Return of the Killer Shrews

While I haven't watched the original 1959 "The Killer Shrews" movie, then I was familiar with the movie. I had, however, watched the abysmal 2016 remake of the 1959 movie, and believe me, it was beyond horrible. So I wasn't really harboring the biggest of expectations to director Steve Latshaw's 2012 movie. But since I hadn't already seen it, and with it being a horror comedy, of course I opted to give the movie a fair chance.

I have to say that I am a bit baffled that writers James Best, Steve Latshaw, Pat Moran and Patrick Moran collectively couldn't manage to put together a more enjoyable and entertaining script than what they mustered for this 2012 movie. It was a simplistic script that didn't really offer much of any great things, aside from the God awful CGI effects that were good for a great many laughs.

The acting performances in the movie were actually fair, despite the fact that the script was bad. The only familiar faces on the cast list, for me at least, were John Schneider, James Best and Bruce Davison.

The CGI effects in "Return of the Killer Shrews" is terrible. Hands down, some of the worst CGI animation I've seen in a long, long time. It was so bad that it actually spruced up the movie, because it made me want to see how horrible they would make it. And believe me, the CGI effects were horrible.

"Return of the Killer Shrews" is a terrible movie, no doubt about it. But it is actually so bad that it is fun to sit through. I managed to endure the entire 84 minutes, simply because I wanted to see how bad the next scene was going to be. This is definitely not a movie that will find its way back to my screen a second time.

The movie's cover was the best part about the movie.

My rating of director Steve Latshaw's 2012 movie "Return of the Killer Shrews" lands on a two out of ten stars.

I watched this based on some reviews and the trailer. I had to keep watching because the first ten minutes was so bad I thought it can only get better. Wrong, the acting is awful to mediocre and the CGI is at best bad green screen. I wondered if it could be any worse and the answer is yes. On a positive note I decided to show this to a drama class so they could feel better about their performance of a play they did. Sorry kids for exposing you to this nightmare. They opening with the goat is only made better by the girl. A sleeping ......sorry no spoiler. Some good one liners, I think Schneider is Drunk or high, some of the lines he gives are stolen. The yelling gag got old fast! The 3 D effect to think your looking through Shrew eyes is bad at best. Although Schneider's spoil ed star acting is very believable. I am not sure but I wonder if this is computer CGI or a bad piece of software used to edit the footage. Either way this flick is mildly entertaining but not for kids. B movie fans could have fun watching this and compare notes.

What a coup! They got the lead actor of one of the silliest horror movies ever and do a sequel 51 years later!

I'm a biased reviewer because I enjoyed the original movie from 1959. I've seen it on MST3k and unriffed as well and I truly believe it is not as bad as its reputation.

The 1959 version was marred by laughingly bad special effects where they put fake fur and very fake fangs on coon hounds and tried to pass them off as giant shrews. In fact, The Killer Shrews has been included in almost every 'so-bad-it's-good' movie list for several decades.

A great irony is the new version is also almost sunk by really, really bad computer generated killer shrews. Man, do they look lousy! They have no natural movements and the sense of proportion is WAY off. They might have been better off with coon hounds.

This is a campy, tongue-in-cheek homage done by someone who really knows the old movie. The set of the old movie is lovingly recreated complete with endless liquor bottles, comically sparse furniture and minimal set design. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously. John Schneider especially seems to be having a blast with the over-the-top dialog.

James Best, character actor for over 60 years is the real gem here. He was great in the original and he shines here too. He is surprisingly believable and steers this wacky, tacky little movie along, preventing it from getting caught up showcasing the silly, 1 dimensional background characters, most of whom, thankfully,become Bad CGI Shrew Food.

I confess I loved the original and maybe I'm not the most objective reviewer, but I really enjoyed this goofy little movie... more than I expected.

If you set your expectations correctly, you should enjoy it as well. It is a low budget, Made-for-SyFy-Channel type movie that wont win any awards for acting or screen writing but it is silly, funny, true to the original and more entertaining than I expected.

A film crew goes to an island to shoot some footage for an extremely poor TV series. The captain who brought them to the island warns them something terrible has happened on this island in the past, and yes, of course it happens again. Giant rats attack the film crew and eat them one by one. They are controlled by a man with a flute, and the captain is no stranger to him...

The strong side of the movie is its comedy about a film crew in a desperate situation. No, I'm not talking about the monsters, but the series they are shooting. The director tries to be a total dictator ("I am the director, obey me!"), the photographer and writer are frustrated with their jobs, the star of the show constantly seeks advice from his agent, while others just want to get their money and go home. I think the only thing where it goes over the top is the 'snake bites goat' scene, but otherwise it's enjoyable.

The poor side of the movie is the creature horror, because their extremely unrealistic, clumsy moves prove that computer generated images can be worse than the dogs disguised as rats they used 50 years ago in the movie that inspired this late sequel.

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.