Critters 2

Reviews

• 

  Gimly

  Aug 25, 2019

  6
  Critters 2 leans a bit more into the silliness of the series. Not to say that the original was a bleak take on gritty realism, but it did seem to take the danger a fraction more serious. It's not something that works particularly for or against the sequel, it's just a slight change, one that makes sense even. Establishes a real inter-connectivity in the franchise (that Critters would basically hold on to all the way up until that most recent one, which took some pretty wild liberties). Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go.Read more

  Critters 2 leans a bit more into the silliness of the series. Not to say that the original was a bleak take on gritty realism, but it did seem to take the danger a fraction more serious. It's not something that works particularly for or against the sequel, it's just a slight change, one that makes sense even. Establishes a real inter-connectivity in the franchise (that Critters would basically hold on to all the way up until that most recent one, which took some pretty wild liberties). Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go.

• 

  Sheldon Nylander

  Aug 31, 2019

  3
  The first "Critters" movie was a low-budget little monsters sci-fi/horror film that, despite its limitations in money and tech, still managed to strike the right chord in balancing the sci-fi, horror, suspense, and comedy elements, even with a PG-13 rating (despite its theme, only two people actually die in the first movie). Unfortunately, despite the fact that you can see them trying really hard to recapture it, "Critters 2" falls short of the mark. A couple of issues lead to this conclusion. First, despite this film's budget being double that of the first, it doesn't really show. Most of it must have been blown on extra puppets, as this time there's supposedly hundreds of Crites running around causing havoc. Which is weird because, honestly, the Crites feel like they barely have any actual screen time since the plot is also now divided between the attack of the Crites and the townspeople not believing the story of their previous attack and even blaming the attacks on the boy from the first film who has returned to town. Which leads to the second problem. In the first film, there was an effort to give the Crites some semblance of character. While still voracious eating machines, they still have some minimal interaction with each other and the environment, which fleshes them out a little more. Here, even though we see them talk a couple times (in their own language), it's little more than a one-liner here and there. There's too many of them with no standouts or leaders to give them any character at all. This all ends up making for a rather dull sequel to a surprisingly entertaining first film. Ultimately, it's not a worthy follow-up.Read more

  The first "Critters" movie was a low-budget little monsters sci-fi/horror film that, despite its limitations in money and tech, still managed to strike the right chord in balancing the sci-fi, horror, suspense, and comedy elements, even with a PG-13 rating (despite its theme, only two people actually die in the first movie). Unfortunately, despite the fact that you can see them trying really hard to recapture it, "Critters 2" falls short of the mark. A couple of issues lead to this conclusion. First, despite this film's budget being double that of the first, it doesn't really show. Most of it must have been blown on extra puppets, as this time there's supposedly hundreds of Crites running around causing havoc. Which is weird because, honestly, the Crites feel like they barely have any actual screen time since the plot is also now divided between the attack of the Crites and the townspeople not believing the story of their previous attack and even blaming the attacks on the boy from the first film who has returned to town. Which leads to the second problem. In the first film, there was an effort to give the Crites some semblance of character. While still voracious eating machines, they still have some minimal interaction with each other and the environment, which fleshes them out a little more. Here, even though we see them talk a couple times (in their own language), it's little more than a one-liner here and there. There's too many of them with no standouts or leaders to give them any character at all. This all ends up making for a rather dull sequel to a surprisingly entertaining first film. Ultimately, it's not a worthy follow-up.

• 

  Wuchak

  Jan 1, 2025

  6
  **_Effectively continues the story, but it’s not as good as the first movie_** It is reported that Crites are still present on Earth, so Ug (Terrence Mann) and two other galactic bounty hunters return to wipe them out, including earthling misfit Charlie (Don Keith Opper). Brad (Scott Grimes) just so happens to be in town when they visit the planet. Along with his new girlfriend (Liane Curtis), they team-up to eradicate the extraterrestrial menace of furry critters. “Critters 2: The Main Course” (1988) has several highlights, but it’s just no where near as good as the original film from two years prior. For one thing, it’s more cartoonish and goofier, which makes it difficult to suspend disbelief as could be done with the first one. On the positive side, winsome Liane Curtis (Megan) is superior to the actress who played the young female in “Critters,” but the director failed to take advantage of her presence. Statuesque blonde Roxanne Kernohan is entertaining as a ‘playmate’ of whom bounty hunter Lee takes the appearance. Her brief top nudity is surprising for a PG-13 flick. Unfortunately, Roxanne would be deceased in just five years due to a car wreck. Speaking of bounty hunter Lee, this ‘nothingface’ alien combined with his partner, Ug, results in the team Ug-Lee. Get it? There are enough amusing bits to make this worth catching if you liked the first movie, such as the giant ball of critters rolling over a guy and leaving only his bloody skeleton. It’s just a letdown by comparison. It runs 1 hour, 26 minutes, and was shot in Santa Clarita, California, which is located 32 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. GRADE: B-/C+Read more

  **_Effectively continues the story, but it’s not as good as the first movie_** It is reported that Crites are still present on Earth, so Ug (Terrence Mann) and two other galactic bounty hunters return to wipe them out, including earthling misfit Charlie (Don Keith Opper). Brad (Scott Grimes) just so happens to be in town when they visit the planet. Along with his new girlfriend (Liane Curtis), they team-up to eradicate the extraterrestrial menace of furry critters. “Critters 2: The Main Course” (1988) has several highlights, but it’s just no where near as good as the original film from two years prior. For one thing, it’s more cartoonish and goofier, which makes it difficult to suspend disbelief as could be done with the first one. On the positive side, winsome Liane Curtis (Megan) is superior to the actress who played the young female in “Critters,” but the director failed to take advantage of her presence. Statuesque blonde Roxanne Kernohan is entertaining as a ‘playmate’ of whom bounty hunter Lee takes the appearance. Her brief top nudity is surprising for a PG-13 flick. Unfortunately, Roxanne would be deceased in just five years due to a car wreck. Speaking of bounty hunter Lee, this ‘nothingface’ alien combined with his partner, Ug, results in the team Ug-Lee. Get it? There are enough amusing bits to make this worth catching if you liked the first movie, such as the giant ball of critters rolling over a guy and leaving only his bloody skeleton. It’s just a letdown by comparison. It runs 1 hour, 26 minutes, and was shot in Santa Clarita, California, which is located 32 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. GRADE: B-/C+

• 

  r96sk

  Apr 23, 2025

  7
  <em>'Critters 2: The Main Course'</em> is more of the same, which is good for a sequel of this type. I wasn't anticipating much but it's solid enough, if you like the first flick then I'd be surprised if this disappointed you. I did rate the original, so go figure. Scott Grimes is the standout, in my opinion, from the first release, here he takes a bit more of a back seat (if still the lead) as it's practically an ensemble. Liane Alexandra Curtis does well, as does M. Emmet Walsh replacement Barry Corbin. There aren't any cast issues, that's for sure. I felt like we got more of the titular characters in this, which is something I wanted. The effects still look very good, like last time I do enjoy the little pieces of dialogue that the critters get; especially the 'uh ohs'. Elsewhere, we get added blood and nudity for this follow-up... Now to see if lightning struck thrice with the third installment, which features the film debut of a Hollywood great.Read more

  <em>'Critters 2: The Main Course'</em> is more of the same, which is good for a sequel of this type. I wasn't anticipating much but it's solid enough, if you like the first flick then I'd be surprised if this disappointed you. I did rate the original, so go figure. Scott Grimes is the standout, in my opinion, from the first release, here he takes a bit more of a back seat (if still the lead) as it's practically an ensemble. Liane Alexandra Curtis does well, as does M. Emmet Walsh replacement Barry Corbin. There aren't any cast issues, that's for sure. I felt like we got more of the titular characters in this, which is something I wanted. The effects still look very good, like last time I do enjoy the little pieces of dialogue that the critters get; especially the 'uh ohs'. Elsewhere, we get added blood and nudity for this follow-up... Now to see if lightning struck thrice with the third installment, which features the film debut of a Hollywood great.