Ralph Breaks the Internet
Mission: Impossible - Fallout
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
Tomatometer Not Available...
No consensus yet.
All Critics (6)
| Fresh (0)
| Rotten (6)
| DVD (3)
Suffers from an anemic, episodic plot, weak special effects, and most damning, membership in a virtually worthless film genre - little monster comedies.
Is this the one in the apartment or the one in space? Does it matter?
Three times stupider than its pair of predecessors - and they were pretty stupid.
So at the end of 'Critters 2' it kinda looked like everything was all wrapped up with a bow. The Crites had all been wiped out, Charlie became the new Sheriff of Grover's Bend, and Ug flew off back into space having gotten over the death of his partner Lee. It really didn't seem like there was anywhere else to go with this story; but how many times have we been in this situation before huh.
So in order to get everyone up to speed (or simply to pad out the runtime), the start of this movie offers a brief flashback regurgitating the events of the previous movie. From there on we follow a small family consisting of a father and his young son and daughter coming home from a vacation. On the way back the kids stumble upon Charlie who is now seemingly roaming around the countryside hunting crites (even though they were seemingly wiped out). Naturally some newly hatched crites hitch a ride back to the city with the family and start to cause carnage once again...but this time within an apartment block.
Now of course, first and foremost, how the hell did the crites survive here???? They were apparently wiped out good and proper in the second movies finale. Obviously we have to assume that one critter laid some eggs somewhere which were missed, which if we are honest with ourselves is entirely possible. But this does of course lead to the question of where does it end. In theory this could carry on for forever more with critters surviving because one laid eggs somewhere which were missed. It kinda ruins some tension because you know the crites can never really be beaten.
Another thing I noticed that (for some reason) hasn't been upheld from the previous movies are the darts the crites fire. Before these darts seemed to knock out the intended target instantly, obviously with some kind of toxin. But in this movie these darts simply don't do that anymore. Numerous characters take multiple hits from these critter darts yet they don't go down, they merely become sleepy. Why would they change that??
The critters themselves still look on par with their earlier movie counterparts which is good; and surprising as it may seem the special effects (I think) are actually quite good. The puppet work is solid with the critters performing all manner of typical critter-esque chaos the likes of which we've come to expect. Obviously these little furballs never did move entirely convincingly but the consistent standard is withheld here. I do think this movie makes a more obvious lean towards a certain 1984 Joe Dante movie, more so than the previous two. In this movie we get a very familiar kitchen scene with the destructive crites eating their way through pretty much everything whilst acting like mischievous kids. There are also plenty of humorous critter deaths, crite communication (they even have names now), and the main critter has a white streak down his face and back.
The general setting for the movie is perfectly fine too in my opinion. Its a nice and natural progression from the first two small town set movies. Being set within an apartment block within the city opens the movie up for some more interesting scenarios and characters which we get both of. Sure the characters are a bit stereotypical; the Fonz type guy, the elderly couple, the Ripley-esque female, the overweight comedic relief female. The cherub-esque looking little boy, the annoyingly sensible goodie two-shoes daughter, a dastardly landlord (William Dennis Hunt coming across all Vincent Price like), and of course Leonardo DiCaprio sporting that same damn haircut he had for so long whilst also probably being cast riding off the back of the recent Macaulay Culkin craze. Despite the tropes all characters are actually relatively engaging and enjoyable in their own little ways (despite the lack of critter fodder).
Overall I think this is a pretty decent third follow up to an already solid foundation. Yeah sure it doesn't exactly offer anything new. Its the same shit all over again but set within an apartment block, only minus the bounty hunters (alas). But there is light relief, a splattering of gore, some decent creature visuals, oddly a very Danny Elfman-esque opening score, and the inevitably daft cliffhanger ending with cameo. I don't really understand why this movie was overlooked with such negativity because if you're a fan of this franchise and genre you really can't go wrong.
Third entry in the Critters franchise and it's clear right from the opening minutes, that the filmmakers have run out of ideas. Critters 3 is notable for being the acting debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. By this time, the third entry has become stale, uninspired drivel, and the fun from the first two films is replaced by a very mediocre script that recycled ideas from the first film, and has nothing new to offer the series. The acting is awful and the film is poorly constructed. The film fails at capturing the classic elements of the first two, and ends up being a tired effort that is simply boring, doesn't have anything going for it. The film could have been much better, but it doesn't, this third entry along with the fourth film are forgettable entries in the franchise that have nothing interesting to offer the series. This could have been an interesting third film, but it's obvious that all the good ideas have been used and the filmmakers were struggling to come up with something good for a third film, unfortunately, the film didn't work and it ends up being a bad one at that.
You are what they eat.
The movie is just okay. I'm seeing all Leonardo DiCaprio film's and this was one of his earliest work. His role is not so serious or talented wise(director's fault), this movie is just funny. We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fiction camp classics ... so I forgive this one.
The third in the tongue-in-cheek horror series liberally cribbed from Gremlins (1984) features an early performance from future heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio and was filmed simultaneously with its follow-up. This time out, it's an urban family who picks up one of the fast-multiplying beasties while on vacation, although they are warned by Charlie (Don Opper), a veteran of the creatures' earlier attacks. Once widower Clifford (John Calvin) and his kids Annie (Annie Brooks) and Johnny (Christian and Joseph Cousins) return home to their apartment building, the critter begins to reproduce, and the tenement becomes overrun with diminutive, hungry killers. The first to go is cruel superintendent Frank (Geoffrey Blake), but others soon follow, including the unscrupulous landlord, whose son Josh (DiCaprio) finds romance with Annie. With the appearance of the resourceful Charlie and the heroics of Clifford, the critters' days are soon numbered. Critters 3 was directed by Kristine Peterson, a veteran of the Roger Corman school of no-budget genre filmmaking.
Not quite as funny or likeable this one, things just got a little too samey. Crazy Charlie is back from the previous films to kick more Critter ass and is also joined by Leo Dicaprio in his debut role.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.