1.0 out of 5 stars
awful(does not deserve the "Species" name) (0.7/5), Aug 20 2007
this movie is not good at all.it was so bad,i could smell it and taste
it.yuck.this movie doesn't deserve the "Species" name in its title.it's
much grosser than the first "Species",sometimes too much.also,there's a
scene that belongs in a porn movie,which is absolutely disgusting.i'm
not sure how this particular scenes got by the ratings board.they must
have all been having a nap that day.this film should have an NC-17
rating.anyway,the acting was good,but the rest of the movie was not.if
it's not ultra low budget,they sure fooled me.if i were you,i wouldn't
waste my time with this one.i know i don't have any plans to subject
myself to it for a second time.instead,i suggest you watch the
original,then check out "Species 3" a work of art compared to this
one.the most i can muster for this one is a 0.7/5
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1.0 out of 5 stars
As bad Alien III and IV....with tons of gore., April 13 2004
Well, what can one say about this picture? It has tons of gore and it will began with 1979's ALIEN, but here like Alien 3 and IV, and Predator I and II, there is no story, there is just a lot of violence, tons of gore, so many scenes that look like they were filmed at a porn studio, and the only possitive thing that one can say about it, is that it did so poorly at the box office that MGM decited not do anymore. Thank You.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1.0 out of 5 stars
Have barf bag close by . . . . ., Mar 17 2004
By A Customer
Excuse me . . . aarrgghh!!! This has got to be one of the worst movies EVER! Yes, it's that bad! I would rather listen to the awful sounds of Christian country singer Randy Coward than watch this again!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No