Crawlers - Angriff der Killerwürmer

Very low budget, so one has to evaluate it based on what they did on a low budget. Practical effects, and having most of the movie take place in one area saves money. The acting wasn't great, nor was it as if random people were hired who never did any acting before, so most of it was not mere reading a script. The Danny character is a bit of a puzzle. When he finally gets a phone call, on a phone that is at very low battery level, he decides to go off on a tangent rather then making sure he gets help before the phone dies. That can be looked upon as wasted screen time, or padding to make sure the film was as long as promised. In the biology lab, the only science books on the counter were physics books, which would have been out of place so that is a bit sloppy for the props people. The film probably delivered what they wanted it to deliver, but it still is a very forgettable film. It is not so over the top that it is a parody, nor is there any reason for the creatures being what they were. It is a dull movie, as Danny is a dull person. It is interesting as the pistol he has is referenced to Jose Wales. In that movie's background info, that civil war pistol was as likely to kill the shooter as kill the enemy! It was prone to misfire.

No pun intended - the movie is .. well you have to cut it quite some slack. You have to be a fan of horror movies too. Michael Pare is I reckon a known name, but it is someone else who is the main character here - Pare is only there to add some name recognition I suppose.

The real star are the special effects anyway - which are not bad considering this is a low budget movie. Still the question is, can you dig (no pun intended) being closed off, being a "prisoner" in a close space and just let the absurdity of the movie rule over you and the running time? I don't judge any actor or rather their acting abilities just based on this movie - you probably shouldn't either ... they don't act ... naturally ... again no pun intended.

Bad writing, bad acting, bad sound mixing. I think the worst part was the main character being trapped under a car for about 20 minutes of the movie. That was just dumb writing, maybe it was the only way they could fit in a monologue for the main character? Yeah, skip this.

The writing really tried to add some depth to this but all of the character plots given were just cliche or boring. What about the monsters? Confined to one location making things even more uneventful and boring. The pace was slow, I skipped through swaths of it just to get to something of actual interest so least to say I watched a good 30 minutes of this movie and that was still more than enough.

Not any good? Well, I had a laugh alright, when I started watching this movie, because it was so utterly terrible, that I actually thought this might be a parody, a conscious attempt to make a terrible horror movie that was meant to evoke laughter instead of horror. But ofcourse this wasnt the case!

The bad: this is NOT horror. This is NOT thrilling for one second.

What is it then? Amateur hour. We get to see a guy laying trapped under a car for an hour long. Well, you might think, isnt that dramatic? NOPE. The "actors" starring in this product are C-listed actors, who usually only would get roles in tv commercials or tv soap series, wherein any acting capabilities are not important.

Very direct storytelling, very quick pacing, very excessive use of music cues, very bad dialogue, very weak character writing, very bad scene writing - and, taking cues from kindred fare of the 1950s, an initial "encounter" which is mentioned in dialogue but which we don't actually see. All this and more, within only the first ten minutes. Yes, that's very quick to start making judgments, and I've seen some titles make a definite turnaround, but it's a poor first impression to say the least, on top of how the premise (and promotional artwork) rather recall a more famous series of creature features. As viewers we accept (to varying degrees) that some flicks are going to gleefully embrace the less earnest side of a genre, with no loftier goal than to be a fun little romp. How much fun such flicks actually provide is another matter. I don't think 'They crawl beneath' is completely rotten, but the viewing experience is saddled with compounding issues that place significant limits on what we can get out of it.

Those traits mentioned above that form our earliest impression remain factors in varying proportions. To these add the sudden emergence of a new species of worm, earthquakes that strike exactly when the story require them, and the circumstances in which protagonist Danny becomes trapped as suggested in the premise. It's a lot that the picture throws at us, and a lot that it asks of us under the unspoken agreement of suspension of disbelief. The difficulty is that between these major story elements and the swift pacing, let alone the other weaknesses, that disbelief is hard to surrender, and the possibility is quite dampened of there being any thrills from the conglomeration. As the length draws on, it further becomes evident that basic entertainment hangs by a thread, and it's the baseline level of entertainment that follows from most any conglomeration of light and sound. Moreover, the direction isn't necessarily the greatest; the cast do what they can under the circumstances, though I think they make a decent enough go of it. The practical effects are actually mostly pretty terrific, though may be employed to more questionable ends; the post-production visuals are a little too obvious, though better than a lot of other examples. 'They crawl beneath' also comes across at points as overproduced, accentuated by, of all things, how wholly impeccable Karlee Eldridge's makeup seems to be any time we see her.

Would that screenwriter Tricia Aurand didn't also try to weave in bits about the protagonist's personal life, which are irrelevant to the scenario and direly weigh down the proceedings. The root narrative is fine, if simple, but the specifics that flesh out these eighty-seven minutes are much less sure-footed, including dialogue in the last third or so that seems to senselessly and arbitrarily contradict earlier dialogue. Oliver Goodwill's music ranges from suitable to good, if unremarkable, but is plainly overused here and far too prominent. What it all comes down to is that this is a movie with distinct flaws and shortcomings, and which is troubled still more by too little strength, and too little vitality; there are no meaningful dynamics or meaningful progression, and in turn no meaningful tension or suspense. The course of events is just presented rather flatly, with each beat and inclusion tossed in in the most straightforward, unsubtle manner possible; it's surely longer than it needs to be, and the last stretch following the climax may be the lowest point of all. It's not abjectly terrible, yet for all the hard work that went into it, this is effectively a horror flick by the numbers, with no heart to make any of it count. Add in all the other discrete problems, and watching becomes a tad laborious. If you happen to come across it then there still far worse ways to spend one's time, but regrettably, there's just not any real reason to spend time with this in the first place.