Diane Ruth A truly extraordinary science fiction/horror film that manages to be an intelligent depiction of perverted science as well as a unique tale of survival. From the very initial scenes, there is an overwhelming sense of terror as a couple stranded at sea are picked up by a mysterious freighter. Immediately treated by the ship's doctor, the couple immediately can tell there is something seriously wrong. The doctor is clearly mad and the experiments he's conducting are beyond all imagination. Richard Moll is stunning in the role of the doctor and it's one of his best roles in years. As the horror unfolds within the confines of a ship at sea, the claustrophobic environment is almost unendurable and the intensity of the thrills simply become too much to bear. This is a terrific film of this type and one of the finest Killer Spider motion pictures ever made.

BA_Harrison I really don't understand the low score Spiders 2 has here on IMDb: whilst an over-ambitious script combined with obvious budgetary limitations mean that the film suffers from some pretty awful CGI effects (particularly in its closing moments), it still proves to be very entertaining stuff.Part mad scientist flick and part big bug B-movie, this 'sequel' (in name only) to the surprisingly fun Spiders offers a pretty inventive (although logic-free) plot, plenty of gruesome effects, and lots of general silliness that fans of low-budget horror should lap up. And for a Nu-Image film made in Bulgaria, you can't really ask for much more than that, can you?Stephanie Niznik and Greg Cromer play Alexandra and Jason, a married couple who wind up being rescued by the crew of a dilapidated cargo ship after their yacht is capsized during a storm. However, they soon discover that they are not quite as lucky as they first think: the ship is being used as a floating laboratory for genetic experiments, and the ship's evil doctor has Jason lined up to be a host for one of his mutant spider eggs...With the director pacing his film carefully, obviously saving most of the film's budget for the FX-laden action at the climax, Spiders 2 may disappoint those looking for non-stop creepy-crawly horror. Fortunately, a great collection of well realised characters (Richard Moll as mad Dr. Grbac gives a wonderfully camp performance, and full marks go to the slimy looking bunch who play the ship's motley crew) and an enjoyably daft script ensure that the film holds one's attention until the arachnids finally go on the rampage.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

battyman1 Maybe it was because I just got finished trying to watch "BloodMonkey", which was SO horrible that it inspired me to set up an IMDb account and contribute a review.Maybe it was because I was then trying to write my review for "BloodMonkey" while watching "Spiders II" and wasn't paying _real_ close attention. I guess I missed the worst of the plot holes, like _why_ the Mad Doctor was growing all those giant spiders, or _why_ he had to feed them people, rather than something somewhat easier to get, like, say, sheep or cattle. This was still far better than BloodMonkey's "let's just go hiking out in the forest, where the Professor knows about (but has completely underestimated) some giant-brained monkeys!" Maybe it was just the quality contrast between "BloodMonkey" and "Spiders II", but this strikes me as the best Sci-Fi Creature Feature that I can readily pull out of my memory (I mean, just _none_ stand out as even decent). Admittedly it was _far_ short of great, and it started out a bit slow after the first (action) scene, and the effects (particularly the sinking of the protagonists' boat) were on the cheap side (After their boat sank, I honestly do not believe that they actually shot Niznik & Kromer in actual water. It looked like they added the water in postproduction). But giant spiders with sharp, pointy teeth can be convincingly scary without having to be really perfect. Except that they made a lotta growling and bellowing noise (another reviewer compared this to elephants). Spiders don't make noise, do they? Neither do people, when they get a pair of giant spider's fangs stuck through both of their lungs. I did NOT, however, find myself shouting at characters for making unbelievably stupid mistakes with the worst possible timing, which is how I would invite violent assault if I were to attempt to watch, for example, "BloodMonkey" in a public theater.In fairness, I had Stephanie Niznik mistaken for Milla Jovovitch throughout. Go ahead, shoot me, but I've never watched either of them much. They're both pretty easy on the eyes. Water sticks to neither of them, unfortunately, which is a shame. I recall Milla going swimming in "Resident Evil" and thinking we were gonna be in for a potentially great wet little-red-dress sequence. Alas, no. They hadda dry her off to continue filming. I was getting my hopes up for something similar when Niznik stripped to her tank top. I mean, there's water dripping from the upper deck everywhere, it's only a matter of time before she gets soaked. No, sorry, can't go there, even if the movie _does_ have an R rating. On Sci-Fi, of course, they had to cut all sex, nudity, and language, derating this movie to PG. Too bad. There was a shower scene which could have really fried, but more likely didn't, anyway. I'd go rent it, but I'll bet it wasn't that big of a deal.Practically all of the action is concentrated into the last half-hour (make that 20 minutes without commercial breaks), ramping up just before and pretty much 'officially beginning' with the aforementioned mild stripdown. It took 'Alexandra' an amazingly long time to realize that her husband was _right_, there _was_ something seriously fishy going on onboard the boat that had rescued them. Hubby had been trying to tell her this for about two days, but she'd ignored his concerns until he disappeared. It finally came together for her only when the Captain locked her into his cabin with him, a nice dinner, and a bottle of wine. It's from there out that Stephanie Niznik (and, in fairness, the script) makes this movie as good as it is. Reminiscent of Milla in "Resident Evil" and Sigourney Weaver's multiple "Alien*" performances, she's scared but fairly cool (if not quite as frosty as Ripley), quick, and determined. She forcibly denies the horny captain's advance, kneeing him (and a few sailors, as well) in the groin, and generally does a fine job once the fighting starts, using whatever weapon is at hand, improvising when there's none, and never ever indulging in 'screaming just for the sake of it'. She _never_ gives up (even when faced with going _back_ inside, a la Ripley, to fetch a vaccine and save Hubby's life), and is sharp enough to be the only character in the movie who doesn't let a spider sneak up upon them. The bottom line is that she manages to save not only her own ass, but her husband's as well. She tallied up an excellent accounting for any action heroine, except when she tried to interrogate the Mad Doctor by pressing a gun to his forehead (instead of shooting out a kneecap at range), which was her only serious mistake. It didn't quite cost her, though, 'cuz a spider snuck up behind the Doctor just in time! Gratuitous? Of course, but amusing anyway, particularly because they only did it _once_. Every other win, she had to _earn_.The final scene, which was probably a reprise of the finale of the first "Spiders" movie, seemed forced and out of place.I can't leave out the pair of spiders on the deck which were indulging in a tug-of-war over one of the sailors. It's entertaining little details like that which lift decency up over crap, and "Spiders II" has almost enough of them, while also easing up on the futile screams.I'd be maybe tempted to give it more than 5 stars, but come on, we're talking about a late-night Sci-Fi Creature Feature here, which can't possibly count as more than a "B" grade movie at best. The Filthy Critic might even give it three fingers, if he saw it uncut, and was feeling generous, and liked Stephanie. It would depend on the shower scene.

Nilsosmar let's see now... Spiders 2... ummm.... the special effects are just silly..... the dialogue is wooden, weird, and hard to take seriously... the mad scientist acts and talks and looks like a Saturday morning cartoon character... the story has lots of plot and logic loopholes, verging on the ridiculous....the story is predictable and is very very very slow moving -- we can all see where it's going, so why can't the characters?actually you could save this movie by taking out virtually all of the dialogue -- not a word of it is necessary --- then taking out redundant and unnecessary scenes -- and bringing in a better cinematographer with more knowledge about dramatic lighting. It would work okay as a silent movie, about ten or fifteen minutes long.