Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Leofwine_draca A tired, by-the-numbers sequel to a film which wasn't good enough to deserve a sequel in the first place. SPECIES II has a threadbare plot about aliens which has been recycled so many times that it's merely a continuation of the first film, offering up nothing new in the way of surprise or intrigue. Alien man mates with woman before turning into big scary alien creature. That's all there is to it.The actors aren't particularly bad but are served by an atrocious script which makes them all sound like idiots who are one step behind the events proceeding around them. Michael Madsen is his typical laconic self (as he is in all of the films he's been in) but is given virtually nothing to do but wave a gun around a bit. He just goes through the motions. The black lead is also on hand for comic value, and surprisingly he doesn't get killed at the end, which makes something of a change. Marg Helenberger is virtually unrecognisable and is also given little to do with her role. Natasha Henstridge, on the other hand, was never much of an actress in the first place and she only gets naked once, briefly, at the end, which is something of a let down for fans of the first film. Justin Lazar tries his hardest to look scary and scared in equal measures but he's nothing more than a bland, macho face picked more for looks than charm. I'm sure Peter Boyle turned up in a small role as a lunatic asylum patient but I could be wrong.So, all in all things are looking pretty bleak from this film but it does have two things to win it an audience. The first is the nudity. A number of actresses are willing to strip for the camera which seems almost as bad as the exploitation films of the '70s. The second factor is the special effects. The mission to Mars at the beginning has some great SFX, very similar to those in EVENT HORIZON. However, the gore and monsters are not so impressive. The gore is simply too computerised, as it was in WISHMASTER; it looks very fake and insubstantial. The monsters are all of the CGI-waving-tentacles variety and soon become tired and not very interesting. The only monster of interest is the big scary computer one at the end, which is pretty good, but it dies far too easily in what seems like a very rushed finale. And what was it about the ending in the ambulance which made no sense whatsoever? SPECIES II is run-of-the-mill stuff which passes the time but ends up ultimately disappointing every viewer, including fans of the original. As I expected really.

Dom Nickson Spoiler Alert!!! This film is almost as good as the original with a similar plot where an alien like creature suddenly appears and starts mating in order to reproduce. Here though it's a male alien like creature so he doesn't have a problem going around having sex with any girl he sees. Another good thing about this film is that it brought back Michael and Marge to help keep the feeling of originality! And I'm so happy Forest Whitaker wasn't in this he is one of the most useless characters in cinema history. Seriously I wanted him to die from the very beginning because he is such a waste of a character. The only thing I didn't like about this film is the missing performance of Ben Kingsley where he acted like a jerk. Here though I don't remember there being any jerk in charge of the project which is kind of disappointing because I wanted to see a jerk in charge like the original. Other than that I must say this movie lives up to the original and is just as interesting I give it a 6.5 out of 10.

lois-lane33 I thought the first Species in 1995 was not so bad-derivative of Alien but since Giger had also designed the Species creature it would make sense that it was similar. The dialogue in the sequel is trashy in a number of places which I think downgrades the film distinctively as opposed to what it would have been had they paid more attention to making the dialogue more intelligent. Frequently very gory & bloody and also suffers from plot errors in that one of the members of the space team who was exposed to alien DNA isn't considered suspect along with the others even after the other crew members have become fully infected with the aliens DNA. Dumb scripting. Its weird in the sense that they seem to be aiming for a younger audience in this one but if they are aiming for a younger audience they only made the film more death & sex orientated & generally cruder-that is some kind of a warped take on what younger people respond to. I think this film damaged the career of Michael Madson who was pretty good in the original and made Natasha Henstridge a non entity in the film business also. It looked like the budget was fairly generous for the film but I doubt if they made it back in the box office. It's always a mistake to treat the audience as if they are morons whose idea of a good time is slurping beer through a beer hat. Not true science fiction so much-more like schlock cinema at its schlockiest.

basilisksamuk Here is what is wrong with this film.Unlike films with incomprehensible plots, Species 2 has a script which could never be called a "plot". It is indeed comprehensible but in no way believable, having more holes in it than a very very large colander with hundreds of tiny tiny holes. The script has obviously been hacked about and changed so often that sub-plots started in one place never resurface or get resolved in another place. When faced with any choice the characters in the movie always choose the one most likely to get them killed. The gore factor is high and almost never justified. Female nudity is frequent and almost never justified.Also in its favour it can be said that the creature effects are not bad though rather dark to hide the wires. H.R. Geiger has not yet asked to have his name removed from the titles.In short, unless you are Barry Norman, a critic with a broadsheet newspaper, a stickler for plots, logicality, quality and sanity then you are bound to enjoy this film. Mind you, I do have a reputation for liking really bad movies so don't blame me if you don't like it. The problem clearly lies with you.