lost-in-limbo 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.

teuthis 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.

filmfreak-5 Sometimes when you rent a video cassette or DVD you don't expect much, especially if the packaging looks poor. Well, this was the case with this one, but nothing prepared me for what a load a c**p this was gonna be. I mean, I didn't expect a drama Pacino-style, but a somewhat entertaining horror film that I have a soft spot for. It was not even a horror film. I have NO idea what Corbin Bernsen was thiking accepting his role - he's not a world class actor, but still TEN times better than this (then ofcourse, he accepted a role in The Dentist too..)The storyline is awful, I'd almost say there ARE none, and the acting - oh my god, the humanity - especially those two teenage girls posing as assistants for the doctor in the beginning of the movie. Never before have I seen such highschool-amateur-theater on film in my life - and me saying that says a LOT. I crumbled my toes and actually felt ashamed wasting my time watching.This film does not even deserve ONE point, it is a disgrace!

Jack the Ripper1888 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.