she doing that, what are they thinking.Two thirds of the film is a "Rear Window" copy, where the main character is restricted to his bedroom due to the after effects of an illness, spending his time photographing everything he can see out of his bedroom window. The problem with this approach is that he CAN leave his bedroom, even going outside at one point. This negates all the claustrophobic tension, what little there is, and reduces the film to voyeuristic weirdness. Over the period of the film it becomes clear t hat there's nothing really wrong with him, but I think this is mainly due to a poor script and bad acting rather than a deliberate plot arc.When the roaches finally appear the main character suddenly seems unable to use the phone to call the police, having watched two people getting killed on the street. Instead he keeps watching events outside his window. Watching a roach creep up on his sister in the street, he again fails to use the phone to call her and warn her, even though we know she has her cell phone with her.And, of course, we have the obligatory "all females are useless and just scream their heads off at the first sign of trouble" cliché. Please, the world has moved on from the 1950's.As a slasher/monster movie this film is a complete failure. There are few deaths, nearly all shown in terrible lighting so there's nothing to see, and you have to wait at least an hour for the first real attack. If want a bit of gore, skip the first hour and watch the rest. You'll still understand what's going on, and still find yourself disappointed.I would think you could make this film for under a million dollars as you only need two rooms and one outside location, although I could have rewritten the story to only need one room. There's very little SFX involved as most of the film is just two or three people talking, and you could remove several people from the film and not notice the difference, thus saving on actors fees.Overall this is a poorly conceived, adequately executed attempt at film making from a recent graduate of film studies. As something to watch, I'd stick to watching paint dry.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews A 24-year-old man was one of the children afflicted with Strickler's syndrome ten years ago. He's still weakened, and he spends his days in his room, peeping on the other people in his slum area. He lives there with his sister and their mother, and he starts meeting a young woman he's been infatuated with from afar. Together, the three(not the parent) begin suspecting that something is going on. And for those who haven't watched the original, these three are about insects the size of men being the (unexpected) result of genetic manipulation. This one doesn't go into detail about that. The pitch for this was Rear Window with giant cockroaches... and, yeah, that's about what we get. A gradual pace, little "action"(until the last five or ten minutes of the 70 minute running time... the climax is incredible, if it lacks proper setup, and this doesn't end so much as merely... stop), and hints are favored over directly seeing anything(we'll usually only see the aftermath of attacks, or brief bits of them, we use our imagination instead of seeing something graphic). Is the RW approach anything other than a gimmick? Sadly, no. We don't get the clever commenting on voyeurism and "good neighboring" that Hitchcock gave us half a century ago. In portions, this is like an inferior remake of it, "with a twist". Being trapped in a room with a still camera feels distracting and at times annoys, when it should make us feel powerless(another thing the master of suspense did impeccably well). We're back to a mystery... the first sequel was a straight-forward creature feature. You're likely to love or hate this, partially depending on how you feel about the style of this. There are not very many characters, and the ones that should be tend to get developed. I found Rosy to be cute, with her energy and enthusiasm, and sympathized with Marvin for his forced isolation. Others will disagree(I've seen others call them "impossible to like"). I cared greatly when there was peril in this. To me, this was gripping, and I followed the occurrences attentively. The acting is reasonable enough. This has effective tension. The sound design, and in general the editing and direction(I will keep an eye out for future projects by J.T.) of this has fantastic timing and are skillfully done. These bugs(with a chilling determination to them, a "purpose" to their behavior) in this are truly terrifying, if we do eventually see a tad too much of them, and the CGI does not hold up. There is cheese in this, it doesn't take itself *entirely* seriously. The practical FX are well-done, with a few exceptions. This hides its low budget pretty well. There is a lot of disturbing content, a bit of strong language and a little bloody, gory violence in this. The DVD comes with an interesting, informational and funny commentary track by Petty, a fine 15 minute behind-the-scenes featurette and 18 minutes of cast auditions. I recommend this to anyone this appeals to. 6/10

BA_Harrison At first, I couldn't help but wonder why the opening credits for Mimic 3 were rendered in a Saul Bass style typeface; it seemed a rather unusual choice for a film about giant killer cockroaches.However, as the film unfolded, all became clear: writer/director J.T. Petty clearly fancies himself as some kind of modern-day Hitchcock, shamelessly ripping off the master of suspense's classic thriller Rear Window for this totally unnecessary second sequel to Guillermo Del Toro's rather disappointing original.Petty, however, clearly possesses none of Hitchcock's flair for storytelling, and apart from some lingering shots of Alexis Dziena's cleavage, his film is an absolute snooze-fest. Even consummate professional Lance Henrikson, who usually provides value for money whatever the project, looks totally bored (and who can blame him?).Hopefully, Mimic 3 marks the end of this second rate series, but you never can tell... like roaches, bad horror franchises are hard to kill.

dewit_jacco Man, this movie sucked sh!t through a straw. First, one has to overcome about more than an hour of nonsensical voyeurism, than - out of the blue - some unrecognizable roaches show up from out of the blue and than, klabbam!, there the pitiful apocalypse: the monsters die and the good guy, his sister and his - to be - lover are miraculously saved and all is well again.I wonder what the producers were thinking. The first two Mimics I liked a lot. For the disgusting effects and the, more or less, tension throughout the pictures, but this third was a bunch of crap. It was actually rather sad, on the filmer's account, to focus on the breasts of Rosy to create some kind of, whatever, image: an American teenage girl, smoking dope once in a while, looking good and showing off her bra. Well, one good thing; she didn't die.This movie made no sense. Whatsoever. I'm sorry I watched it.Dikke Jules (Fat Jules)