Fangs (2002) User Reviews

Scottsville has a little secret.

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 1 June 2003]

Here we go again. Pretty predictable and no matter how cheesy this movie gets...something keeps you hanging in there for the finale. Is it the blood thirsty bats? An unlikely detective(Tracy Nelson)teams with an animal control officer(Whip Hubley)to uncover the mystery behind a small town being terrorized by genetically-created bats. Nelson is so wrong for the role it is pathetic. Corbin Bersen and Nicole Clendenen are more than a tad over-the-top. Redeeming is the cute Katie Stuart. There is an interesting solution to jamming the bat's radar. If you expect horror...prepare for a headache from the negative shake of your head.

Average But Watchable

[Pigalina · 4/10 · 21 June 2005]

Basically some genetically modified bats get loose and go round biting people (and a dog, which was most uncalled for) to death. My first gripe with this movie is that Heather and Diane remained alive. Oh my goodness, they were like so annoying and I was all like won't they just die already, I mean like they were just so irritating. How I laughed to see such fun when one of them got attacked by a bat. Sadly it only messed up her hair.

The teenage daughter in this film of course wanted to be a reporter, ah yes, ALL teenage girls want to be investigative journalists. She of course was on the case and had a video camera with her at all times - not that it helped the storyline any, she didn't solve the mystery with it. The dad though may I say was very smart, no sooner had he seen an odd looking device he'd solved the whole thing and they all raced off to save the day. And what a lovely ending, the Dad married the police lady and they went on honeymoon with his daughter AND her boyfriend. Though, in its defense, I didn't actually get bored watching this, and it was mildly amusing when it was supposed to be.

Not Much Yuck For Your Buck

[Theo Robertson · 3/10 · 1 July 2003]

If there`s one good thing about genetic engineering it is that it allows film makers to have a ready made plot to kick start a movie . Alas many film makers use genetic engineering to kick start not very good movies.

I could have put the boot into FANGS , in fact I could have kicked its teeth in , but I often get too serious about reviewing films I didn`t like much , and I`m in a fairly nice mood , and FANGS is fairly inoffensive and is not to be taken seriously from the opening sequence with the teenage bimbo lab assistants all the way through to the silly protection against bat attack this is a goofy dumb movie , but at least it`s a well lit goofy dumb movie that doesn`t use gore for gore`s sake

It's Not So Bad!

[teuthis · 26 May 2004]

I've seen "Fangs" several times and I have always enjoyed it. It is just a classic monster picture. So one should not expect too much from it except some good, old-fashioned monsters, in the form of bats; and some campy acting by a capable cast that tries its darnedest. Considering the genre and it's history, one is either going to love these thrifty, chimerical adventures; or not. If you're a real fan of monster movies, then I think "Fangs" satisfies quite well.

"Fangs" has bat attacks; a really slimy bad guy; a cute, determined heroine; some comical teens; and even a half-effective hero. The story moves right along, and even though one pretty much knows what is going to happen, the ride is fun, and the bats are suitably scary. I say just watch it for what it is and enjoy the old monster formula worked to a tee. It's great fun.

Absolutely horrid.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 1/10 · 2 February 2004]

I watched this piece of horse crap yesterday and I was disappointed."Fangs" offers literally nothing new aside from a shocking similarity to another really bad horror flick "Bats".Corbin Bernsen is completely wasted as a local businessman,the rest of the cast is also horrible.There is absolutely no gore nor suspense,so fans of horror will be disappointed.The film is bland,generic and completely anemic.Avoid this bloodless piece of crap like the plague.1 out of 10.

The screenwriter used to write for MAMA'S FAMILY! Is that a strong enough warning to avoid FANGS at all costs?

[foywonder · 1/10 · 16 September 2002]

About 20 minutes into FANGS I was almost convinced that this film wasn't new, but actually some movie made in the 80s by NBC that they would have aired sometime around Halloween hyping it as "spooky fun for the whole family." I can't begin to fathom the sheer number of people who are going to be suckered into renting this on the basis of its box art alone. That box art makes the film look like it's about vicious little bats up to no good. It lies! This is not a jolly good fangfest! While it may be about killer bats, virtually everything actually involving the bats takes place off-screen. A more honest title for the movie would have been OFF-CAMERA BAT ATTACK! Instead we have a never-ending sea of cutesy one-liners that wouldn't even be considered witty enough to be used on HeeHaw! You almost anticipate these jokes to be immediately followed by a few chords of a piano to help punctuate that something amusing has just been said. MAMA'S FAMILY was a laugh riot compared to this movie. Heck, SCOOBY DOO has more suspense and on-screen mayhem in a single half hour episode than this atrocious movie does in it's entire running time. Just a total bore. BATS looks like JAWS by comparison!

There's no gore, no on-screen deaths, no profanity, no sex, no nudity, no cleavage, and no kissing because, as it turns out, FANGS was really supposed to be wholesome family entertainment about a lunatic who uses vicious bats to savagely maul people to death! That concept alone is an oxymoron. I got a family value the producers at Porchlight Entertainment need, it's called shame!

FANGS isn't even so bad it's good. It's so bad it's worse!

Completely juvenile.

[lost-in-limbo · 2/10 · 13 July 2005]

A scientist is experimenting on genetically engineered bats that are controlled by a black device that sends out a signal for the bats to attack whoever is near that device when switched on. Though, the scientist is killed and now they've been released into the quiet town. One by one victims fall, but there's someone behind all this and is there a purpose for these deaths, with a dark figure lurking about after each attack. So now it's up to a new cop in town and veterinarian to figure out this mystery.

Dear-oh-dear is what I got to say about this utterly incompetent piece of unimaginative garbage. How did this lousy film ever get made I was thinking throughout my whole viewing. This is definitely a poor man's version of "Bats" and why would you want to copy that dud of a film… who knows? The film is a complete mess and makes really no sense. Everything and I mean everything is executed in such an empty manner… well, maybe one or two few exceptions. You could say that there's some creative camera-work on show and the production valves were fair for a cheap-budget film. I was expecting maybe lousy rubber bats, but well there was rubber spider on a string, but the bats were actually CGI. The problem was that the effects were too artificial and because of that they looked incredibly ridiculous. This was supposed to be a horror movie, I think? The only horrific thing is that it got made. What we actually get is unintentionally humorous sequences and when it tries to be funny it's unbearably awful. Inept performances are achieved with implausibly stupid and irritating characters. These characters are your very stereotypical type. Dialogue is mindless tripe and rather inane that it just makes your groan especially at the gag lines that flow throughout the film and to end it off it's a tiresome story with too many plot holes and too many coincidences.

The predictable story is mainly uninteresting and it leads to a far-fetched outcome. Too many unbelievably over-exaggerated situations occur and unconvincing characters pop up. Scenes just felt forced and rather stale. Also included are some irrelevant situations. The films finale is incredibly tense… uh, I mean laughable. The characters try to sound intelligent, but you just roll your eyes at mostly everything they said. The only thing I cared for was the dog; it had far more talent than the cast put to together. The violence is very tame with no blood on show and it mostly happens off screen. No suspense or atmosphere is built and it goes for cheap scares that you see coming a million miles before hand. The music score didn't add anything too the flow and came across like something out of a TV show. The direction lacked any sort of panache and conviction. It's nothing but lifeless and embarrassing film-making. It's not really worth the time to view.

Overall, just steer clear of this bottom of the barrel drivel, but unless you love your incredibly awful or laughably dumb trash. Go right ahead.

Vampires without Dracula or The Tale of the Genetic Engineered Bats

[mr_spaceman · 1/10 · 29 October 2003]

If you look at this page you already know that Fangs is a quite lame movie. So instead of a review I want to give you some logical errors that may upset people while watching this movie because they are so obvious.

• The bats are sreaming all the time. But a human will never hear a bat screaming with his own ears. - This little village in which the story takes place has it's own university?! - The professor has only one enemy so why does he kill all the other people? - The scene with the shredded aluminum cans (mentioned by the IMDb). This is not possible. - I guess you can't find the bats using the antennas at the end of the movie (at least not alone but they hast had _only_ these antennas)!

Beside this idiotic mistakes (probably they also had some spelling errors in the script - but that's another story) they mentioned every minute this apple-blossom festival. So you think that's the biggest party in this forgotten village (with university...) but when it finally comes to the scene we see that they even couldn't afford a small crowd to fill the room. When the bats attack the people had to run circles to show some action!

1/10 ... Dirt

Certainly not a 3!!

[charlenelv · 9/10 · 8 January 2006]

Alright, so this isn't the scariest movie I've ever watched, and the acting isn't anything that would win an Oscar, but it was enjoyable, fun, and a good wholesome family movie. The violence was minimal, no sex, no foul language, and no blood and gore.

Corbin Bernstein played his role perfectly - by overacting, just what the role demanded. I enjoyed this movie so much, watching it every time it came on TV, that I finally purchased the DVD. I don't think that a movie has to have violence, or sex, or gore just to be a 10.

It is nice to have a movie that I can comfortably watch with my 12 year old granddaughter, that both of us enjoy. Tracy Nelson & Whip Hubley had great chemistry. This is certainly one DVD which won't get dusty from being watched once and put away.

An instructive course in movie-making

[plarkin · 6/10 · 26 May 2005]

The first time I saw this, I agreed with all the other posters who say this is a BAD, BAD movie. Watching the acting is like eating old, cold popcorn with no butter, salt or anything. And the better I knew the actor to be, the worse the acting seemed. For this I blame the director. The plot was transparent, the characters cardboard, the motivations only hinted at or missing entirely. For this I blame the writer. The second time I saw it, it was vastly more entertaining because I knew not to expect any better, and I could appreciate the flashes of creativity, humor and even humanity that are peppered through the film.

The writer, Jim Geoghan (if that really is the writer's name/identity -- have you taken a look at his photo? is that for real?), has mostly written for sitcoms. The punch-punch-punch, joke-every-ten-seconds style needed to keep the attention of the average sitcom watcher does not translate well onto the movie screen, and the 22-minute time frame doesn't lend itself to the habit of thinking deeply or extensively (or sometimes at all) about character, meaning, emotion, motive or the nature of creativity.

The director, Kelly Sandefur, appears also to have gotten his start in sitcoms, and the same comments apply. But he also seems to have mainly done Visual Effects Filmography, which explains a lot. Just as movies directed by long-time stunt performers tend to have lots of spectacular stunts, sometimes (often) to the detriment of the story and music video directors tend to create chaotic, nihilistic, iconoclastic films, this film looks just great, but the other qualities suffered.

In fact everything about the look of this film is really very good. The cinematography, lighting, staging, focus, sound -- everything technical is in fact excellently done.

The serious film student, especially one with ambition to make films of one's own some day, can definitely profit from a study of this film and its faults and its strengths. The main lessons: writing is important. Match your writer to your subject. For example, the humorous parts of this film fell flat because the writer is used to a laugh track guiding the audience to the (intentionally) funny parts. A playwright can often write a more effective script because he's not used to relying on a sound track to guide the emotion of the viewer -- he has to do it with the story. Also, match your director to the material. Don't ask a music video director to direct a tender love story, or any scene that lasts longer than three minutes. And if you ever get to make a movie (and if you can afford it), get all the technical crew of this movie to work for you! But first, see to the writing. A badly filmed great story will be easier to watch than an excellently filmed mediocre story.

Please say you're kidding me.

[Jack the Ripper1888 · 1 April 2003]

The only thing that FANGS seems to have been made to do is make the theatrically released BATS look like it deserved every Oscar award that is given out. I was actually happy to own BATS after seeing this, because after I was done watching this film, I watched BATS just to let myself know that not all films suck this badly.

The first thing that really lets you know this film will be major low-budget and hokey all the way is that it stars Corbin Bersen. A good actor, but then again, he did star in the highly terrible, direct-to-video flicks RAPTOR and KILLER INSTINCT. So, forgetting Bersen, there is the rest of the cast. Whip Hubley (brother of Season Hubley) isn't all to bad, but the main thing that kills FANGS is sloppy direction and a screenwriter who tried all too hard to try to make this film funny. Basically, he wanted to try to make FANGS into a BATS, that had the humor that David E. Kelley gave LAKE PLACID. But, it fails miserably here and most of the 'humor' just sounds plain retarded. It's sad too. It always upsets me when somebody says something that you know was meant to be funny and it just isn't.

Having not been given very many killer bat flicks in the past (the only two I can think of would be BATS and an early 70s film called NIGHTWING) so I guess FANGS does well considering that only two other films of this caliber have come before it. But, it borrows heavily from them and end is almost laughable. Like other users said, it seems like you were almost expecting the line "The killer is really..." somewhere in there. The thing that saves FANGS from being a complete atrocity is the fact that the special effects were not *that* terrible (but still, you could obviously tell the bats were computer designed) and the fact that there are a few sarcastic lines that are given by performances that are not all that bad. But, the film is loaded with mindless cliches and has dialogue and situations that are just n-o-t belivable.

FANGS: 2/5.

Been done before, but still entertaining

[slayrrr666 · 8/10 · 22 March 2005]

"Fangs" is a low budget remake of a low budget movie.

**SPOILERS**

Two college students have a nasty experience in a laboratory. The bats inside the cages were more vicious than they were expected. The next day, the bats attack an office worker. When the body is discovered, Ally Parks (Tracy Nelson) a detective is called in to investigate. She meets town veterinarian John Winslow, (Whip Hubley) and they share information about the case. The clues lead to land developer Carl Hart, (Corbin Bernsen) who is going around town buying up homes for his development firm. Outraged by the possible connection, he orders the Chief of Police, Sam Taylor, (Mikael Gregory) to sweep it under the rug, which harms Ally's investigation. Another attack confirms Winslow's suspicions that a bat is the culprit, and he teams up with Ally and his daughter Genny (Katie Stuart) to prove that the bats are responsible.

The Good News: The best part is that the film moves at a fast pace and never loses a lot of interest when it doesn't feature an attack. The rating prevents the film from really showing the gruesomeness of the attacks. It was a film about genetically engineered bats, and having a PG-13 rating severely hampers that from happening. The film could've been a good cult following if it had a few more deaths involved. Too bad that the deaths revolved around a unique subplot that carries the film. The subplot is very creatively done and is handled such that the rest of the film is determined by what that particular subplot. It is still a very simple film, but when you take the time to think about it after (which many may not do), it actually is a lot smarter than it appears to be. Those are perhaps the best kind of horror films; one that seems simple on the surface but becomes more complex and creative in afterthought.

The Bad News: If you've seen "Bats" with Lou Diamond Phillips, you've seen this movie. This movie only changes the location and the cast, but otherwise it is practically the same movie. The remote town, the female inspector, the geek male lead, and the town authority that wants to keep it hushed because the news of the disaster could hurt the town. The plots are very similar and they both use the genetically engineered bats as the antagonists. Even the ending is the same, blowing up the bats' residence to stop them. It has that feel that it has been done before, and it has.

The Final Verdict: It may not be the most original film ever made, but it is a creative one and does provide some entertainment for a such a film. Thinking about it after will be a better idea than thinking about it during, as it is a lot better than you think it is.

Rated PG-13: Violence, Adult Language, and mention of an attack on an animal

This doesn't mean that I'll see another dead body! Does it?

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 4 November 2009]

***SPOILERS*** With Prof. Arthur Fuller, Mark L.Taylor, genetically engineered bats escaping from their cages and with him ending up being their lunch it's suggested by Scottsville's second in command of its police department former L.A detective Ally Parks, Tracy Nelson, to cancel the towns annual Apple Blossom Festival. This is to avoid any more people ending up bitten to death by the killer bats until their all either killed or captured.

The towns real estate mogul Carl Hart, Corbin Bernsen, is determined to keep the festival open in order to sell his cheaply made, and very overpriced, houses to a slew of out out of town clients who'll be coming to the festival. Hart being the person who pulls the strings in Scottsville then has Parks pressured by her boss Police Chief Sam Taylor, Michael Gregory, to falsify the evidence in Fuller's killer bat attack death and make it look like death by natural causes. All this doesn't go well with not only Parks but the towns new installed animal control inspector veterinarian Dr, John Winslow, Whip Hubley. Dr. Winslow is certain that there's a new breed of bats in the area that are twice and big and far more aggressive then the usual meek and inoffensive ones in and around Scottsville. It's these bats who we later find out are being used by someone unknown who has it in for Hart and all those, like Police Chief Taylor, who he's got on his payroll. And whoever this person is he's more then determined to wreck Hart's plans for using the Apple Blossoum Festival to sell unsuspecting home buyers, or suckers, his cheap houses that, the properties that their built on, he stole and finagled out of the vast majority of the good and hard working people of Scottsville!

More of a revenge then a black comedy or horror film "Fangs" has the greedy and unethical villain in it Carl Hart-or Heartless-get his comeuppances both by being financially ruined as well as indited in a class action real estate fraud action suite! As well as for what Hart did in him driving a number of people, whom he defrauded out of their properties, into killing themselves.

****SPOILER ALERT**** We do get a big surprise at the end of the movie in who's the person behind these killer bat attacks really is! He just happens to be the son of one of the people that Hart after stealing his home & farm then drove to commit suicide. Despite his very understandable actions, in punishing Hart for his father's death, the guy got so carried away with his beloved killer bats that he became more found of them, in trying to save them, then any family member or close friend of his! This lead to his incredibly insane actions at the end of the movie that proved that he was far from the cunning shrewed as well as explosives expert that we all thought-up until he completely cracked up-that he was.

From the makers of Scooby Doo . . .

[jaywolfenstien · 26 October 2002]

Not really, but unless you watch the credits you can't tell. This film is like a slighly more graphic live version of the old cartoon. "The killer is really . . . "; I half expected to hear the line, "If it weren't for you darn kids . . ." or perhaps see a large CG or animiated dog.

The film redefines the phrase "tongue and cheek", and frankly I don't like the new definition. Tongue and cheek is great when used in moderation, but in excess it becomes extremely lame. When you're hard pressed to find something believable in the film, it's gone too far. When everything is cliche and exagerated to the extremes, it's gone too far. And the suspension of disbelief is not there.

I don't even feel comfortable critiquing the actors--I can't get over the terrible writing and mediocre direction. Look at Dungeons and Dragons which features a wonderful actor, Jeremy Irons, doing a way over the top performance. Maybe the writing and directing demanded this performance from the actors--I dunno.

I hate being one of those nit-picky viewers who goes through and finds it necessary to point out every single flaw in a film's premise. Especially films about scientific, medical, or police procedures--I mean, even the greatest films that brush up with these subjects are never 100% accurate to the real world, but we forgive them. If they're good enough, the average viewer won't know. But this film, I don't think I spotted more than a handful of points that were accurate.

So watch if you enjoy incredibly cheesy and corny horror films, you *might* be able to laugh at it . . . but I think it tries to hard and fails for even that. But, whatever, go for it if that's your type of film.

OUTSTANDING HORROR/COMEDY MOVIE

[timlucero · 10/10 · 18 May 2018]

If you like horror movies that are not so scary or violent and have more comedy, this movie is definitely a must have. Here we have a a heard of genetically mutanted bats that escape from a university lab in SCOTTSVILLE, CALIFORNIA and fly on a blood thirsty rampage. Out to stop the bats are TRACY NELSON and the WHIPPIN' HUBLEY who get off to an extremely bad start. However, as they investigate the attacks together, they fortunately fall in love and marry. TRACY NELSON who was once a battered and murdered housewife, sister of ISSABELLA HOFMMAN who wanted justice for the death, in "THE PROMISE" is now gracefully resurrected as the fiesty local detective (also moved from LOS ANGELES) who does not tolerate "the contamination of evidence with WHATEVER!!!!!". The WHIPPIN' HUBLEY was once a F14 FIGHTER in TOP GUN with TOM CRUISE and then an elite team member led by STEPHEN SEAGAL in EXECUTIVE DECISION. Now he is the local veteranrian, part-time animal control worker, who does not tolerate being called the town "DOGCATCHER?!?!?!?!?". With extra help from the veteranian's daughter KATIE STUART and her ENGLISH boyfriend LUKAS BEHNKEN who are both documentering the attacks, can they stop these attacks before it's too late? Watch and find out. And whatever happens, don't light "A FLARE!!!!!"

Super corny movie is suitable for children

[robertemerald · 6/10 · 6 April 2020]

Obviously Fangs was intended as a TV movie for children. Every adult in this production behaves as if they never progressed beyond 10-13 years of age. Some are more childlike than others. Baddies are an exaggerated blatant bad, and the good guys are cringe-worthy goodies. I enjoyed it. There was no blood and only one dead body, for only a couple of seconds, which looked like flattened man with a pink pizza on his back. I was thinking, if this was my first real monster movie, and I was 10, I'd be happy. Not sure there's a market for this type of caricature comedy any more. I was also thinking, if I was 10 and I'd already been allowed to watch Jurassic Park ... well, I might think this movie a little lame. Whoever is responsible for the actual bats deserves a lot of praise. They looked real enough to me. Evil little critters. Pity we didn't see more of them.

This movie is hysterical!

[marrajayd · 25 June 2002]

This movie is an absolute riot! The best part about this movie was "Heather". I wanted to see more of her as she kept the movie going by taking off with it from the very beginning. Heather (Corina Marie) hits the comedic beats perfectly to make her "cliche" character of a Valley Girl real and hysterical. Her performance was completely believable...I wanted to see more!!!!!!! Make "Heather" live again!

Let Me Explain My Toothy Grin

[NoDakTatum · 8/10 · 6 November 2023]

Sure, it rips off everything from "Jaws" to "Arachnophobia," but this cheap effort about killer bats in a small town caught me in the right mood- and it's better than "Bats." Scottsville is a small California town going through some changes. Local crooked land developer Hart (Corbin Bernsen) is cheating local farmers out of their acreage. He is selling substandard homes to local yuppies, and paying police chief Taylor (Michael Gregory) to look the other way. Local university professor Fuller (Mark Taylor) has been doing genetic research on hundreds of bats, turning them into aggressive killers. One night, they get loose, kill their maker, and flee into the Scottsville sky. Detective Ally (Tracy Nelson) is called in to investigate the death. The chief wants the case closed and shelved, since the town's apple festival is fast approaching. Other deaths follow, all bat attacks, and Ally teams with widower veterinarian John (Whip Hubley), his teen daughter Genny (Katie Stuart), and Genny's goofy dude boyfriend Logan (Lukas Behnken) to track down whoever is triggering the bats to attack specific people.

First off, the bat effects are surprisingly good. Yes, a bit obvious, but still good. Hubley and Nelson have a nice chemistry going, leading the B cast through the easy-to-solve mystery. The script never takes itself seriously, the professor's two interns are a hoot, so the welcome light moments work. Sandefur's direction is also very confident, lending gravitas to what amounts to a straight-to-video effort. "Fangs" is harmless fun, full of goofy characters and ridiculous situations. I hate the old cliche that one needs to "turn your brain off and enjoy" something unsubstantial, but in this case I'll make an exception.

Get out of the water! No, wait....

[Mystie3000 · 23 May 2004]

Confession. I will watch any monster movie, especially really really bad ones. And this definitely ranks with the worst ever. With scenes poorly revisited from almost every other monster/horror movie, this is what I refer to as a "Movie-Loaf". Shamelessly dragging "Jaws", "Carrie", and even bits of "Twister" (Aluminum cans come in sooo handy sometimes), this movie makes the entire "Piranha" series look realistic and highbrow. A pair of ultra precocious teenage surfer types add a gut churning touch for those unaffected by the cheapness of the bat effects. I almost fell off my sofa when I learned that these bats use RADAR as opposed to the usual echolocation (sonar). The computer jargon, thrown in apparently at random, will insure that this movies remains "dated" for all time, if anyone ever has the shamelessness to re-run it (thank you Sci-Fi). That said, if you love to laugh at movie making at it's worst, this is a real gem. Where's the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew when you need them? I suggest watching it with some good humored friends and a case of beer. You may want to start in on the beer before you put in the movie however.

MOVIE BETTER THAN BOX

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 28 April 2019]

Normally the box display on "B" horror movies is better than the film itself. I was expecting dark scenes. The movie has a plot and dialogue as predictable as "Amen" following a prayer. In spite of that, the perky performances keep the movie entertaining. It is a movie you can sit down and watch with your kids and not be embarrassed. Corbin Benson as the evil Realtor developer was the most horrific thing in the movie. There are tons of evil guys out there that need work. Yes it was a bit cheesy, but that is not bad.

From the RPM school of film-making!

[uds3 · 28 October 2003]

What am I saying? RPM was a classic piece of quality entertainment besides this. Billed as a horror film - the reality is, this piece of juvenile tripe is a fright-fest ONLY from the script, direction and acting viewpoint! Horror - Sesame Street style! To be honest, Bert is more terrifying!

How the hell did they get Whip Hubley and worse, Corbin Bernsen (LA LAW??) roped into this? Not professional enough to be even called a "student film," this lamer than lame tale of a few genetically altered and frenetically digitised bats terrorising Bernsen's housing estate is so pathetic it defies serious critique.

Has anyone in the history of cinema looked and acted LESS like a cop than Tracey Nelson? The only thing worth watching is spunky Katie Stuart as Hubley's sexy daughter Genny! That's sexy, as opposed to intelligent!

As someone mentioned, yeah it is very clear and colorful however - just like a child's finger painting. On DVD even more so, I can't believe I wasted $6.95 on this offal!

Goofy bats attack

[Dr. Gore · 22 April 2003]

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

Bats attack a housing community. Corbin Bernsen is the no nonsense developer who doesn't want to hear about any bat problems. So he pretends they don't exist. Too bad for him they do exist. Many fake looking bats attack.

"Fangs" is a typical example of what happens when you try to make the dreaded horror/comedy. Rarely does this mix of genres succeed. The horror gets diluted and the comedy is usually not funny. It's a lose/lose situation. "Fangs" had a lot of fake bats but bat attacks do not equal laughter. There was no joy watching "Fangs". Nor was I scared. It was lame.

If you want a good laugh, click on the writer's name on the IMDb page for "Fangs", (Jim Geoghan). Something tells me the picture posted there is not the writer of this movie. Now that was funny. If it is him, he might want to use the cash from "Fangs" to get a haircut and a shower.

Fangs,but no fangs!

[lorenellroy · 10 January 2003]

If this serves any other purpose than to make the similarly themed Bats look like a cinematic masterpiece in comparison,then it escapes me. A horde of mutated bats are deliberately released into a small California community,which is under the sway of an unscrupulous property developer,who aided by his henchmen -a corrupt police chief and a dim,strongarm man -is intent on building a tacky housing development in the area and is not too scrupulous as to methods Ranged against him and the pesky critters are a lady cop ,the town animal control officer ,his daughter and her stoner boyfriend. The dialogue seeks for the witty and achieves only flippancy.The acting is dire and special effects wobbly. Miss-unless you like crud.

Nothing seems to fit right in this film

[Hessian499 · 30 August 2003]

The production values of this movie aren't bad (the bat attacks are obviously animated but come off okay) but otherwise this plays like a parody of horror films with some miscast talent. Tracey Nelson plays a detective who teams up with animal control officer Whip Hubley to investigate bat attacks in a small town. Nelson, though having played investigative types before, comes across as a strange choice to play a bat hunter, though she does a good job. Hubley and the two kids aren't bad but it seems like no one takes this movie seriously. The plot twists involving the search for the person behind the bat attacks is entertaining, but overall Fangs isn't the most cerebral film ever produced. However, this is a movie worth watching as a mild diversion from serious horror films, or if you like Tracey Nelson (or really, really like bats).

Bad, Bad Bats...

[azathothpwiggins · 19 August 2020]

FANGS is indeed a movie about genetically-altered, killer bats that attack a small town. As such, it's not unendurable. Yes, the CGI is sub-par, making the offending mammals appear like super-imposed cartoons. Yes, the town's citizenry is collectively doltish.

However, the leads aren't bad, including intergalactic mega-star Whip Hubley as the Animal Control guy, and Tracy Nelson as the visiting "big city" cop.

The real reason to watch this movie is to witness Corbin Bernsen do his thing as the reprehensible real estate magnate, Carl Hart! He's on fire here! If you enjoyed him in his DENTIST films, then you'll love him in this. Of course, this is a PG-13 movie, so, there's not much gore, but Bernsen's attitude and demeanor carry the day! No one can portray an unholy a$$#ole like he can. No one! Just ignore the preposterous premise of the movie, and watch BERNSEN!...