Locusts (TV Movie 2005) Poster

(2005 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Add a Review
50 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Kind of campy. Not the best writing. Lawless is wonderful.
verybentlady6 August 2005
I gave this movie 7 out of ten stars, only because of the performance of Lawless. The script wasn't the best to work with, but she is a professional, and managed to pull it off quite well.

Still, if your not a fan of Lawless, you'll probably not appreciate this movie. (Like I say, not the best script. But does anyone have any business expecting much from a made-for-TV movie?)

The first reviewer actually said that Hollywood needs to adopt a Xenaphobic(!) policy. As an adult, I know the difference between an actress and the character she portrays. It is unfortunate that some of the others who claim to be adults while reviewing work on this site do not.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not that bad if you weren't expecting much
vchimpanzee26 April 2005
Gina has to feed the locusts in Lab C-12 at the Virginia Agricultural Institute. She's not concerned about going in the room with the locusts because, after all, they're just grasshoppers ...

Dr. Maddy Rierdon (whose robe is open and doesn't cover her underwear), an Undersecretary of Agriculture, answers the phone and finds out she has to investigate yet another crisis involving insects. This bothers Dan (who is wearing a towel). Eventually he wants to break up with Maddy because she spends too much time on work. Later, Maddy calls him while he at his job as a United Nations Agricultural liaison, giving a tour to a group of Africans. In one of the film's few really funny moments, the translator explains that Americans have relationship problems, which makes the Africans laugh.

Dr. Peter Axelrod (John Heard) has developed a hybrid locust from the Desert Locust and the Australian Plague Locust. It has a shorter gestational period and a longer life span than normal locusts, and it migrates faster ... and it's resistant to all known pesticides. Dr. Rierdon orders his lab shut down, and Dr. Axelrod is fired. All the locusts are destroyed. Well, almost. A couple get away down a drain, and another small group gets shipped, with a special warning label, to a California Air Force Base. At the base, there is an accident, and the locusts get out.

Dr. Rierdon is in California anyway to check on a West Nile Virus threat. The locusts from the base have multiplied into a giant swarm and attacked a couple of campers and some Spanish-speaking farm workers.

Meanwhile, in the East, Dr. Axelrod has still not found work (though a defense job is a possibility), but he goes to the gym so he can at least keep in shape. On the way there, he encounters the descendants of the second group of escaped locusts--and so do his daughter Sofia and all the kids on her school bus.

Wyatt, a meteorologist in Oklahoma, advises both Dr. Rierdon and Dr. Axelrod on the weather conditions that might determine where the swarms will go next. Unfortunately, at this point, Dr. Rierdon wants Dr. Axelrod to stay out of the investigation.

Pittsburgh is such a beautiful, modern city, which has overcome its image as a dirty and industrial. No longer is the city covered by dark clouds ... oh, wait.

Only one thing will kill these evil creatures. Saddam Hussein used it on his people. If nothing is done, world famine will result. Perhaps it is worth sacrificing some Americans to save the country's food supply.

The eventual solution to the locust problem is as unbelievable as the fact such a swarm could form in the first place.

If you enjoy movies like this (and I do) this was pretty good. I'm not saying this was a good movie. Almost nothing about it suggests quality except the visual effects. These swarms were scary (to me, anyway), even in the lab. And there were a few brief, well-done shots of what appeared to be real locusts eating. As for any attempts at scientific accuracy, I don't think anyone was really trying.

I found the characters in Stacey's office in Pittsburgh appealing enough that I would like to have seen a whole movie about them. Oh, well ...

Mike Farrell got old! I didn't even recognize him at first in the first scene where he appeared, talking with his daughter Maddy on the phone. He was really good in that scene, but later he wasn't anything special. Other good performances came from the translator and the farm workers.

If you like bad horror movies, this is a good one.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Below par Lawless
kirk_bones24 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This sort of thing has been done many times before with bees,slugs,rats and even ticks so why not a creature feature with locusts. This is a made for TV feature starring one time butt kicking warrior princess Lucy Lawless. A swarm of genetically engineered locusts escape from a laboratory and head across America creating a swathe of destruction as they go. This may have been an interesting idea on the drawing board but it has one big problem, the locusts just don't feel threatening.In classic films such as The Birds and The Swarm you feel threatened by the creatures but in this the locusts are more likely to induce a yawn rather than any sense of panic or terror.Half way through the feature the locusts turn carnivorous and this gave me the feeling that ideas had started to run out. I know Lucy Lawless may be trying to move away from Xena but surely she could choose better vehicles for her talent than this half baked attempt at creature feature terror. The dialogue was forced, the direction was slow and probably because the locusts were CGI based they didn't even begin to bring me out in even a Luke warm sweat. I give this 4/10 and that is only because of Lucy Lawless.I will always be a Lucy Lawless fan and anything she is in deserves some sort of score. My advice to anyone out there is to avoid this feature at all costs.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Where's MST3K now that we need it?
LN_Smithee25 April 2005
Halfway into the 00's, it looks as if CBS is trying to bring back what was a regular event on broadcast TV in the 70's and 80's -- the totally lame low budget TV-movie.

While I don't watch movies or shows that are appalling to me (thus explaining why I watched "Locusts" rather than "Desperate Housewives"), I am entertained by pictures that I find ridiculous. I only caught the last half-hour of CBS' last hastily served pseudo-big event, "Spring Break Shark Attack," and only the young that hasn't seen "Jaws" didn't know what that movie was before seeing it. Whatta hoot. Like "SBSA", the scenes in "Locusts" are eminently predictable.

As my summary above indicates, I really do miss Mike, Joel, Servo and Crow cracking wise at the inanity of movies like "Locusts." Prime scenes for their barbs would have been (SPOILERS!): the opening one where the assistant, showing off for her bug-fearing boyfriend, goes into the chamber full of locusts without putting on a jumpsuit; the following scene with the semi-naked Lucy Lawless (sing the National Anthem again for us, Lucy!) cutting short what should have been a romantic interlude with her chiseled-torsoed boyfriend (played by the wooden Dylan Neal), who whines like a child about how her prestigious Washington position takes her from his bed; the school bus scene when the daughter of the locusts' breeder calls for her daddy; the meeting with the USDA and the Dept. of Homeland Security, in which Lawless briefs a panel wearing full dress uniforms while she is dressed in skin-tight jeans; the inevitable expression of remorse from the entomologist, prior to his bloody demise; the scene in the Pittsburgh office, with the b-day party being interrupted by a picture window full of bugs (plus the revelation that the office hunk is even wimpier than Lawless' bf); the scene in the chopper when Lawless declares she's hormonal due to her pregnancy, and just might kill everyone in the chopper if the DHS doesn't change its drastic plan; the climactic kiss that is interrupted by the buzzing of the swarm; and just about every scene in which people are warned about the locusts' pending arrival -- first, they're in denial; minutes later, they're running for their lives.

I gave this movie three stars for each of the three best things about "Locusts": the eye candy. Her Lawlessness herself, the "MILF"-ish Natalia Nogulich, and the birthday girl from the office, the sexy, magnetic, and buxom Azure Dawn, who, according to her IMDb page, is going to be in CBS' upcoming "Elvis" mini-series as "sequined actress." I can hardly wait!

Keep an eye out for Azure Dawn in the future. On second thought, keep both eyes out. You don't want to miss anything!
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rooting for the Locusts!!
melrod4324 April 2005
Oh my, oh my, oh my. Awful doesn't even begin to describe this moronic waste of time. This movie is really just an incessant cell phone ringing and someone picking it up looking harried and worried. Yet another reason to hate technology--infesting the movies now with cell phones to eat up the scenery. Wow, kept me riveted! This blech of a movie is pathetic and I'm a huge fan of science fiction. This doesn't exactly harken back to the good old sci-fi/B movies of the past--it is insulting and a grind to watch. I was hoping the locusts would eat everyone and start with the people with cell phones parked at their heads.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's Like a Car Wreck...
bravesrthe124 April 2005
You know when you pass by a car wreck and you know that it's something bad, but you just have to look at it. Well, this is that movie! For the most part it has bad acting and a really silly plot. The only reason that I'm giving it a four is because the Locusts actually look really good when grouped up and close-ups are real Locusts. Some of the government action seems pretty realistic, except for this one General that wants to spray VX-Nerve Gas, but that's really all I can say good about this movie. If your so board out of your mind and you can't sleep then laugh yourself to sleep at this movie. If you have better things to do then you know what to do. I give this movie a very giving 4 out of 10!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An enjoyable movie
chakram_sais5 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I liked this movie. OK, it was not perfect. But movies with disasters are usually so boring that I don't watch them until the end. I started watching this one because of Lucy Lawless, which is a wonderful actress, and I didn't regret doing it. Lucy Lawless did a good work, and so was the music of Joseph LoDuca. The other characters weren't as interesting a Lucy Lawless one, but they weren't bad. The crisis in Maddy's marriage was interesting, but didn't take attention from the main problem, the locusts.

My favourite scene was the one with the helicopter, where Maddy's acts reminded me a bit what Xena would have done. I felt a bit shocked when a little girl suffered a coma just because she fell to the floor of a bus attacked by the locusts, but fortunately this plot didn't take much time from the main plot. I also liked the way Maddy's pregnancy wasn't a problem for her in order to solve the situation.

In conclusion, I think that movie won't win any Oscars, but I spent a good time watching it. Now a sequel is going to be filmed, and I hope it is at least as good as "Locusts".
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This was beneath even Lucy Lawless.
ptobin5524 April 2005
Yes, that's right. Because my D'Onofrio as Det. Goren in L&O:CI was interrupted by an episode of The Contender, which also merits discussion somewhere, I was forced to watch this nonsense. I'm fairly certain that if I was given a typewriter with 6 keys and 20 minutes, my script of Locusts would have been better. The general premise is amazing in that bioengineered locusts somehow escape their scientific compound. This leads to an brilliant display of obvious things, namely pregnant women and biblical references. This movie actually contains lines such as: "I'm pregnant and hormonal, now land this 'copter". And: "You did it.", "No, we did it." I'm not sure when I'll be able to keep food down again. Completely unacceptable. The saving grace of this movie came in the commercial breaks, which touted an excellent new Hallmark classic starring Rosie O'Donnell and Andie MacDowell, two actresses who have no business in show business. One of them plays a mentally handicapped person and if you can't tell which one it is, then I think that says something about each of their acting abilities. At any rate, Locusts was an offense to good taste everywhere and the film industry has been set back at least a decade. Hollywood really needs to adopt a Xenaphobic policy.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lucy: a Diamond in the Rough
Nathaniel Bacon1 April 2006
This film is actually better than it is being credited for. It's number one strength is definitely the skill of Lucy Lawless(although it's somewhat wasted in many emotionally light scenes), and the script can, at times, be slightly inept. However, it's an interesting story with something to say. Introducing some very thought provoking themes and ideas about the boundaries of science and human power, it shows a rather creative way in which nature can punish us for our own idiocy. A surprising bonus is the high quality of special effects involved. There's really nothing that comes off as fake. Campy, maybe... but not fake. In the end, this film is satisfying. Especially when compared to the vast sea of other made-for-TV-movies, it stands out ahead of the pack. It's sequel "Vampire Bats"(while still far from perfect), draws on this film's strengths and builds upon them. Both movies are worth a watch, and worth owning if you are a fan of Lucy.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
OK made for T.V movie
monkey-man27 November 2005
I just finished watching this movie on TV and before i watched it i thought that this movie would suck so much but this movie turned out to be OK but by far not a great or even a good movie.There is a surprisingly impressive cast in this b grade made for T.V movie with good actors and actress like Lucy Lawless,John Heard from the good movie Home Alone and Mike Farrell.

There are some things that make this movie suck like how most of the special affects in this movie look so fake and sometimes the plot gets a bit stupid.

Overall this movie has some flaws but in the end this movie turns out to be OK.And my rating for this movie is 5 out of 10.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lame on a good day with a tail wind
lepoisson-124 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Possible spoilers due to references to other literature…assuming you can't guess the ending within the first few minutes.

OK folks, I have a dirty little secret: I really love crummy sci-fi picks. Bad acting, scripts, cheap effects and breaking the laws of physics just make my day. Plan 9 from Outer Space holds a special place in my heart.

While Locusts passed the test on each of these, it will probably (or should) be quickly forgotten, being more schlock than entertainment. Also, as somebody else mentioned, the bug close-ups are actually pretty good, so Locust kinda loses a few points in the cheesy effects category. The cliché alarm rings constantly, from the mandatory troubled romance to the divorced father with the cranky kids to the gruff military general who allows a civilian to boss him around to the national politics to the job climbers to the…you get the picture.

Important things of note:

The brilliant lead scientist sometimes wears hip huggers, a low cut top and no bra, and is photographed from above. I guess they had to do **something** to keep male viewers watching. Hello women: tell me, was there anything to keep you interested in this piece of garbage?

A huge group of 20-somethings stand around watching bazillions of bugs up close as they cover the windows, yet none shriek, barf, or any of the other normal expected reactions.

If you have a basic knowledge of electricity (i.e. current only flows in a complete circuit), you will have problems with this flick. Forget it if you understand high voltage, current capacities, grounding, welding, and arcing.

The movie wraps everything up in the last 15 minutes. I won't say what happens, but if the "feel good" parts of the ending don't make you toss your popcorn, you're one tough viewer.

There's a genetic reference at the end that made no sense whatsoever, but I'm not a bio major.

There is a remarkable parallel to Carl Stephenson's classic short story "Leiningen versus the Ants." This is great literature (for real); if you haven't read it, spend 10 minutes at It's top notch.

There is a remarkable parallel to one of my favorite crummy Sci-Fi movies "Night of the Lepus." Check out the IMDb reviews of this beauty.

This movie was a total waste of time on all levels.

1 Star
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
lighten up people
mvefan25 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I agree that the plot left something to be desired, but lots of you guys were either too busy laughing or griping to notice that there were explanations for some of the things you guys are knocking. For example, the research couldn't be done on butterflies because they wouldn't pose a threat to any country--hello, the Dept.of Defense financed the study. The pregnancy test thing, does anyone know if they actually say "pregnant" these days? But her looking at the label wasn't stupid, really. All women would have done the same, just to be sure. My only real problem--there was no explanation for this, not even a ridiculous one: did they just leave Peter in the silo? Did they tell his family? Some closure, please! I also agree John Heard should be above this, but who knows his reasons? And the "wooden" acting. Yep, for some characters--some extras, especially the kids, seemed to be smiling with delight rather than wincing in terror, but hey, they are kids (the little girl who played Sofia was quite real, though. I'd keep an eye out for her in the future.) The adult extras and some small roles though, no excuse for them. Enough rambling, my point is this: It was a bug thriller--what did you expect? I enjoyed it for what it was worth, and I bet it was fun to make.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Locusts-A film by Trey Parker
Jim25 April 2005
In preparation for this movie, the writers underwent a serious process. The writers went into a room and armed themselves with a jar full of movie clichés. They pulled out one after another. "Military man wants action that could endanger the world." "Sappy love story between two main characters" "Scientist realizes his experiments have condemned the world to doom." "Heroes find a way to fight dire problem with help of a coincidence." I swear, this movie was made by Trey Parker of South Park fame. Watch the episode Die, Hippy Die, and this film eerily mimics that overly clichéd plot line. A small difference, however-South Park is meant to parody. This film was also a testament to how badly Lucy Lawless needs work. My god, Xena, how the mighty have fallen. One positive, however, is that this film really made me and my friends laugh like crazy. If you still want to see it, go into it thinking of it as a comedy. Believe me, it's much better that way.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst movie ever made?
ozdv824 April 2005
This has to be a candidate for the worst movie ever made! We haven't seen a bigger load of trash in decades! It's not even one of those movies that is so bad it's funny - it's just plain bad in every way - the plot - the script - the cast - the effects - all terrible. You can't help but wonder how movies like this ever get made? I mean, who would read a script like this and say "hey, this is great, let's make it" or "hey, this is great, I'd like to audition for this movie".

Even if there is nothing else on TV, don't waste your time - turn it off and listen to the radio - go for a walk - play a game - read a book - anything is preferable to suffering though this abomination!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They Eat Everything, Except, Unfortunately, the Writer and the Director
herrschenk26 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This couldn't be funnier, even if it had intended to be. It is a 21st century rendition of those awful 1950s drive-in fodder, supersized radioactive insect movies. It just doesn't know its a parody. It really thinks it's a serious movie. As a result, it has turned out much funnier than Date Movie, Epic Movie and Scary Movie, all the uninspired clones of the Zucker brothers' wonderfully screwy Airplane (Flying High down under) and Naked Gun flicks.

Great sets, nice photography but the praise stops there. The script is stupid and the acting is atrocious. Grab snacks and laugh your head off. Lucy Lawless is a scientist battling swarms of carnivorous locust, a CYA secretary of agriculture and an army general eager to gas the bugs and most of America. All are of about equal intelligence. Well, maybe collectively the grasshoppers are smarter. Remarkable, given they are all stick-on props and CGI.

BTW, the unintentional humour is so raucous I never pegged Xena until I came to IMDb. She isn't nearly so visually arresting out of leather. Her estranged boyfriend though, another scientist, is another matter. He could push this flick over with specialized audience niches. It was guffaw time for me when he walked into Command Central and was introduced as a leader in some sort of scientific field. Square jawed, wavy haired and such a caricature of handsome, you know he must have just come straight from his other job. As an underwear model.

Low moments but big laughs: Every time Lucy jumps up and down like an 11-year-old trying to get the attention of a doubting bigwig. When the biggest mid-script plot turn is the "reveal" that Lucy is pregnant. Prime moment for a line something like, "You remember that night. You came straight home after shooting the g-string commercials and you were unstoppable." No matter; viewers are already laughing so hard they'd have missed the line.

Oh yes, and those amazing CGI effects! Really love the computer simulations of the USA at Command Central where the dark swarms of dots (representing the locusts, ya know) spread across several states as fast as spilled water covers a granite counter top.

Enough already. You get it. Do NOT approach this as serious entertainment.

Oh, I forgot. There is one good performance. It's Mike Farrell (B.J. Hunnicutt on M*A*S*H) as a man outstanding in his field. You got it; a farmer. That's cuz the locusts attack all the crops in Midwestern America. Those good, honest folk don't deserve such diss.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Technically inexcusable; why it made it to air is beyond me!
Norm25 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As an electrician, the final resolution for the posed problem is not just beyond possibility... It's beyond reasoning and certainly not plausible except to the most uneducated or jaded viewer. And to partially blame the hybrid hopper on Australia! Who writes this stuff? The premise, while fantastic, could have been much better executed. For all intents it appears that the writers have taken their 90 minutes of screen time, built their story (albeit thin), executed the major plot points (how did the bugs survive the truck on the airfield tarmac?) and then tried to coast home on some pitifully thin technical excuse for a solution. Thank goodness for weather balloons, silver streamers & diverted voltage!!! Give me a break.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The worst TV movie ever.
spatula_head28 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Swarms of mutant grasshoppers crack windows. Sometimes, sometimes not.

Swarms of mutant grasshoppers threaten to smother the children of *coughs* plot elements.

Swarms of mutant grasshoppers blot out the sun and threaten all life on earth.

All their mutant billions are miraculously killed in a few seconds by fiddling the power lines of the Midwest.

It is difficult to describe the jaw-dropping awfulness of Locusts nor is there any point in attempting the job. Gotta be seen. It is the Plan 9 of the current generation and is very highly recommended.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So many clichés, so little time..
noomehtrevo24 April 2005
This movie has everything you would ever want from a TV movie: Cheesy plot, cliché romance, over-dramatic music, ridiculously over-the-top special effects, and most importantly, horrible acting. If you're looking for a thought-out, interesting movie, this flick isn't for you. However, if you enjoyed such cheesy movies as Day of Destruction, or if you're just looking for a good time, this movie can be somewhat enjoyable. I know I laughed all the way through it. The silly one-liners and the even sillier plot are enough to make give a sophisticated film buff a headache; but sometimes, you just have to sit back and go with it, because there's nothing else on TV on a Sunday night.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Best Insect/Swarm Disaster Movie in Years
JimmyL555527 April 2005
I have seen many insect/swarm disaster movies, and this one is good. This is a real true disaster movie that I think stands above other insect/swarm disaster movies. The disaster is widespread across the country and really gives a realistic feel as it involves various cities and states, news reports, highway traffic, a school bus and air travel. And Lucy Lawless is very good as the leading character, and she joins other strong female roles in disaster movies: Kim Delaney (10.5, 2003), Joanna Kearns (The Great Los Angeles Earthquake, 1990), Susan Batten (Hijacked: Filght 285, 1996), and Maria Conchita Alonso (Sudden Terror: The Hijacking of School Bus #17, 1996). Someone said the special effects are bad. I disagree. However, some intense close-ups of the insects are unnecessary and drag the film down a bit as "The Birds", "Jaws," and any other frightening thriller involving nature is the more frightening when you can't really see the terror. Now, let's hope they'll release it on DVD.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If this were just a little worse...
dwright33324 April 2005
For me this fell just short of the 'so bad its good' threshold - if this were just a degree worse, it would be terrific. Makes the TV disaster movies of my youth - remember the one about the Killer Bees and the super-dome - seem inspired. Terrible writing - that Doug Prochilo has quite a career ahead of him - some gloriously uninspired performances - the guy who plays 'The General' acts like a small town anchorman who swallowed a bad actor - and John Heard may have sunk to a new low. Thank heavens for veteran heavy-hitter Mike Farrell, who does magnificently chasing after some cows, or was that a double? Well, I hope it was fun to shoot, I'm happy for all the folks who got their start on this project, and I hope they all got paid real good - can I have my two hours back, now?
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I loved it!
priestesscharis27 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I admit it, I am a huge Lucy Lawless fan, and even I was nervous about this movie. I have been waiting for this since February. I knew the whole concept of LOCUSTS taking over the world was a bit far fetched, but, I was willing to go for the ride. And I ended up enjoying it. :) Honestly, much to my surprise.

I could go with the main plot, bugs devouring the crops. And somehow, Lucy made me believe that a giant bug zapper would work. In the end, I thought Lucy did a great job. She was not over the top, and did not slip into her 'Xena' mode. Lucy played the role strong, but not overly butch. Lucy took this role because she thought it would be fun, and "good Sunday night fare". She did not take it because as one person has said 'she needs the money'. Well, I know for a fact, that is not true. Lucy chooses her projects based on things other then money.

All in all, I thought this was a good movie, and held up better then I thought it would. If you can allow yourself to get into it, you would see that the acting was good, the plot can be worked with, and Lucy got mostly naked for us! What more could you want? Xx
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
good movie with good acting
klburch2828 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed watching this movie, although I may never look at locusts quite the same way again. I enjoyed watching the performance of Lucy Lawless, Dylan Neal, John Heard, and Mike Farrell. Lucy Lawless was outstanding as Dr. Maddie Rierdon, a woman who is both intelligent and resourceful and who, because of who she is, has to put the welfare of those endangered by the locusts before her relationship with her husband. This movie caused me brought up some slightly disturbing thoughts about what the people or a governments might do in order to put a stop to something that's out of their control. That is, unless they're forced to seek other, less damaging (to the citizens)alternatives. On another note, I sincerely hope one of those bugs didn't really fly into Lucy's mouth as the movie showed. If it did, I feel sorry for her. That had to be disgusting.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The first hour was good
Jack25 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie didn't start out too bad, we get straight to Lucy Lawless in her underwear. Hey, can't beat that. Actually, Lawless is quite a good actress, something I never would have known from watching Zena. One of the more enjoyable parts about this movie was her relationship with her boyfriend. But that's not good when we're supposed to be enjoying the locusts.

After the first hour, the movie really loses its way. The writers seem more interested in bashing on the military than continuing the story they began in the first half. Basically, the "good" characters don't have a clue what to do, but they're more than happy to criticize the plan the military comes up with. A very dangerous plan indeed, but the military isn't given the opportunity of coming up with laughably absurd ideas and then having them work. Only Lawless and her boyfriend are allowed that option. Probably the dumbest scene in the whole movie is when they're in the helicopter and Lawless starts trying to kill everybody. Um, I think they would have probably had her locked up for the rest of the movie, but they act like nothing happened! That's the type of stuff that really distinguishes writers from hacks.

Then of course there's the scene in the barn. I mean, c'mon, even movies with 1/10th the budget of this thing don't take such liberties with common sense. If you want to electrify the exterior of a barn and two silos, you just hook up a generator to it? Oh, yeah. We are dumb aren't we? The problem was that the writers were so carried away with harping on the military for coming up with a solution that was extremely dangerous that they had to come up with some way of killing all the locusts in a completely safe way in order to draw a contrast between good and bad, but they just didn't have a clue how to do it in a way that anyone over the age of 9 wouldn't laugh at. Actually my 9 year old was laughing. Maybe the writers should have skipped the whole thing about demonizing the military, because they didn't have any better solution themselves? Nah, that would require maturity.

I give it 4 stars based solely on the performance of Lucy Lawless, which was really the only thing good about this.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So Stupid it makes Independence Day look smart
Mark Tyler24 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Lucy Lawless must have needed a payday very badly to sign up for this opus.

Genetically enhanced locust (created by the evil military) are terrorizing the countryside, and the evil military only seem to want to consider chemical or nuclear options to fix it.

The plot is moronic, the characters wooden, the acting bad, and the special effects look cheap.

This is the worst piece of drivel I've seen in years. There is nothing to recommend it. Avoid at all costs.

Xena, where are you when we need you?
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tacky sequel to Vampire Bats.
OllieSuave-00711 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In this made-for-TV sequel to Vampire Bats, Lucy Lawless returns as Dr. Maddy Rierdon, now a Department of Agriculture investigator, who has to deal with a large swarm of bioengineered locusts that is endangering her town.

There are some average-rated action, including all the scenes of the investigations, locusts attacks and residents fleeing for their lives. A swarm of insects, at least for me, would always send chills down your spine and make you shiver. The special effects of the insects were actually pretty realistic at times, but very apparent CGI in most scenes.

But, like the previous film, the acting the was pretty horrendous. Lawless pulled off her role quite professionally, but much of the other actors, especially that of the little girl, appeared to be giving half-hearted or less performances - no emotion, character development or screen presence. There are also some illogical plot-points, including the part where ***spoiler ahead*** Dr. Peter Axelrod (John Heard) goes out of the barn, into the insect swarm, to fiddle of some type of machine, where he meets his doom. I thought that scene was meant to be tragic, but distastefully done ***spoiler ends***. In addition, the direction of the plot was slow.

But overall, it is a pretty predictable film - maybe a tad better than Vampire Bats, but definitely not much of a humdinger.

Grade D
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews