DNA

Audience Reviews

View All (25) audience reviews

Elizabeth T So bad it’s funny! Love the monster cam but that’s about it! The biggest issue with this mindrot monster vs humans, is that it’s BORING! Watch it if you need to fall zzz. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 02/17/25 Full Review Lesley E It's not that bad! I mean I've seen worse low budget action films, but this one is ok. The story is actually interesting: a scientist creates an alien from the DNA of a beetle. What kills this film is the appallingly bad CGI and sound effects, along with the fact that it seems to be a rip off of Predator (1987). Overall, it's one of those films that's "so bad it's good". You can definitely sit through and not regret popping it into your DVD player. Final verdict: 3 stars Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 11/26/20 Full Review Audience Member Everyone's all "Oh I heard it was a bad Predator ripoff, which is why I wanted to watch it, but I wasn't prepared, I hated it so much." But like... That's exactly what it was. It's a bad Predator ripoff. I wanted a bad Predator ripoff, and I got one. Sure, it's a very bad one, but it is one, I don't understand the disappointment. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 01/22/23 Full Review Audience Member Fools resurrect alien monster in a film derivative of others. Cinematography: 7/10 Usually OK, but suffers from darkness and graininess. Sound: 8/10 The incidental music is a bit florid, but the recording is well done. Acting: 3/10 Mark Dacascos and Robin McKee were just plain bad. Both are miscast, which makes matters worse. Veteran actors Jurgen Prochnow and Roger Aaron Brown were better, but had to deal with the mediocre script. Screenplay: 5/10 Supposedly set in Malaysia, but some of the 'natives' use language one might find in the Philippines, where the filming was done. The expedition early on in the film had a Raiders of the Lost Ark feel to it, with a dash of King Solomon's Mines during the meetings with the locals. Perhaps the worst motivational piece was Carl asserting that many countries would pay large amounts of money for this bio-weapon. Please! They could not control it in the least, just as nothing could control the alien killers in Alien or its sequels. The is no military application here, so no source of money. If they had kept with the idea of immunity-enhancing enzymes, the film would have been more coherent. Special Effects: 5/10 The monster, at least outside, was clearly a not-so-good man in a rubber suit. The helicopter crashes and explosions were between so-so and poor. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 01/13/23 Full Review Audience Member Derivative of other, better movies, including Jurassic Park and Predator. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 02/19/23 Full Review Audience Member been there seen that just another rehash of other superior pix Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 01/21/23 Full Review Read all reviews

DNA

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now