The Bat People

The Bat People

After being bitten by a bat in a cave, a doctor undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat, which ruins his vacation and causes considerable distress for his wife.

A doctor specializing in bats| and his new wife interrupt their honeymoon to go spelunking in Carlsbad Cavern. There he is bitten by a fruit bat and inexplicably
undergoes a transformation into a vampire bat. He ultimately escapes| however| escaping back to the caves. His wife| infected by her husband| kills the local
constabulary and goes to join him. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

The Bat People torrent reviews

Jesse O (au) wrote: Clever title aside, this film, while certainly not without its interesting moments and themes, didn't really do much for me. This is more a sci fi-esque story than it is a horror movie, though it very obviously has some horror elements. Essentially, the idea is that there's some weird looping effect going on here, where they will go through the same thing time and time and time again unless someone is able to break the cycle by warning the others before they get to the cabin in the woods/forest. They also have to avoid one of their own, a schizophrenic no less, who's going out and murdering them for whichever reason. Talk about an easy scapegoat for a villain. Let's go after the schizo because, as we all know, those motherfuckers are dangerous, right? It plays into every mental health stereotype that is out there. If someone with a mental illness is not taking their meds, they'll end up killing someone. I have no doubt that this has happened in the past, and there's proof of it online, but it literally plays into every negative and unjustified fear people have regarding those with mental health issues. Anyone, if pushed to a certain point, can end up killing someone. If a man, or a woman, gets dumped by their significant other and they end up going on a killing spree this does not mean that everyone who goes through the same thing will end up committing the same acts. Same thing with people who suffer through these horrible diseases. It's just way too fucking lazy, honestly. Relying on the fact that people are uneducated about these illnesses in order to tell your story, that's just shit storytelling to me. At least The Voices, a really damn good movie with an excellent performance from Ryan Reynolds, while still relying on those same stereotypes, did so in order to tell a story about a character who was not living in the real world. It showed us how his mind perceived things to be completely different than what they were in real life. It was a disturbing character study. It didn't choose schizophrenia out lazy storytelling. It did so with a purpose. This movie, however, doesn't have a purpose. It's just justifying its own shitty storytelling by using schizophrenia as the driving force for the horror aspects of the film. There's no reason you couldn't have told this same story with the exception of the deaths themselves being accidental. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever, in my mind. Of course, this is the story the filmmakers wanted to tell and they have the freedom to do so, I still think the whole schizophrenia aspects of the film are poorly written. It's not like the sci fi-esque time looping is any better either. The problem lies in the fact that it literally comes out of nowhere, like there's no explanation given for what is going on. And I guess, if this were real, considering that none of these people were astrophysicists, it'd be difficult to find out exactly what the fuck happened. But this isn't real. They do hint at something in a throwaway line really fucking early in the movie and that's it, no mention of it ever again. I just think the writers did not have a good reason to explain why this was happening and they just completely sidestepped the issue instead of trying to find a solution for it. They just assumed people would go for it. And I guess, in some ways, I am over-analyzing this film. But I just wish they would've tried to justify their own story. And the thing is that this is not a bad movie, it still has more effort put into it than a lot of these really low-budget horror films, but not nearly enough of it for me to look past its glaring flaws. I do think the ending itself was very good and parts of the film were pretty cool all things considered. At best this is a below average film. It has some cool ideas and all, but it's got some really fucking lazy storytelling that keeps it from being truly good. I cannot recommend this in the slightest.

Mat T (nl) wrote: Un portrait caricatural du monde ouvrier et de celui de la finance. Un manque de profondeur dans les personnages. Une fin d (C)sastreuse. Et puis une Karin Viard exasp (C)rante de bout en bout... Bref un des films les plus d (C)cevants du "ma (R)tre" Klapisch

william m (fr) wrote: A solid Kung Fu movie with impressive stunts and cinematography that tells an important story.

House M (mx) wrote: When I heard of Katniss Everdeen becoming Tiffany Maxwell, making Jennnifer Lawrence win a best actor oscar I was a bit skeptical. But I have to admit she did a great job in this nevrotic ataching role. De Niro and Braddley Cooper really leverage it. Not a must see but a very fresh romantic comedy.

eric v (it) wrote: I wasn't taken by the story, but the acting is really good and some scenes are absolutely beautiful!

Rodney S (jp) wrote: Bill Moseley portrays the Suitcase Man, who crashes a party of twenty somethings and asks each of them, who is one person they hate and would like to see dead. His suitcase is full of razor blades, btw. Pretty upset that old Suitcase stopped in and a little scared, they all give him a name, but one guy makes the mistake of naming the whole bunch at the party should die (the guy is an idiot, and was just being a dick). Soooooooo, not only do the people they named start to end up in ultra gory deaths, but the whole group is now under siege from a creepy superhuman death machine. This is a film that could have been made by Herschell Gordon Lewis, and would be a gore classic. The gore effects are pretty cheap, but effective, and the story is pretty original. After several deaths have all ready occurred, the head goofball, decides the best place for the survivors to go to fight off the killer, is with Uncle Johnny (Tom Towles) who is a chili connoisseur, and also has a house full of many many weapons. This is a seventies style slasher movie, but with a real attitude, and way over the top on just about every level. All I can say, is "Home Sick" could have been a Masters of Horror 2-part episode, and might have been the best one. Very very gross, extremely and I mean extremely gory, and a good sense of humour that gives a wink and a nod to gorehounds. Take a look at the reviews at IMDb, and they all pretty much agree with me, that this is a must-have. Although Moseley's role is pretty small, he is highly effective in his usually creepy self. But most of the kudos go to Tom Towles, in one of his best and funniest roles ever. If you don't like small independent productions operating on a shoestring, but making the most out of every nickel, you should probably stay away, because this is for the fans that consider H G Lewis, the Godfather of Gore, and would love see more of his brand of gore films. "Home Sick" is his brand of gore, and mine too. The DVD is great, and has an outstanding commentary.

Denitria D (it) wrote: oo i wunna see this movie so badd

Jessica P (ru) wrote: I wanna see this so so so bad, it's got Gale in it do I need another reason.

Oliver E (de) wrote: It's hard to sit through, but apparently it's a masterpiece.

Emily A (au) wrote: To have your fucking soul ripped out by. Top 5 performances ever by Emily Watson.

Sean W (us) wrote: A bad example of 90s noir.

AJ A (ag) wrote: Chalk this up into the so bad it is good category!

Cameron J (it) wrote: "Eh bien, je ne suis pas homme le plus physique du monde, mais quand elle serra serr elle m'a presque cass la colonne vertbrale, oh, mon Lola, Lo-Lo-Lo-Lo-Lola!" I already used that joke for my opener of my review for "Lolita", and I used Google Translate for this latest reference to the Kinks' "Lola", so by changing the transvestite's name to Lolita when I reviewed "Lolita", I was probably more accurate to the lyrics, but whatever. You Francophiles can get annoyed with me all you want for letting my laziness overcome my own affection for the French language, but laziness is fitting in a discussion regarding this film, as this effort puts little effort into doing anything unique as a "loose" interpretation of the life and times of Lola Montez. Sure, this film is about some French chick, whereas Montez was an Irish woman who was known as a "Spanish" dancer and ended up dying in New York (Ironic, because New York is usually where the Irish go to "not" die), but the Irish's English is about as hard to understand as the French's French, so, yeah, I'm not really seeing a line between fact and fiction here, Herr Max Ophls. Well, I doubt that this film has any pretense about being a biopic for Lola Montez in disguise, as the titular main character's name is [u]Lola Mont[/u]s, for goodness' sake, but the fact of the matter is that I don't really understand why Max Ophls went through the trouble of "tap dancing" (It's funny because this film is about a dancer) around just telling us who this film is actually about, unless, of course, the other people behind this project didn't want to run the risk of legal issues, which I know sounds stupid, but kind of makes sense when you think about it, for although this film came out after any kind of copyright that would, for whatever reason, be associated with Montez's estate had expired, as the producer's cut of this film apparently told us, the people who called the shots behind this project other than Ophls had a tendency to make mighty dumb decisions. ...No, the scenario is still stupid, but what I'm getting at is that when Sergio Leone made it the portion of Heaven that is reserved for legendary filmmakers who had their last film butchered by producers, I bet Ophls walked up to him, handed him a smoke and said, "Well, my friend, it would appear as though the Germans and Italians have a mutual foe yet again." Now, I'm not saying the restored cut of this film that everyone knows and loves is quite as good as "Once Upon a Time in America", but hey, it's still a decent film, though it's not like the producers were the only one who made a mistake with the handling of Ophls' vision. Framing the flashback sequences which stand as the body of this narrative with a circus show that presents the story of the titular Lola Monts character as an act, so much so that we often step back to see an event which is being focused upon on a stage at the center of the show, this film boasts a stylistic choice to storytelling that is nothing if not unique and very often livens things up, yet there are still plenty of questionable areas within this stylistic choice, as it distances resonance by presenting a should-be subjective narrative as objective, and makes matters all the worse by being unevenly used, thus leaving storytelling style to feel inconsistent at times. The circus-themed frame story element to this nonlinear character study ultimately graces the film with a colorful stamp that I can't see the final product being the same without, but you've got to take the problems with the strengths, and make no mistake, this major stylistic choice in storytelling proves to be distancing and often inconsistent in its usage, and also has a tendency to sum up potentially exposition-feeding pieces of filler in Monts' story, thus thinning out expository depth that isn't as rich as it probably should be when we switch back to a more traditional and subjective narrative style. As much as this film takes its share of breaks to tell you what's going on, plenty feels kind of undercooked in this character study, yet underdevelopment is perhaps not a disengaging as the slowness, which is very much toned down by a certain consistent liveliness within Max Ophls' direction that often really springs as entertaining, but still stands, and often as completely undeniable, drying up atmospheric kick enough to dull things down a bit and leave the film to limp out. Storytelling meanders at times, as surely as it takes on the occasional questionable stylistic choice, and yet, with all of my aimless complaining about the slightly underused and generally colorful, circus-themed frame story element and slow spells, there really aren't a whole lot of errors to the final product, but hiccups there are really call your attention to how this film can't afford to make too many mistakes if it aims to truly reward. There's certainly juiciness to this story, but not as much as you might think, or at least hope for, carrying only so much momentum before it begins to get kind repetitious in concept, alone, so when I say that there are not a whole lot of flaws in this film, I mean that there was never to be a whole lot of anything to this film. Needless to say, there's enough meat to this story concept for you to see some clear signs at potential for a rewarding drama, but in the end, this film isn't as rewarding as it perhaps could have been, being a bit too inconsistent and slow for you to ignore the natural shortcomings that end up doing about as much as anything in making an underwhelming effort. Still, while the film is far from outstanding, it impresses enough to entertain adequately and consistently dazzle, maybe even turn in a few decent tunes. Georges Auric's musical efforts aren't too frequently played upon, and quite frankly, uniqueness to this film's score is substantially less recurring, but it's not like Auric doesn't still turn in a decent score that has enough tasteful color in it to entertaining and often liven things up, even if it's not quite as unique, or as impressive, as the film's outstanding art direction, which backs production designs by Jean d'Eaubonne and costume designs by Georges Annenkov that are so remarkably intricate in their capturing this 19th-century-set world with an intense attention to lavish liveliness that production value ends up being both immersive and dazzling. As far as art direction is concerned, this film almost has to be seen in order to be believed, for although the era this film falls into offers certain limitations to production value's dazzle, the designers of the look of this film make one stunning decision after another, yet not at the expense of enough down-to-earth intricacy to draw you into this dazzling world on a subjective level. Of course, it should go without saying that this film's production value wouldn't be as eye-catching as it most certainly is in the long run if it wasn't for its being gorgeously presented by another truly remarkable artistic attribute: Christian Matras' cinematography, which plays with Cinemascope filming sensibilities to seamlessly marry sweep and intimacy to the scope of this well-produced drama, while playing up vibrant color in a sensationally exuberant that was very much unique at the time, and is still, to this day, breathtaking, bouncing out well-defined color in most-every shot stunningly. The film looks incredible, and not just for its time, thanks to plenty of production value-driven and photographically enhanced eye candy that some films nowadays have trouble challenging, so on a stylistic level, this film is memorable, rewarding, maybe even near-phenomenal, and that does a lot to make the film worth seeing, yet you cannot disregard the engaging color that resides "within" those before the well-lensed camera. There's never anything all that impressive about the acting in this film, but the characters conceptually do a lot to drive the final product's substance, thus there has to be some inspiration the performances, which deliver on just that, with most every member of this colorful cast delivering on charisma and chemistry that go into defining the charming human depths that in turn go into defining this character piece. Of course, the performances wouldn't be quite as charming as they ultimately are if the performers weren't backing up engaging material, which means that Annette Wademant turns in a script that, while uneven and repetitious at times, boasts a fair bit of wit, while director Max Ophls keeps momentum alive enough to have an engagingingly entertaining beat for every slow spell. Seeing as how there's only so much to this film's substance in concept, acting, writing and direction never delivery a whole lot, but through all of the challenges to your investment, there are enough engaging areas to storytelling to keep you going through and through, even if you do end up wishing that you had more to walk away with. When the circus has left town, somewhat stylistically uneven storytelling, expository shortcomings and bland spells allow you to meditate upon the natural shortcomings that shake your engagement value, better never so loose that the lovely score work, remarkable production value and incredible cinematography that make up sharp style, as well as the charming performances, witty writing and generally colorful direction that make up entertaining substance, aren't able to keep you locked with "Lola Monts" enough to enjoy yourself just fine through all of the underwhelmingness. 2.5/5 - Fair

Alexander Z (ca) wrote: Good Will Hunting for a new generation, with a little bit of Adam mixed in.

Brandon M (es) wrote: Unique effects and idea for a story...but an awful film overall...and the acting is stupid. One of those films which leaves you screaming "quit filming you morons and get out before the savages rip you apart aswell"....oh well fuck it, they deserved to dies for being idiots.

James K (fr) wrote: Every time I see this movie I laugh SO hard!

Anna P (it) wrote: The best part was when Julia Roberts was playing Tess who was pretending to be Julia Roberts.Otherwise it was...a bit whut? Suddenly there is a random guy that appeared and told then where it was...and the whole backpack deal.Ugh don't like when they do that to the viewer.Just another film to see again.

Anne Marie L (gb) wrote: I'm not sure why this movie has harsh reviews. I honestly enjoyed this movie a lot. It was hilarious, sweet and kind of endearing. Combine all that with gore and fun effects--even a little was actually really good. I definitely recommend to fans of offbeat horror/comedies of the 80s. Sort of has that cheesy feel to a good way.