Critters 3

WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
Click here to show this review. I can’t say that “no one cared” while “Critters 3” was made because some of the actors are ok in their roles, but this is lazy throughout. Nothing about the previous film alluded to a sequel being needed and it’s pretty obvious seeing the results here that there wasn’t a story left in the vault that demanded to be told, so the question remains: why was this movie even made?

The story is set some time after the events of the previous film (in fact we get several shots of “Critters” and “Critters 2” in order to bring the audience up to speed on what the Crites are) Annie (Aimee Brooks), her young brother Johnny (Christian & Joseph Cousins) and their father Clifford (John Calvin) accidentally bring with a batch of Crite eggs with them after a family vacation. When the eggs hatch and cause havoc in their dilapidated apartment building, things are made worse by the crooked landlord (William Dennis Hunt) Leonardo DiCaprio also stars as the landlord’s son Johnny and an ally of Annie’s in this battle for survival.

I like “Critters” and I think it’s got some legitimate charm. “Critters 2” isn’t great but at least it has the distinction of being a horror movie set on Easter. This film? It’s got nothing interesting to show. To begin, the plot doesn’t make any sense. A bunch of tenants are stuck in their apartment building and the Crites run wild eating people. The phone lines and the power get cut, making it “impossible” for them to get help because of a contrived plot development with the landlord. You’d think someone who lives on the ground floor could have broken a window and gone to yell for help, but no. Either the people in this building are too dumb to think of that, or they just happen to live in a ghost town where the skyscrapers are lit up, but no one lives or works in them and there is never any circulation in their neighborhood.

I understand the movie would have been over within like 15 minutes if Annie and Josh had managed to contact the police as soon as people started getting gobbled up, but that’s the problem. This is just a bad plot for a “Critters” sequel. It needed to be set on a derelict space station or an isolated island or something and that crooked landlord? Ditch him altogether. More than that, we’re supposed to swallow some truly unbelievable events, like characters getting tangled in some wires for at least 20 minutes without figuring out a way to get themselves freed or an attic so massive that someone could get lost in it.

I almost feel insulted watching the picture. Why such a long montage of the first two films detailing what happened previously in the town of Grover’s Bend? Did director Kristine Peterson just assume that this story would be so awesome and epic that it would get the greatest word of mouth of all time? Would people hear about the majesty and think to themselves “well, I haven’t seen the first two films but this direct to VHS sequel sounds so awesome I HAVE to see it! ” Maybe a time traveller told him that because of the casting of Leonardo DiCaprio this film, despite it’s consistently awfulness would earn itself some attention?

I think it speaks volumes that the inner continuity of the film can’t even get itself straight. Charlie MacFadden (Don Keith Opper, reprising his role yet again) explains in a scene that it all began in 1984… and later we’re told that the events in Grover’s Bend actually occurred in 1986. Did someone even proofread this slug-brained script? Then, the picture ends in a big “to be continued”, forcing you to slog through what is sure to be another probably terrible sequel after this one. Well, I own it so I guess that’s what I’m watching next!

“Critters 3” is so poorly put together and made with such little care that I can just barely manage to give it a half star out of five. Why? I don’t know. The Crites aren’t entertaining, they’re just Gremlin knock-offs at this point, complete with the TV watching and the stupid gags. Maybe I can encourage people to watch it for the acting? Certainly not. Most performers are alright but at least one actress, Diane Bellamy is about as convincing as a 3 dollar bill when it comes to her big scene where she’s screaming in terror while being eaten alive. There’s nothing stellar when it comes to the story, or for the special effects. The best I can say about those is that they’re consistent in quality, but that’s not saying much. I guess the half star comes from the fact that I foresee the next movie being even worse and if that’s the case, I want some room to go even lower. Please prove me wrong. I really thought “Critters 3” was a chore to sit through. If you happen to do so though, stick all the way to the end of the credits though, there’s a joke in there that you “don’t want to miss”. (On DVD, September 15, 2015)