Return of the Killer Shrews

The original Killer Shrews is the best giant mutated animal movie I have seen. It's such a shame that this may be the worst. The ship captain from the first movie has returned and has no problem taking more people to the island where his best friend and so many others died. He won't leave until he gets paid but he doesn't even ask for his money until the second day and he is promptly ignored. After forty minutes and a few deaths, he finally tells the story of what happened last time he was there. They even show clips from the first movie while he talks(always a sign of a bad movie) and I still can't tell it's the same actor in both movies. I assume this was a made for SyFy movie. Well I hope so. I don't see how anyone could have thought people would pay to see this trash. Even with all the bad acting and writing, the worst part is that the shrews looked better in the original. They were even worse than the lame Dukes Of Hazzard jokes. What really hurts is that the shrews almost exclusively attack during the day now. Why did that completely change? Just like the with the first movie, I knew who was going to die as soon as I saw them the first time. Jennifer Lyons is the only reason to watch this movie. Her performance is flawless but nothing could save this movie.

I like B movies; they are enjoyable and tend to have a certain charm. Some B movies that have heart become elevated to cult movies. B movies should be respected; it's an art to make something entertaining on a low budget.

This movie had about 10 seconds that were good-it featured a flashback to the movie Killer Shrews (1959). In that film, the shrews were portrayed using dressed-up dogs; the scene we saw was filled with energy and action. That single scene epitomized everything that is wrong with this movie.

So, why is this movie so bad?

First of all, something is off with the camera work. You can pick almost any scene and immediately tell that it is horribly shot. I don't know if it has to do with the camera, the angles, or the lighting, but something is off. It feels as if it were shot by preschoolers using a cell phone camera-only the preschoolers would probably use filters and do a better job.

Next, we have the actors. Some have been really good in other movies; we know they can act, but despite this, every scene fell flat. Whether this was due to the actors being bad or the characters being poorly written is hard to tell, but there was zero chemistry between the characters. Most of the lines were delivered as if they were out of context, and they managed to convey no emotion at all.

The movie was overly reliant on really bad CGI effects. Bad CGI effects don't matter in some movies, but when you make them the core of the movie, it turns out badly. They even CGI-ed the blood splatter. In one scene, we saw a character wipe off CGI blood with a white cloth, and the cloth came away without a single red dot. Even using a spurt of cheap ketchup (which you can get for 2 euro) would have made it more convincing. CGI can be effective at times, but sometimes it's so much easier to just use a simple practical effect.

For a character to be good, they need to be convincing and have an arc. These characters had neither.

As for the plot, it could actually work. The basic setup-a continuation of the 1959 movie-isn't a bad idea, and being hunted by a monster is a common enough theme in horror movies. Even the premise of a reality show gone wrong during a monster movie should work. But since everything-including the script-was bad, it doesn't work. That said, there are movies that are worse, where the plot doesn't make even the slightest sense, and that definitely isn't the case here.

What about comedy? I'm sad to say that, apart from one or two scenes involving James Best (Thorne), there was nothing funny about this movie. For a parody to work, it needs to reach a certain level. In a way, a movie like Catnado, as atrocious as it is, is better than this tripe because that movie at least tried to surprise you with its absurdity; it attempted to parody Sharknado, and even if the parody failed, it at least made an effort.

The final verdict... There are movies that are worse-movies that fail to even tell a story-but this is definitely among the worst movies you could ever consider watching, and I therefore urge you: please do not watch this tripe. You have so much to live for. Go outside, watch a rock as it lies in a field of grass; it will be more entertaining, and at least you'll get some fresh air.

Rating: 1 out of 10.

What a coup! They got the lead actor of one of the silliest horror movies ever and do a sequel 51 years later!

I'm a biased reviewer because I enjoyed the original movie from 1959. I've seen it on MST3k and unriffed as well and I truly believe it is not as bad as its reputation.

The 1959 version was marred by laughingly bad special effects where they put fake fur and very fake fangs on coon hounds and tried to pass them off as giant shrews. In fact, The Killer Shrews has been included in almost every 'so-bad-it's-good' movie list for several decades.

A great irony is the new version is also almost sunk by really, really bad computer generated killer shrews. Man, do they look lousy! They have no natural movements and the sense of proportion is WAY off. They might have been better off with coon hounds.

This is a campy, tongue-in-cheek homage done by someone who really knows the old movie. The set of the old movie is lovingly recreated complete with endless liquor bottles, comically sparse furniture and minimal set design. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously. John Schneider especially seems to be having a blast with the over-the-top dialog.

James Best, character actor for over 60 years is the real gem here. He was great in the original and he shines here too. He is surprisingly believable and steers this wacky, tacky little movie along, preventing it from getting caught up showcasing the silly, 1 dimensional background characters, most of whom, thankfully,become Bad CGI Shrew Food.

I confess I loved the original and maybe I'm not the most objective reviewer, but I really enjoyed this goofy little movie... more than I expected.

If you set your expectations correctly, you should enjoy it as well. It is a low budget, Made-for-SyFy-Channel type movie that wont win any awards for acting or screen writing but it is silly, funny, true to the original and more entertaining than I expected.

I watched this based on some reviews and the trailer. I had to keep watching because the first ten minutes was so bad I thought it can only get better. Wrong, the acting is awful to mediocre and the CGI is at best bad green screen. I wondered if it could be any worse and the answer is yes. On a positive note I decided to show this to a drama class so they could feel better about their performance of a play they did. Sorry kids for exposing you to this nightmare. They opening with the goat is only made better by the girl. A sleeping ......sorry no spoiler. Some good one liners, I think Schneider is Drunk or high, some of the lines he gives are stolen. The yelling gag got old fast! The 3 D effect to think your looking through Shrew eyes is bad at best. Although Schneider's spoil ed star acting is very believable. I am not sure but I wonder if this is computer CGI or a bad piece of software used to edit the footage. Either way this flick is mildly entertaining but not for kids. B movie fans could have fun watching this and compare notes.

While I haven't watched the original 1959 "The Killer Shrews" movie, then I was familiar with the movie. I had, however, watched the abysmal 2016 remake of the 1959 movie, and believe me, it was beyond horrible. So I wasn't really harboring the biggest of expectations to director Steve Latshaw's 2012 movie. But since I hadn't already seen it, and with it being a horror comedy, of course I opted to give the movie a fair chance.

I have to say that I am a bit baffled that writers James Best, Steve Latshaw, Pat Moran and Patrick Moran collectively couldn't manage to put together a more enjoyable and entertaining script than what they mustered for this 2012 movie. It was a simplistic script that didn't really offer much of any great things, aside from the God awful CGI effects that were good for a great many laughs.

The acting performances in the movie were actually fair, despite the fact that the script was bad. The only familiar faces on the cast list, for me at least, were John Schneider, James Best and Bruce Davison.

The CGI effects in "Return of the Killer Shrews" is terrible. Hands down, some of the worst CGI animation I've seen in a long, long time. It was so bad that it actually spruced up the movie, because it made me want to see how horrible they would make it. And believe me, the CGI effects were horrible.

"Return of the Killer Shrews" is a terrible movie, no doubt about it. But it is actually so bad that it is fun to sit through. I managed to endure the entire 84 minutes, simply because I wanted to see how bad the next scene was going to be. This is definitely not a movie that will find its way back to my screen a second time.

The movie's cover was the best part about the movie.

My rating of director Steve Latshaw's 2012 movie "Return of the Killer Shrews" lands on a two out of ten stars.