Critters 3 - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Critters 3 Reviews

Page 1 of 13
August 1, 2016
This movie is anything but good.
December 31, 2015
So this time around it fixes the problem from the second one it has a interesting story and actually has intense moments at time it silly but the critters are amazing has some awesome moments of in the film overall if you want to watch a stupid horror movie with a good plot this one is for you
November 9, 2015
I know this isn't an academy worthy film but no critic like it. Well To me that shows most critics have no taste
October 15, 2015
Who knew one of the world's most iconic actors would begin his career with this embarrassing B-rate horror/comedy. It's a huge improvement from the 2nd film & much more enjoyable to watch. But let's face it, this franchise can't seem to quit the immature gags & take itself seriously, so why the hell would the audience?
½ October 8, 2015
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)
October 3, 2015
The most moronic of the bunch, but also the most hilarious because of it.
½ September 29, 2015
This third movie of the Critters series is more comedy and less horror than the two previous ones. The continuity is thin, as it tries to move the storyline in another direction. Amusingly enough, Leonardo DiCAPRIO plays one of the secondary characters.
½ September 7, 2015
While this movie is bad, it still had some cheesy charm to it. I thought it was a better sequel than Critters 2 was, but that is not saying much. This has got to be one of Leonardo DiCaprio's first films ever. Kind of funny to see him in something like this.
½ July 23, 2015
What did I just witness! The fact that they got Leonardo DiCaprio in this mutant offspring of a movie is totally incredible! This 90's crap fest of a film does not deserve a generous rating of 0%. Perhaps a -1% would be a reasonable score. WB pictures should have known to discontinue the series after Critters 1.
January 7, 2015
It's still entertaining but much more mild and kid-ish than the first two. 43/100
June 27, 2014
love it. if you love gremlins you will love this. little hungry space critters with a very hungry appetite.
½ May 17, 2014
Noteworthy only for it being Leo DiCaprio's first role Critters 3 moves the critter fun to an apartment building. Other than that the movie is ultimately forgettable even if it is somewhat funny at times.
May 4, 2014
This movie is awful. I like the first two films but the only reason to watch this film is so that you can see Leonardo DiCaprio in a low budget horror film.
January 14, 2014
Fun, but I got a bit of a family movie vibe. It feels a bit tiresome after two other movies, but still makes it to 3 stars. 6.3/10
January 3, 2014
osven sto moze da se vidi prvata voopsto uloga na Leonardo DiCaprio, drugo ama bas nisto nema vredno tuka za gledanje


sepak poveke gi sakam Gremlinite
October 23, 2013
October 18, 2013
A young Leonardo DiCaprio gives the film a reason to be seen but the Critters series has run its course and lost it's bite.
½ June 30, 2013
not as good as the first two, but enjoyable, with a classic B movie feel.
Super Reviewer
½ June 27, 2013
Shameful debut for a popular Hollywood star, anyone?

Page 1 of 13