IMDb reviews From IMDb
★ 4 / 10
A Disposable Film With Tom Sizemore
gavin6942
A maintenance crew headed by Tom Sizemore goes into an abandoned hospital to look for old equipment to sell to collectors. But a multi-millionaire has a…
A maintenance crew headed by Tom Sizemore goes into an abandoned hospital to look for old equipment to sell to collectors. But a multi-millionaire has a scientist in the catacombs under the hospital, who has developed a serum to cause rapid regeneration and cellular growth. The scientist, who has taken the serum, is finding the results to be a bit more extreme than expected.For my beef with 235 films (who produced this), see my review for "The Mad". This film's selling point was easy to identify as soon as I picked it up: it has Tom Sizemore in it. And, hey, I like Tom Sizemore (rent "Lock Up" with Sylvester Stallone) so this seems like something worth checking out.That selling point is about as far as you can get with this one. You have a very one-dimensional millionaire who survives a fire. A creature in a tunnel who becomes part rat and part dog. A bum who is apparently a Rastafarian. These things mix well, surprisingly, but only in the most absurd sense of the word "well". It's just a lot of strange things going on.The crew's background is in makeup, and it shows. There is a scene where they chop off a guy's fingers that was alright, and the creature is especially slimy. But the creature is just poorly conceived: in horror, there needs to be a balance of how much you do and do not show a monster. Here, they couldn't decide to show him too little (much of the film is almost pitch black) or too much (making him seem somewhat dumb).I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy this film. I did. But the actors were nothing special, I didn't care about the characters, and Sizemore is either doped up or washed up in this film. Maybe he's not doped up. But whatever the case, he just looked old and tired. I can't have my hero looking like he wants to drink a six-pack of Coors Original (the Banquet Beer), smear Dorito orangeness on his chest and pass out watching NASCAR. This Sizemore didn't even have enough energy in him to pass gas.I guess this isn't really telling you what you need to know, but there's really nothing to know: bad hero, weak monster, fake secondary characters. Unless your goal is to just get drunk or high and need something on the screen to move every so often, this isn't going to thrill you. If you want a good underground monster, rent "Tremors" or "CHUD".
Read full review
★ 5 / 10
I'm Still Not Sure If I Actually Liked This Or Not
sddavis63
I watched this movie a while back and when it came to an end I was puzzled. Usually, I have a pretty strong reaction to a movie: I know if I've liked it or…
I watched this movie a while back and when it came to an end I was puzzled. Usually, I have a pretty strong reaction to a movie: I know if I've liked it or not, or if I've been bored with it, or if I've been bothered by it. I know something about my reaction to it. When I watched this a while back, I had - honestly - no reaction. I didn't know if I had liked it or not. So it faded into the distant past and I moved on, until the opportunity came up to watch it again. I decided to watch it again. Sometimes a movie that doesn't really strike a chord with you will do so on a second viewing. So I watched it again. And I have exactly the same reaction - I'm not really sure if I liked it or not.It's a schlocky monster story, where a scientist invents some sort of cure for a disease that a multi-millionaire wants, but he forces the scientist to try it out first - with really bad results. The mutated scientist then encounters a maintenance crew in underground tunnels where he was forced to try the cure, there's a lot of blood and gore and death. What else is there? Really - not much.It wasn't horrible. I'll say that. It's a basic, run of the mill monster story - and those can be OK as time wasters. Aside from Tom Sizemore, who played the head of the maintenance crew, the cast was pretty anonymous. And, as far as Vince (played by Sizemore) was concerned - how in the world could he have been a POW in Vietnam? Sizemore is nowhere near old enough to play a guy who would have been a POW in Vietnam. That grated on me a bit, even though it's a throwaway part of the story.I guess I'll give it a 5. Right in the middle. Because I honestly don't know if I liked it or not.
Read full review
★ 4 / 10
Rather generic creature feature...
paul_haakonsen
I have actually watched this 2007 movie once before, but I have to admit that I have entirely forgotten about the movie, aside from remembering the movie's…
I have actually watched this 2007 movie once before, but I have to admit that I have entirely forgotten about the movie, aside from remembering the movie's cover, the title and the fact that it had Tom Sizemore in the leading role.When I had the opportunity to revisit the movie here in 2025, I did so, as I couldn't remember the storyline in the movie. And I am a sucker for horror movies and creature features in general.Writer and director Randy Daudlin put together a script that was rather generic for a creature feature. So yeah, there really isn't a particular reason why you should opt to sit down and watch "Bottom Feeder" when there are far better and more enjoyable creature features available. Sure, this 2007 movie was watchable, but it wasn't a memorable viewing experience by any means. And I suppose that is why the movie has vanished from my memory from the first time I watched it.The acting performances in the movie were fair. I am not really a fan of Tom Sizemore, but he is an adequate enough actor from time to time. The movie also has Martin Roach on the cast list, which sums up the two only familiar faces on the cast ensemble for me.Visually then you're not in for a grand horror experience. The creature design was simplistic, and it was obviously just a dude in a latex suit, and not a particularly good latex suit at that. But hey, there are way more lousy special effects in many other horror movies, so that at least counts for something that the effects in "Bottom Feeder" weren't rock bottom.Watchable if you really have a craving for creature features and have 86 minutes to spare on a generic one. But otherwise this is not really a movie that I would recommend to the average horror fan.My rating of writer and director Randy Daudlin's 2007 movie "Bottom Feeder" lands on a four out of ten stars.
Read full review
More reviews on IMDb ↗
♡ Thanks for supporting YTS Supporter badges recognize people who help keep YTS running.
4.2/10
1K
•••
dont waste ur time