अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंFifty-three years after being attacked by killer shrews on a remote island, Captain Thorne Sherman is hired by a reality television crew to return to the island in question. The shrews attac... सभी पढ़ेंFifty-three years after being attacked by killer shrews on a remote island, Captain Thorne Sherman is hired by a reality television crew to return to the island in question. The shrews attack again in short order.Fifty-three years after being attacked by killer shrews on a remote island, Captain Thorne Sherman is hired by a reality television crew to return to the island in question. The shrews attack again in short order.
Christopher Goodman
- Willard
- (as Chris Goodman)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
A film crew goes to an island to shoot some footage for an extremely poor TV series. The captain who brought them to the island warns them something terrible has happened on this island in the past, and yes, of course it happens again. Giant rats attack the film crew and eat them one by one. They are controlled by a man with a flute, and the captain is no stranger to him...
The strong side of the movie is its comedy about a film crew in a desperate situation. No, I'm not talking about the monsters, but the series they are shooting. The director tries to be a total dictator ("I am the director, obey me!"), the photographer and writer are frustrated with their jobs, the star of the show constantly seeks advice from his agent, while others just want to get their money and go home. I think the only thing where it goes over the top is the 'snake bites goat' scene, but otherwise it's enjoyable.
The poor side of the movie is the creature horror, because their extremely unrealistic, clumsy moves prove that computer generated images can be worse than the dogs disguised as rats they used 50 years ago in the movie that inspired this late sequel.
The strong side of the movie is its comedy about a film crew in a desperate situation. No, I'm not talking about the monsters, but the series they are shooting. The director tries to be a total dictator ("I am the director, obey me!"), the photographer and writer are frustrated with their jobs, the star of the show constantly seeks advice from his agent, while others just want to get their money and go home. I think the only thing where it goes over the top is the 'snake bites goat' scene, but otherwise it's enjoyable.
The poor side of the movie is the creature horror, because their extremely unrealistic, clumsy moves prove that computer generated images can be worse than the dogs disguised as rats they used 50 years ago in the movie that inspired this late sequel.
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'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 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.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाReunites Dukes of Hazzard alumns John Schneider, James Best, and Rick Hurst who played Bo Duke, Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane, and Deputy Cletus Hogg respectively.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Veronique Von Venom: Horror Hostess Hottie: Nedrick's News (2013)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Return of the Killer Shrews?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Mega Rats - Angriff der Riesenratten
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Sanna Movie Ranch - Soledad Canyon Road, Agua Dulce, कैलिफोर्निया, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका(Shrew Island Jungle and compound)
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 24 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.78 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें
टॉप गैप
By what name was Return of the Killer Shrews (2012) officially released in India in English?
जवाब