IMDb RATING
3.7/10
3.5K
YOUR RATING
A reluctant babysitter must protect three kids from an invasion of ravenous critters.A reluctant babysitter must protect three kids from an invasion of ravenous critters.A reluctant babysitter must protect three kids from an invasion of ravenous critters.
Greg Parves
- Telephone Repairman
- (as Greg Parvess)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
If a piece of crap could take a crap, it would be this movie.
Completely destroyed the reputation of the original. On top of all of that, these idiots break every rule of the tradition horror movie genre and if pisses me off.
Now this is a real wet nappy film about an 80's classic horror brought into the 21st Century and failed so bad even a rewrite wont make it work.
Rediculous time waster. From the acting to the silly looking critters. This is clearly not what critters was like in the 1980's.
Don't bother watching this film. Might be fun with a whole bag of weed. 2 out of 10 for this garbage.
Rediculous time waster. From the acting to the silly looking critters. This is clearly not what critters was like in the 1980's.
Don't bother watching this film. Might be fun with a whole bag of weed. 2 out of 10 for this garbage.
First, this a tv movie so it looks pretty cheap. Second the only thing related with the previous criters movies is the name. And last but not least there is no plot, pretty bad acting and no decent fx. So, overall a pretty bad movie even for fans like me that have watched all the criters movies. Avoid.
Begins somewhat interesting with that cheesy 80s monster movie feel, but quickly descends through mediocrity to downright dull. While better than the tripe that was A New Binge on a filmmaking level, storywise I'm not so sure. And why is this rated R? It's not scary or gory, and unfortunately not funny either. Give it a pass.
"Critters Attack!" is a strange film to review. I honestly think this film was not made with reviews in mind. No, I mean really not made with reviews in mind, because it's hard to get a bead on what they were truly going for here. It seems like a reboot, but then Dee Wallace is in it and indicates that the Crites have been around before, although she behaves more like Lee from the first two films so maybe she's really Terrence Mann in disguise (who is conspicuously absent; I was waiting for him to pop up as it just doesn't feel like a Critters movie without Terrence Mann)...I don't know. So, let's break this down.
To start, you'll notice that, to the film's credit, they stick to primarily to practical effects. This is good as it's trying to at least feel like the original films. Honestly, CGI Crites would probably have been really bad. They even bring back the giant Critter Ball from the second movie, although still no human sized Crites as seen in the first film. Crites are puppets and should only be puppets, although at the same time, something about these new redesigned puppets feels a little off. They've always had big mouths, but now they've got flip-top heads. Eh...
However, the practical effects bring up a real oddity to this film. There are also a lot of prosthetics used for the Crites to chew on. Now, in and of itself, that wouldn't be an issue. What makes it odd is that it makes this film much more violent and gory than the previous ones. I like a good gory horror flick as much as the next person, but something about it feels...strange in a Critters movie. The previous films are very tame by comparison, with only two people dying in the first movie. This isn't necessarily bad as people who watched the old movies have grown up and are more mature now, but it does throw you a little bit.
Then we get to the script. This film feels like it was written by a first-year film student. It's nonsensical, goes all over the place with little focus, explanation, or even a satisfying ending, if you can even call it an ending since it just seems to stop. The characters are not well fleshed out and they resort to gimmicks to try and get us to remember some of them since they have no other characteristics, like a guy who's obsessed with bagpipes. Heck, I forgot younger boy in the main group was even there half the time since his gimmick is that he doesn't talk and only communicates by texting. They probably thought they were being funny, but instead it creates a major stumbling block.
Overall, while it's still a pretty bad film, but you can at least tell that the filmmakers were fans of the original and were trying to do something of a tribute, and let's be honest, unless you're a fan of at least the original movie, you're probably not going to see this one. In fact, that's exactly what this feels like: An amateurish fan film. You're not missing much if you avoid it or never even knew it existed, like me until I stumbled upon it completely by accident. I kind of wish I hadn't.
To start, you'll notice that, to the film's credit, they stick to primarily to practical effects. This is good as it's trying to at least feel like the original films. Honestly, CGI Crites would probably have been really bad. They even bring back the giant Critter Ball from the second movie, although still no human sized Crites as seen in the first film. Crites are puppets and should only be puppets, although at the same time, something about these new redesigned puppets feels a little off. They've always had big mouths, but now they've got flip-top heads. Eh...
However, the practical effects bring up a real oddity to this film. There are also a lot of prosthetics used for the Crites to chew on. Now, in and of itself, that wouldn't be an issue. What makes it odd is that it makes this film much more violent and gory than the previous ones. I like a good gory horror flick as much as the next person, but something about it feels...strange in a Critters movie. The previous films are very tame by comparison, with only two people dying in the first movie. This isn't necessarily bad as people who watched the old movies have grown up and are more mature now, but it does throw you a little bit.
Then we get to the script. This film feels like it was written by a first-year film student. It's nonsensical, goes all over the place with little focus, explanation, or even a satisfying ending, if you can even call it an ending since it just seems to stop. The characters are not well fleshed out and they resort to gimmicks to try and get us to remember some of them since they have no other characteristics, like a guy who's obsessed with bagpipes. Heck, I forgot younger boy in the main group was even there half the time since his gimmick is that he doesn't talk and only communicates by texting. They probably thought they were being funny, but instead it creates a major stumbling block.
Overall, while it's still a pretty bad film, but you can at least tell that the filmmakers were fans of the original and were trying to do something of a tribute, and let's be honest, unless you're a fan of at least the original movie, you're probably not going to see this one. In fact, that's exactly what this feels like: An amateurish fan film. You're not missing much if you avoid it or never even knew it existed, like me until I stumbled upon it completely by accident. I kind of wish I hadn't.
Did you know
- TriviaThe first 'Critters' film to be rated R, all previous entries were rated PG-13.
- GoofsThe metal edges around the hole in the trunk of the car are pushed out as if something were trying to get out of the trunk instead of pushed in like it should have been .
- Quotes
Chef Loong: Taste my steel, you rat bastards. I have the best blades in the business.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WhatCulture Originals: 10 Worst Horror Movies of 2019 (2019)
- SoundtracksLow
Written by Robin Sherwell
Performed by Robin Sherwell
Courtesy of Birdland Records
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 29m(89 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content