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 attac... Read allFifty-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)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaReunites Dukes of Hazzard alumns John Schneider, James Best, and Rick Hurst who played Bo Duke, Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane, and Deputy Cletus Hogg respectively.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Veronique Von Venom: Horror Hostess Hottie: Nedrick's News (2013)
Featured review
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.
- How long is Return of the Killer Shrews?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Mega Rats - Angriff der Riesenratten
- Filming locations
- Sanna Movie Ranch - Soledad Canyon Road, Agua Dulce, California, USA(Shrew Island Jungle and compound)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 24 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Return of the Killer Shrews (2012) officially released in India in English?
Answer