(28%) An honestly not all that bad TV killer rat horror flick that has nothing to really offer but a mildly entertaining, all be it forgettable sit. The cast of unknowns do a decent job and unlike something like Sharknado this doesn't feel the need to add lots of pointless cameos from stars at the lower end of their career. How scary you find this film depends upon your own opinion of how you happen to find rats, but there's not really anything here to get under one's skin as it's all a bit clean and safe. Overall this never drops down too low in the quality department to overly feel like a waste of time, but this still doesn't really need to be seen by anyone bar those slightly drunk during the wee hours of the night.

The Rats is based on a horror novel by James Herbert of the same title. It is a remake of a low-budget 1982 movie called Deadly Eyes as well, both filmed in Toronto but The Rats takes place in Manhattan whereas Deadly Eyes takes place in Toronto (the novel took place in London). This 2002 adaptation follows the story of the book slightly closer than Deadly Eyes did, and the effects were better in The Rats (in Deadly Eyes wiener dogs dressed in rat suits were used to depict giant killer rats).I know it isn't really fair to compare a remade movie to its original, but this version of The Rats is bad enough on its own. It's kind of entertaining, incredibly cheesy and for the most part sort of enjoyable, but it doesn't deliver on many levels. Its soundtrack is pretty bad as well, as was the acting.Deadly Eyes had great soundtrack, it had decent acting and it was a hilarious, cheesy thrill-ride, very different from The Rats. Honestly I don't really think that this movie even needed to be remade, but watching The Rats wasn't a total waste of time. If you're a fan of the novel and original movie you may want to avoid it, but if you're into more modern horror, chances are you'll really enjoy this one.

So according to this movie, rats outnumber humans in NYC nine to one. I accidentally got caught up in this predictable piece of cheese while flipping channels, error. Avoid this if you can. I don't think it's a good sign for a movie when you find yourself pulling for the rats - hoping they eat all the actors ...and the cameraman. Though I will hand it to them, they made me not want to ride a subway ever again. And while I'm sure a 3am viewing of this film would be more creepy-crawly, even the 2pm version was enough to make y'squirm. But why? Why do we need this movie. I guess there's an answer: 30 years ago, they brought in cats to handle the rat problem in my neighborhood (true story), and after this film, I feel I owe the then-mayor a thank-you note. Maybe I'll track him down.

I have to agree with all the people here, the movie was good for a TV movie. Cast, directing, effects, all good. The only problem is the script that has all the elements of a rat movie, but nothing extra. It's a very well done cliché.You've got the damsel in distress, the rat exterminator white knight, the black sidekick, the indifferent/irresponsible city official and, of course, mutant rats. Why can't they be normal rats? Because you need to kill them all at once in the end, this one being the worst part of the formula: build the tension, steady, ready, release!So, OK, the script was almost believable, there were some interesting twists here and there, like a gushing fountain of rats, a guy with a coat of biting rats, the look of the rat that witnesses the brutal killing of its peer... mainly scenes with rats :) But I think it never aimed above the rating of TV movie, and it never got there.