Bats 2 Murciélagos

Bats: Human Harvest is not a good or great movie, but I can think of far worse ways to waste my time. I did like the setting, not quite exotic but atmospheric enough, the photography is not too slipshod and the editing and music were decent. The effects and acting were uneven but by no means across-the-board-distractingly-bad. Some of the effects do look artificial, but the bats are ferocious enough. In terms of acting, there are some who do put effort into their roles, but also others who look as though they are just reading lines. The real problems though were with the characters, story and especially the script. The characters are stereotypical with not much development going on. The story is not exactly dull, but it is never exactly exciting either, and holds few surprises too. The script is the worst offender, often cheesy and stilted than not. All in all, one of the movies that falls into the some good/some bad category. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Well, if you are looking for an interesting creature feature, then the 2007 movie titled "Bats: Human Harvest" is not one I would or could recommend that you sit down to watch.

This movie was fairly pointless and lacked a properly interesting storyline. Sure, it was straight forward and easy to follow, but it was just a very boring and generic storyline that offered nothing much of any interest throughout the course of the entire movie. In fact, it did feel sort of unnecessary, as the 1999 movie "Bats" fairly much did everything better than this 2007 movie.

I am sure that writers Chris Denk and Brett Merryman came up with something that seemed good on paper. But it just translated poorly onto the screen. And I can't say that director Jamie Dixon landed a homerun with this movie.

The CGI animated bats were sort of terrible to look at. They definitely had the shape right, but it was just poor CGI. And the poor CGI failed to deliver something believable, which is crucial for a creature feature.

The acting in the movie was, well, let's just say that with a script and storyline as they had to work with in "Bats: Human Harvest", then they delivered adequately enough. Mind you, you will not be blown away by any award-winning performances.

"Bats: Human Harvest" was a boring movie, yet I managed to sit through it. Sure, I started to do something else whilst watching it, but I got through it. This movie failed to impress or properly entertain me.

I am rating "Bats: Human Harvest" a generous two out of ten stars. While I got through the entire movie, this is by no means a movie I will ever return to watch a second time.

It wasn't until I was doing the review I realised this was a TV Movie, Should have guessed, the effects are bad, acting is awful and the script is terrible. The original was a good 'b' movies, suggest you watch that instead.

I recently watched Bats: Human Harvest (2007) on Tubi. The storyline follows a group of soldiers sent to South America to recover a terrorist hiding in caves. As they pursue the terrorist, they are attacked by genetically engineered killer bats. Can the soldiers fight off the bats and bring the terrorist to justice?

Directed by Jamie Dixon (Shadow Builder), the film stars David Chokachi (Baywatch), Michael Jace (The Replacements), Pollyanna McIntosh (The Walking Dead), Melissa De Sousa (Miss Congeniality), and Hristo Petkov (The Hitman's Bodyguard).

This movie falls short in almost every aspect. The premise is cliché, straightforward, and predictable. The acting, dialogue, and behavior during the circumstances feel inauthentic. Pollyanna McIntosh delivered the only performance that I enjoyed. The Russia vs. United States conversations were unimaginative and annoying, and the cinematography and overall feel of the movie have a made-for-television quality. I will say the CGI bats were surprisingly better than expected, and their kill scenes weren't bad, but there just wasn't enough of them.

In conclusion, Bats: Human Harvest is a poorly written and executed film that isn't worth your time. I would score this a 3/10 and strongly recommend skipping it.

After watching many horror films over the years, the idea of bats being the central feature of a film never really crossed my mind. Bats sometimes are in the background but not the stars of the show. These little mammals are obviously small and maybe a little creepy but unless you get very close, I just don't find them very scary.

That said in 1999 came the movie Bats which received negative reviews and has been long forgotten. Bats was only for die hard horror fans. Then close to ten years later in 2007 and really out of nowhere, came this sequel on the SyFy channel, Bats: Human Harvest.

The setting is supposed to be Afghanistan but unfortunately it looks nothing like Afghanistan. Here there is a Delta Force groups of soldiers trying to track down a terrorist who is a rogue American weapons researcher but along the way, they are attacked by genetically-altered killer bats.

Looking at this, the main reason this film fails is because of the bats. There are no close ups of the bats and they are very generic and boring. They just don't work as a villain or a source of danger. Being a SyFy film, there are many unknown actors who are shallow and really struggle at times. All in all, the horror aspects as well as the CGI here is just of very low quality.

One thing I was wondering is just what does this film want to be? It has horror aspects to it but it also contains a war story that is itself pretty shallow and wouldn't work on it's own as a war film. Frankly, I do not think war stories mesh well with horror ideas so this puzzle doesn't really fit even though it is original no doubt.

Bats: Human Harvest is frankly very low quality junk horror that is very hard to sit through and I couldn't wait until it was over. Frankly this series is useless and unnecessary.