Mimic: Sentinel (2003 Video) User Reviews (55)

Boring and Forgettable

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 10 August 2007]

In a decay neighborhood, the asthmatic and allergic amateurish photographer Marvin Montrose (Karl Geary) spends his days and nights confined in his room snooping his neighbors in the next building with his camera. When a boy disappears in the spot and then the local drug dealer Desmond (Keith Robinson), Marvin suspects of a mysterious garbage man (Lance Henriksen) and his sister Rosy (Alexis Dziena) and her friend Carmen (Rebecca Mader) investigate him. Meanwhile, Marvin witnesses the death of Detective Gary Dumars (John Kapelos) and a stranger on the street by two mutant Judas Breed insects and discloses that their prime suspect is the CDC Agent Kirchner.

"Mimic: Sentinel" is a shameful and boring rip-off of "The Rear Window" for approximately forty minutes, with a guy confined in his room and snooping his neighbors. The character of Agent Kirchner is not well developed and the gore action is too brief, with the death of most of the characters in a few minutes. In the end, watching this forgettable movie is a pure waste of time and money. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Mutação 3: O Sentinela" ("Mutation 3: The Sentinel")

Just kind of weird

[MartianOctocretr5 · 5/10 · 5 September 2009]

What do you get if you take Aliens, Rear Window, Boy in the Plastic Bubble, and some other stuff, and mix it with a small budget? It may sound like a mess, but the film surprises a bit.

Giant mutated bugs going berserk is nothing new, but this theme still works somehow. In the film, the lighting is kept low, making attack scenes difficult to see. This was intentional: it leaves to the imagination what the lack of funding could not deliver in special effects. The set up of the movie is painfully slow, but the film picks up later on. Characters are written as typically shallow horror film victims, but the acting (except for the usual screaming girls) is above the script.

The whack lead character is the main weakness. He looks like he belongs in a medication info-mercial. He's written as a paranoid, bi-polar, angst ridden, stalking clod. Every relationship he has is dysfunctional; he argues incessantly with everybody. Then he wonders why nobody will listen even when he shows photos of things he's seen. The sub-plot involving his mother and a cop is just childish. Since when does a grown man fit in a small refrigerator?

Frankly, you'll root for the roach invaders to shut them all up. Good fast-food entertainment, though.

Below average and boring sequel about the astonishing cockroaches stalking and attacking again

[ma-cortes · 4/10 · 4 March 2020]

Marvin Montrose (Karl Geary) is a sickly 24-year-old man, confined to a bubble apartment room due to his severe allergies and asthma . He lives in a suburb with his mother (Amanda Plummer) and sister (Alexis Dziena) , at an apartment where he watches the neighbours in James Stewarts's Rear Window style . He finds out that the Judas Breed monster cockroaches that horrorized society are back with a revenge and are preying on the inhabitants of his apartment complex . So with the help of his sister Rosy and her best friend Carmen (Rebecca Mader) , they'll have to destroy the monster roaches and protect themselves . Our protagonists are stalked by fast-evolving insects now lurking in the slums and bowery , mimicking and preying upon their sometime predator , human beings . Seems like they've learned to mimic humans and lurk around the streets like men in overcoats , waiting to catch victims for them . As there appear the ubiquitous cockroaches , formerly the results of arrogant experiments and they come back to haunt them .This time, nothing can stop it! For thousands of years, man has been evolution's greatest creation... until now. This summer, brace yourself for the ultimate battle between man and nature. A Bold Experiment. A Deadly Mistake! . Terror has been reinvented! The all-new suspense-filled thriller! The plan Judas Breed worked until the bugs evolved to mimic their next prey.....humans! . We protect ourselves by destroying our enemies but evolution has a way of keeping things alive.Evolution has a way of keeping things alive.They thought the terror was over...Nothing will stop them...

This heart-pounding picture with grim , relentless dark horror , it is full of suspense , thrills , mystery , grisly attacks , and lots of gore . This is a run-of-the-mill monster-feast , regularly paced and full of frightening scenes , though mediocre . It's packed with overwhelming body count , loathing scenes , grotesque killing , and rivers of red blood . Ordinary and far-fetched script by director J.T. Petty himself , based on the short story "Mimic" by Donald A. Wollheim , adding former writers as Matthew Robbins and Guillermo del Toro , screenwriters Matt Greenberg and John Sayles are uncredited but collaborated in the original Mimic . An inferior and absurd third following , going on the much better original when two scientists upset the balance of nature as they cure a plague , only to have their insectoid concoction unleashed in New York City . The movie delivers the goods with hair-rising chills and noisy scares when the giant cockroaches show up savagely stalking and attacking its preys , including children . Director displays disturbing scenes , but he is working with all too conventional and corny material , victims and survivors here are as predictable as the plot , which is boring and tiring outside its many guckily terrific moments . It stars Karl Geary as a young man enclosed in a plastic bubble, as he must defend an apartment complex from the mutant Judas Breed insects . He is accompanied by a passable support cast , such as : Alexis Dziena as his sister, Rebecca Mader as her best friend , Amanda Plummer as mummy , Keith Robinson as a drug dealer , John Kapelos as a Police Officer and the always great Lance Henriksen in a mysterious role .

This is a below averag eand low-budgeted amusement juvenile , including habitual characters and scientific plot , but entertaining enough and extremely claustrophobic . It's remarkable for FX recreation the ferocious and carnivorous beast developing a bloodthirsty hunger for human eating . The actors give vigorous physical acting dodging the giant bugs, being recreated by means of decent make-up , adding the prolific computer generator , as usual . The mutant cockroaches , themselves, of course, are the real stars, and they're really terrifying and astounding , as well as quite convincing . If you like squishy giant bug movies , this third sequel is for you . Resulting to be a stylish but still rubbishy and quite strange horror movie , derivative of the first/second part and every giant bug picture from ¨Them ¡¨, The Fly¨, and ¨Alien¨ saga .

The picture displays a dark and sinister cinematography , being badly designed and photographed in TV style . As well as a thrilling and intriguing musical score . The motion picture was poor and lousily directed by J.T. Petty . He delivers the terror movie goods in embarrassing sense of style , and it contains some flaws and gaps . Director disowned the film after constant clashes with Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein from Dimension Films , who would frequently visit the set and make unreasonable demands about what should be shot, deviating away from the script . J.T. Petty is a writer and director who has made a few films with no much successes , such as : Gone: VR 360 , Hellbenders, The Burrowers , Soft for Digging , S&man and this Mimic 3: the sentinal . The picture will appeal to horror buffs only ; it also makes a so-so addition to the terror genre .

Mimic trilogy is formed by : the original ¨Mimic¨ by Guillermo del Toro with Mira Sorvino , F. Murray Abraham , Charles S. Dutton , Jeremy Northam . It is a smart , worthy , hip adrenaline rush movie , it is a triumph of style , well realized by Guillermo Del Toro . ¨Mimic 2¨ with Alix Koromzay , John Polito , Bruno Campos , Will Estes , Edward Albert , Paul Schulze , Michael Tucci ; and ¨Mimic 3¨ The sentinel , with Karl Geary , Lance Henriksen , Amanda Plummer , Rebecca Mader , and John Kapelos .

Rear Window with giant roaches—what an awful idea!

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 19 September 2010]

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.

It's like rear window....with monsters!

[willywants · 30 November 2003]

J.T. Perry directs this stylish entry in the giant bug series. In this entry, a diseased boy who takes pictures of neighbors begins witnessing murders. As it turns out, the murderers are surviving insects of the Judase breed (The species created in the original mimic to kill diseased insects), and soon they are eating people in the apartment building that he lives in. "Mimic 3" has good acting, especially from the wonderfully underrated Lance Hendrickson (Aliens, alien vs. Predator, the untold, super mario bros.), impressive special effects, and stylish direction. The film is truly the sparticus of the mimic series. Unfortunately, it's just too slow to get going.

Meh

[bieboo16 · 1/10 · 12 August 2013]

It was simply boring from the beginning till the end. There were also some flaws, like how the Judas breed mimics its human like face.

I had high expectations but it didn't give me the excitement i was looking for.

Just too bad. :(

I didn't like it.

Wouldn't recommend it.

Mimic 1 and 2 were good. 3 *vomit*.

I read a review who said the 3 movies weren't connected except for the theme. But in the second movie the leading role ( forgot her name for a second) has memories of the female in the first movie...

Forgettable and Pointless.

[AaronCapenBanner · 1/10 · 28 August 2013]

Subtitled "Sentinel" this entirely forgettable, needless, and stultifying sequel is a complete bore, which copies "Rear Window" of all things, telling its insipid story of more mimicking insects causing havoc in a neighborhood, where a sickly young man(survivor of the original insect plague) tries to convince others that they are not extinct. Lance Henriksen(veteran and talented character actor, best known for his work as profiler Frank Black from TV series "Millennium") guest stars in a small role near the end, but is wasted in this nonsense(quite literally), and film has zero appeal at all. A waste of time.

Senseless Addition To A Series

[j-ritchie-756-25974 · 2/10 · 17 September 2013]

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.

This is Considered Good?

[jmkosiek · 2/10 · 5 October 2013]

I'm honestly baffled on why this movie is considered to be so good. I'm seeing all sorts of compliments for this film that I just don't think it deserves. They seem to be based on two main points, that the movie is somehow "atmospheric" or "psychological", and that it basically is like a Hitchcock film.

The first compliment that I see quite often is that this film builds an excellent atmosphere. While this is true to some extent, as the sets are effective in conveying a sense of decay, any type of dread or anticipation just isn't there. Is watching a person film supposed to be tense? Am I supposed to think that he's just crying wolf? Am I supposed to feel helpless? If so, then these all failed horrendously for the following reasons. First, the sheer lack of momentum with the movie makes this 70 minute movie feel twice as long as it should feel. I was considering turning the DVD off by about the halfway mark the lack of energy was so bad. Any sense of terseness was drowned by the sheer lack of nothing going on. Two, there is no sense of whether or not Marvin is seeing things. You can clearly see that the Judas bugs exist, especially if you've seen any of the either movies before this one. I also don't feel helpless because the movie just fails at setting this up. Whenever he misses a key scene, it feels contrived, like it was forced to go this way. On top of that, he doesn't bother to call the CDC, which IS who you call in this series.

I also see a lot of comparisons to a Hitchcock film being thrown about. Now, in the defense of the reviewers, the director himself brought this comparison up, so it's not entirely unwarranted. However, I see a lot of people effectively saying that because it's sort of like one of his movies, that it's automatically good. Now that's just nonsense; that's along the same lines as saying that "Jack" is a good film because Francis Ford Coppola directed it. Sorry, just because it bears similarities to another movie does not equate to the movie being any good.

But what do I know? I'm the same idiot that liked Mimic 2.

creeper sleeper

[SILENCEikillyou · 7/10 · 20 October 2003]

I'll have to say, this third sequel was quite good for it's simplicity. Instead of scaring you with the actual Judas Breed man-size insects -created in the first- it relies on it's plot to creep you out, while taking a totally different approach to the evil of this bizarre 'cure' for a childhood disease. After 'Mimic 2' I felt quite wary about this movie, having never even heard one was being made. It's just that this plot intrigues me so much, I don't seem to care if it's a bad approach or acting (as in part 2; NOT this one -part 3). I felt pretty good about this movie and it SIMPLY was entertaining, as well as scary in it's own rite.

7/10 - thank you

Worst. Movie. Ever

[Finfrosk86 · 1/10 · 5 September 2013]

I've seen quite a good amount of movies, a lot of them horror. It's my go-to-genre. I love it. I have seen a lot of movies, therefore I have seen a lot of pretty bad movies.

Mimic 3 is the worst movie I have ever seen.

After I had seen it, I threw the DVD behind my left speaker, and left it there for several months before I could muster up the strength and will to pick it up again and put it back with the other movies. I mean it, there is nothing good about this movie. It's so incredibly boring. Pretty much all that happens is the main character is spying on people on the street, from his window. Oh, and there is a bad looking creature somewhere in there, too. This is not a horror movie, it a gruesome mess of a boring sequence of barely live images. AVOID. No stars. If it was possible I could give this a negative score. Like minus 5 stars or something.

Roach Window

[BrandtSponseller · 9/10 · 4 May 2005]

Series note: As the Mimic films are not direct continuations of the same storyline--they're simply related thematically and in some subject matter--it does not really matter what order you watch them in.

It's no secret that Mimic 3 has a number of similarities to Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window (1954). In fact, as writer/director J.T. Petty comments in his interview on the DVD extras, "Rear Window with giant cockroaches" was the high-concept pitch-line presented to him fresh out of New York University's film school, solely on the basis of his student film, Soft for Digging (2001), which won a Special Jury Prize at the 2003 Boston Independent Film Festival. What's less frequently talked about is that Mimic: Sentinel is a challengingly artistic, well-made film that weaves various themes of voyeurism throughout its length. Even its subtitle, "Sentinel", has numerous intended meanings, including various senses of "guard" or "protector", and of course, "watcher".

Mimic: Sentinel centers its plot on Marvin (Karl Geary) and his unusual family--sister Rosy (Alexis Dziena) and mom Simone (Amanda Plummer). Marvin is a survivor of Strickler's disease--the affliction that was wiping out most of New York City's kids at the beginning of the first Mimic (1997). This has caused him to seem slightly like a cross between someone with Down's Syndrome and autism, with a boatload of asthma-related allergies to boot. In other words, he can barely leave the house without severe threat to his health. So he spends most of the time in his room in a large Brooklyn apartment building, voyeuristically studying the neighbors in the building across the street while he snaps photographs of them. He has a large wall of snapshots with nicknames for everyone, including the mysterious "garbage man". It's not long before Marvin observes some strange occurrences, including what he says is the murder of Rosy's friend Desmond (Keith Robinson). This initiates relationships with a couple other key characters--one a cop, one a beautiful woman from across the street, and gradually we enter more typical Mimic (monster-attack horror) territory.

The three Mimic films to date comprise what is without a doubt one of the most unique horror film series. Each film has a completely different style and focus, yet all are related in significant ways, and each is very good to excellent. This third film is probably the most artistically "difficult" entry. Eventually, during the climax, Petty takes a slightly more conventional route, as I'm sure he had to per the producers and studio, but he still manages to retain his unique vision throughout Mimic: Sentinel's length.

Petty takes his time when it comes to pacing, and he doesn't give you the material you'd probably expect right away, despite the brief, conventional attack scene of the prologue (although note how Petty dwells on the victim's eyeglasses--yet another metaphor for looking at the world through a voyeuristic veil).

For a long time, we see most of the "action" through Marvin's camera, occasionally through Marvin's window without the camera, and even through the photographs on Marvin's wall (this aspect is a nice nod to Remi's photo fetish in Mimic 2, 2001). At one point Petty even presents important scenes as a series of photographic stills, similar to Chris Marker's La Jetée (1962), which Petty would surely be familiar with as an NYU film student.

The shots through Marvin's camera all emphasize an artificial "framing" in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, to underscore the inherent voyeurism of films and film watching. This is also done in a more purely stylistic way during the climax, where Petty adds a fuzzy-edged circular aperture around the frame, giving an effect something like watching the film through someone else's eye. There are various other often subtle instantiations of voyeurism and related themes throughout the film, including characters who are inside various kinds of containers (a sewer, a trunk, a refrigerator, an implication of in a wall, clear plastic sheeting, etc.), which are then either perforated so that others can see inside while not being completely visible or in the same space, or which are transparent and afford a somewhat sheltered view.

Even when the "horror material proper" finally begins, Petty makes the brilliant move of showing most of it from a distance. For example, we watch an attack from Marvin's room, looking out his window to the building across the street. At that point, I wanted the film to continue in that highly unusual mode, as it underscored the theme so well, so it was a bit of a let down at first when Petty had to become more conventional. But as I mention above, he still retains his original touch during the conventional material too.

Petty's unusual pacing and approach also gave even greater weight to his surprisingly brutal gore scenes. I particularly loved the long, lingering tracking shot through an apartment after a bloody attack. That had far more impact than actually seeing the attack would have had. And once Lance Henriksen's character arrives in full force, the film takes a refreshingly bizarre and slightly nihilistic turn.

Speaking of Henriksen, he is excellent as always (what genre fan doesn't love Lance Henriksen? He's even great in the bad films he does, like The Untold (aka Sasquatch), 2002). The rest of the cast turns in great performances, too, partially because they're so odd. I was a bit disappointed that the film is so short (the credits start rolling at the 72 minute mark), but on the other hand, the story is complete as it stands. It's more important that the film is the right length to tell the story.

In Petty's DVD extras interview, he says that working with actors who have a lot of dialogue made him want to only do romantic comedies in the future. Don't do it! This is such a fine, unique horror film that Petty needs to work much more in this genre.

Mimic III:Sentinel

[Scarecrow-88 · 6/10 · 15 May 2007]

Marvin(Karl Geary)is one of the last remaining persons to have contacted an illness called Strickler's which derived from "diseased" roaches. He is pretty much confined to his room where he keeps a camera pointed constantly across the street at his neighbors' open windows gazing into their lives since his has been put on hold. His condition is so bad, if a woman, such as his later love-interest, a dentist's assistant, Carmen(Rebecca Mader)comes near him with perfume he requires oxygen or he'll go into an asthmatic fit. Even if he smells the afterlife of smoke, like from Carmen who had just finished a cigarette prior to entering his room, the shock kicks in with him darting for his oxygen tank. Occasionally, he journeys out of his room, but not without his tank and only for minutes not wishing to risk his health. His sister, Rosy(Alexis Dziena)is an addict who notices her brother's interest in Carmen. Rosy likes to poke fun at Marvin's hobby and often struggles with the need to get high..she is always on edge and squirrelly. His mother Simone(Amanda Plummer)has a new love in her life, a beat cop Gary Dumars(John Kapelos)who pretends, at first, of being a detective. He's called in when Marvin and Rosy believe they saw a drug dealer, Des(Keith Robinson)killed by the "garbageman", a dark, conspicuous character with bags on his feet whose face they have a hard time seeing. Also, Marvin keeps tabs on a father and son, whose relationship descends as the other son of the family(seen at the beginning killed by the cockroach killer)remains missing. Soon, the person they believed was the garbageman(Lance Henriksen) committing the murder of Des, shows his face when he finds Rosy and Carmen in his apartment(they decide to see what's up with him while also searching for possible evidence regarding Des' death). This man has something padlocked in his freezer..and it could be something relative to the cockroach creatures which show up to kill various victims on the streets at the wrong time, including Dumars out searching for anyone suspicious.

As many have already mentioned, the film uses the idea from Hitchcock's "Rear Window" that a helpless peeper has to watch helplessly as others he loves walk into possible peril. He often struggles for air when simply moving some in his room, so his assisting those in need of help when facing giant bugs with claws that stab the torso repeatedly and have wings which flap incessantly is rather limited. The film plays with what Marvin sees and, especially, what he doesn't. JT Petty adopts a little trick with the camera to let we, the viewers(who are essentially peepers ourselves if you think about it)see other poor apartment dwellers being killed by the giant winged cockroaches through the lens while Marvin is away from it. We see the things responsible for the slayings, but such as Marvin, the viewers can not help anyone either...so, we, in a sense, are helpless on-lookers to peril. I like this idea and think it's the most positive aspect to the flick. But, in all honesty, there's not much story here, other than the poor soul with Strickler's trying to find a way to help his loved ones who seem unable to escape the horror that awaits them. Sadly, I found Henriksen's character a little murky..his motives were open to a point, but I wanted more about him. The killer bugs themselves are only revealed at the end when they attack certain individuals..these attacks deliver the goods in how they speedily thrust the victims before they even have a chance to scream. In the film, Henriksen tells us that the things which lie in his freezer are breeding underground, so I'm guessing there are more sequels to explore a possible outbreak. This flick surrounds a few characters near an apartment complex staying away from what's been occurring to civilization as a whole.

Feeble sequel

[smythp · 2/10 · 11 February 2007]

I won't labour the details since I think most of the points I would make have already been made by others. The acting is pedestrian at best. The plot is as thin as clingfilm and is a rather poor homage to Hitchcock's Rear Window (Please note: regarded as something of a masterpiece by many).

Rear window works because we see everything from the main character's (Jimmy Stewart) perspective, namely the wheelchair, in his bedroom. Everything the audience sees is from that vantage point. Jimmy Stewart's character is a helpless observer who plays no part in any activity outside his bedroom. This creates an atmosphere of claustrophobia and racks up the tension continuously. This reaches an unbearable point when he sees the murderer returning home to his apartment, which his girlfriend has just broken into, looking for evidence. This tension is created by the knowledge that Stewart is powerless to warn or help her.

The same scene is recreated in Mimic: Sentinel but is completely flat and offers us absolutely no tension whatsoever. There are various other nods to Rear Window which immediately tells us that the writers didn't really have anything new or novel to say in this film. There are various plot elements that seem to do little other than fill in time (in a film which seems overly long at 78 minutes). For example when he attempts to report the danger to the police, his mother starts an intimate affair with the officer whom she had met briefly once before several years ago? Then there is the kooky, doped up sister, who walks around flapping her arms all the time. The main character is too active to be the impotent character Stewart plays but he's also too feeble to be a real hero character.

Leaving the Rear Window connection, there's very little rhyme or reason to the rest of the plot. No explanation is provided for many plot elements and very little motivation is given to any of the characters. It's all just an excuse for some atmospheric shots of not very scary giant insects dragging people off into the dark and some occasional shots of blood splatter. No attempt if made to create a feeling of impending dread as any real person would have in such a situation. None of the characters are in any way sympathetic and it's hard to get worked up enough to care about the film when we don't care about any of the characters.

We're left with a film which lacks the substance of Rear Window and which fails to provide any substance of it's own. I wouldn't bother spending money to rent it but if it's on TV and you're a completist who liked the other two Mimic films, then go ahead.

Cool idea; okay realization = `eh' film

[jaywolfenstien · 17 March 2004]

`Rear Window with giant roaches.' That concept alone puts it above Mimic 2. It's different . . . it has potential . . . overall I'd say I liked the buildup (when convenient dilemmas were not advancing the plot), but damn, did Petty ever blow the payoff. I appreciate the slow paced plot versus fast/hard hitting shock fests, unfortunately, JT didn't really capitalize on it so in effect . . . the film can get boring, stale, and it (like the characters) don't have much of a personality. This would have been great if in the writing we had some Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith-esque dialogue. What do these characters do? Who are they? What does Marvin think/feel in his freetime (which he has lots and lots of?) All we ever see him doing is staring through the camera, which okay, we know what he does but that doesn't mean we know him nor should we care. We learn as much about the people Marvin spies on as we do Marvin, himself.

Folks, that's a problem.

Everyone in this film lives and dies for the sole purpose of serving the plot in typical horror fashion. I'm being overly harsh on this film than I would for most other horror sequels solely because it wants to be Rear Window. Rear Window may have been about a man with nothing better to do at the moment than become a voyeur; however, there was far more to him than looking through a camera. If you're going to deliberately mimic Hitchcock (no pun), they need to do it on more than just a surface level.

Compare Mimic Sentinel to its predecessors and it's not too bad, compare Mimic 3 to its Hitchcockian inspiration and it's pretty pathetic (and Rear Window is a far cry from my favorite of Hitch's work.)

After seeing Mimic 3's payoff, I'm not so disappointed in Rear Window's anymore. Rear Window intended the finale to be simple and somewhat underwhelming, but at the same time Hitchcock maintains his steady buildup even thought the film is technically paying off. Mimic Sentinel opts for all the bells and whistles, explosions and blood – after all, this is a half century later right? The action comes at the expense of an unwelcomed plot `twist' which was not necessary and comes across as gratuitous (even if Lance Henriksen is involved.) I prefer simple and underwhelming . . . screw the extras.

Once again, despite harsh comments above, in light of typical horror sequels this is about as average in execution as you get. I tend to bump it above average for the sole fact that it at least had a clever idea at the conception stage, which is more than most sequels/remakes have going for them.

Missed its mark entirely

[writebrotp · 1/10 · 30 January 2004]

I really loved the first movie Mimic. The second movie, Mimic 2: Hardshell was ok too. It had some very suspenseful moments, and it felt true to the original film.

This third film, written and directed by a young filmmaker, J.T. Petty, who as the documentary on the dvd indicated was just given the premise of "Rear Window with Roaches" and was told to run with it. He did, but he ran as far away from the original concept as he could. This movie plodded along at a snail's pace with uninteresting characters and no real story sense and basically had no suspense at all until the last ten minutes. And it was painful to wade through the movie to get to that part, but I just had to see how this turkey was going to end. I can understand the filmmaker and studio wanting to try something new and different, but this whole story premise was too off the wall and didn't give the viewer what he expected after having already seen the previous two films. This movie was shot in Romania (I can't understand why-----didn't we have any locations available in America?)and didn't have a very good look to it at all.

I can only hope that if there is a fourth movie, it will be made by more experienced and competent filmmakers and will give the viewers what they expect in a franchise horror film. I believe this movie was a straight-to-video release because the studio had no faith in this movie to

stand up at the box office. And they were right.

Booooring

[dewit_jacco · 1/10 · 18 August 2007]

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)

Awful, just awful.

[john_tserkezis · 1/10 · 6 July 2007]

I can understand why they chose a different style for this installment of Mimic. Too bad I can't understand anything else, such as:

Why the honored characters (the bugs) have barely but a cameo appearance, and hardly contribute to the storyline other than they are the "mystery killers"? Well duh.

Why the only relationship between the main character (the brother) and the bugs, is that he was one of the surviving children of the plague that the bugs were created for in the first place? Like if it were not for this fact, viewers wouldn't be able to link this installment with the first two.

How is the sister's involvement with her drug dealer associate important to the story other than just about everyone in the neighborhood is purported to be a drug user?

How is it important that the police officer investigating the killings become romantically involved with the mother? And not waste any time either...

Why is the relationship between the brother and the across-the-road beautiful neighbor not carried forward? For that matter, was it important to the storyline in the first place?

Sigh. I was left overly disappointed after watching this. I mean Mimic 2 was bad enough, but sheeze, this is so far worse it's not even worth watching to say you've seen it.

Lame

[susan-george-1 · 2/10 · 11 April 2018]

I was a fan of the original Mimic movie, but this one was poorly made, with horrible acting by the three main young actors, a stupid plot, lame dialog and bad special effects. Other than that, it was Ok.

Had good potentials... but wasted them.

[shanfloyd · 5/10 · 27 December 2005]

Like all straight-to-video sequels of minor franchises, "Mimic: Sentinel" had good original plot but the execution and presentation became poor. All the main characters like Marvin or Rosie are quite unique. And the influence of "Rear Window" was also quite interesting. But the film suffered from what it was bound to suffer -- poor screenplay, bad acting and the same boring ending.

Some interesting approaches are evident though when it comes to cinematography. The use of dark contrast during night shots and redundant use of still pictures surely add some nice flavour to the film for the viewer.

Surprisingly good direct-to-video Mimic sequel

[a_chinn · 6/10 · 9 May 2017]

Surprisingly decent direct-to-video third film in the Mimic franchise. The giant humanoid New York City cockroaches are back and put an apartment complex under siege. In the film's favor, Lance Henriksen plays the human baddie, which always helps, the special effects are nicely icky, there's a fun riff on "Rear Window," and best of all there's a surprising amount of character development. And Amanda Plummer even makes an appearance. Nothing great, but better than I expected and better than the second film in the franchise.

worst sequel

[NijazBaBs · 5/10 · 29 April 2020]

I am satisfied that there is still some mystery and bugs in this movie. There is also different viewpoint unlike in other sequels and most movies. Also somewhat hot girl and too positive emotional one. But this is worse because end looks unresolved or sudden, beginning is also sudden without any scientific explanation like in previous sequels. And too many random events not initiated or caused by anything, like random people, random problems, and unclear picture of the situation. I am more disappointed than amazed by this sequel.

rear window with giant cockroaches

[bmovieboy · 9/10 · 17 October 2003]

It does start off slow but well acted, directed, written by newcomer J.T. Petty. However the last climactic scenes shows how well placed shots, edits, lighting and sound can do for a low budget monster flick. The CG and puppetry were well balanced, hiding weaknesses, using their strengths. Very good payoff for graphic violent mayhem. Could have been a bit more action for my common denominator needs but I did cringe a few times, feeling somewhat mortal.

Some minor critiques. The exterior lighting with high contrast and great shadows was superb but the lighting for interiors was too even and felt like a TV studio set. Of course the whole thing felt filmed in a studio but the exterior had more contrast, style where as interiors seemed to just do the 'play it safe' sort of BBC lighting.

Good job to actors, great sound, nicely done set painters though a bit more obvious then subtle. Interesting music score.

While certainly weaker than the original, and suffering an obvious cripplingly low budget, "Mimic 3: Sentinel" is nonetheless quite watchable and sometimes thrilling.

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 6/10 · 30 August 2014]

The thing that seems to drag "Mimic 3: Sentinel" down is obviously a low- budget. Cripplingly low, I would even go so far as to say. You can tell that writer/director JT Petty has a lot of interesting ideas, a unique angle from which to tell the story, and a lot of funky, quirky tricks up his sleeve... but the final product only feels about half-realized. This is quite blatantly a $20 million film that was forced to be produced on a more meager $10 million budget, in order to maximize profits from its direct-to-video/DVD release.

There's so much here that has the potential to work wonderfully. And indeed, there is much about the film that does function and work well. But that issue of a lower budget (and likely a hasty shoot) does betray the material. With more time and money, this very well could have been up to the standard of the original film, which I found particularly well-made and exceedingly enjoyable. However, as it stands, it's just not quite there. It is, however, still extremely watchable and often thrilling and enjoyable, despite its faults.

We follow Marvin (Karl Geary), a 24-year-old man who was one of the last children affected by the dreaded "Strickler's Disease" from the original film. Forced to spend much of his time alone in his room (due to the respiratory hypersensitivity the disease caused him), with only his 35mm camera to entertain him, he has made a habit out of "spying" on his various neighbors and surroundings, taking photos and building collages out of them. However, things take a turn for the strange and twisted when he begins witnessing strange occurrences that may or may not be tied to potential surviving members of the "Judas Breed"- the massive insects that learned how to mimic, blend in and hunt humans. With the help of his sister (Alexis Dziena) and a beautiful neighbor (Rebecca Mader), Marvin attempts to keep an eye out and solve the mystery of what is happening in his neighborhood.

The acting is something of a mixed bag. Geary is obviously trying his hardest, and often he serves as an adequate protagonist, but I frankly found him to be a bit too... out there. I wouldn't go so far as to say "hammy", but I feel he often is putting too much effort. If he was more subdued and subtle, I think his performance would have benefited greatly. Dziena is a lot of fun, but I found her early scenes to be a bit cliché. It isn't until the second half of the film that she really comes to encompass her character and begin to feel likable and compelling. Mader is quite good, though. Very convincing. Very likable. And supporting roles by the likes of Amanda Plummer and even Lance Henriksen are very well-played. Plummer in particular likely giving the best performance of the film.

Petty's script is quite interesting. It's a fairly common fact that Petty took inspiration from Hitchcock's "Read Window" for his screenplay, and I think it's a fascinating direction to take the series. (Particularly after the second film, which I felt was too much of a retread of the original, lacking much soul or identity.) It creates some real suspense and an almost "foreign" atmosphere, which helps to put the audience on edge, as we don't necessarily know what to expect. However, I did find some issues with the writing. Mainly in some wonky dialog early on, and a lack of pay-off in the end. Without spoiling anything, the film's more deliberate pacing early on quickly gives way as we approach the final act, and the climactic scenes feel sort-of out- of-left-field as a result of a sudden change in the pacing. I also felt some of the plot lines weren't particularly well-developed. And occasionally even lacked a coherent payoff.

In contrast, outside of obvious issues caused by time/budget constraints, I found Petty's direction extremely good for the most part. It has a touch of del Toro's flair from the original, while also feeling unique. As with the script, Petty seems inspired by Hitchcock, giving us some wonderfully unsettling long-shots from the point-of-view of Marvin's camera, and lingering shots showing the aftermath of the more brutal scenes. It also has a slight touch of more modern directorial stylings, with a few well-executed sequences that make good use of fast- cutting and "gritty" up-close camera-work. It compliments and contrasts nicely with the more slow and deliberate moments, creating a very cool directorial atmosphere and "character."

It's hard to really compare this film to the original because of the obvious changes in tone, style and storytelling, and obviously because of the low-budget nature of the production. And I do think that there are a few issues in the film that are inherent and not necessarily the result of those budgetary constraints.

But still, I found this to be quite watchable and even generally enjoyable. As far as direct-to-video sequels go, there are some that are better... but this one is definitely worth checking out for fans of the original.

I give this an average 6 out of 10. If you like the first film, check it out. And heck, even if you just like Hitchcockian style films, it might even be worth seeing once.

Middling monster mayhem.

[Hey_Sweden · 5/10 · 19 October 2018]

The third and (to date) last entry in this sci-fi / horror series stars Irish actor Karl Geary ("Nadja") as Marvin Montrose, an "environmentally sensitive", sickly young adult living with a mom (Amanda Plummer, "Needful Things") and annoying kid sister (Alexis Dziena, "Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist") in a world where that pesky Judas Breed keeps making trouble. Marvin keeps tabs on all of his neighbours, including a mysterious "Garbageman" who's newly moved in.

It was hard for this viewer to truly give a damn about most of these insipid characters (also among them, a dopey detective played by John Kapelos of "The Breakfast Club"). Writer / director J.T. Petty's big hook is that of the "Rear Window" / voyeurism angle, which at least gives us a primary character who *can't* become an active participant in the various goings-on until late in the game. But all of this feels like material we've all seen many times before, routinely handled and ending without much satisfaction. The big mystery regarding "Garbageman" is mildly amusing, but never pays off all that well. Petty and company do make the smart move of keeping the creatures off screen or otherwise in the darkness as long as possible. Once we do see them in all their glory, a lot of whatever meagre suspense is generated goes out the window, and this becomes yet another cheesy monster movie.

The cast is as good as they can be, acting in something titled "Mimic 3". Special guest star Lance Henriksen is not clearly seen until the second half, and as always he provides some real value, but ultimately this is a waste of a solid screen presence.

Atmospherically shot, but containing far too much rapid-fire editing (a style we're all used to seeing by this point), this gives us a Big Bang of a finale, albeit not without some silliness.

Filmed in Romania.

Five out of 10.