IMDb > Critters 3 (1991) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Critters 3
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Critters 3 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 48 reviews in total 

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Very cheap – but some trashy fun to be had

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
29 July 2002

A young family stop off at a lay-by on their way home. At the lay-by they meet bounty hunter Charlie who warns them about something living in the woods. However that `something' has just attached it self under their mobile home and hitches a ride back to their tenement block where the critters cause havoc amongst the residents.

Lets be honest – no one say to be shocked to discover this is a cheap little film that doesn't have too much going for it. The plot is the usual – people hunted by critters – stuff, this time in a building so it's like Die Hard with aliens….err no! The story doesn't matter as the action is what counts.

Sadly the action is poor – it's not really gory and the critter attacks are always more funny than thrilling. There is no real excitement or tension and it's all a bit predictable – take a guess who'll live and who'll die – the cute kids or the evil landlord? See! The one thing it does have though is a sort of humour – the critters have senses of humours and are cruel and some of this is amusing.

However the comedy is nowhere near the one it aspires to – Gremlins, and really the funniest bit is how silly the whole thing is. Needless to say the acting is poor – some people can't even be mauled convincingly. But it's interesting to see DiCaprio's debut, even if he looks about 9 years old!

Really this is a bit of dumb fun that is daft and slightly shoddy. It's may just pass the time but there are much better horror/comedies out there if you want them.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as first two but it still as some fun moments

Author: atinder from United Kingdom
2 January 2011

This movie start off with a family of 3, going to a rest stop but there tyre burst and had to stop and fix it.

Then the kids are messing around and then soon go down a big hill, then Charlie comes from underneath the ground and scary all kids. (The only person to return to this sequel and the one after just like Burt in Tremors series).

He tells these kids about Critters (As we see this in flashback of the last two movies).

As Critters seem to enter the Minnie-van, the family are unaware of this and the end up going back to their New York apartment. then the Critters have laid more eggs, under the van and soon start hatching and head toward the basement.

I am going give this movie 5 out of 10, I found this movie, a lot more funny then first however I still think that second one was even more funny then this and better movie then this.

This movie as it's moments, and keep you entertained and never get boring at all.

If you liked the last two movies, you should like this movie as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

the third installment was still pretty good

Author: miles kolehmainen from united states
19 May 2013

The effects were still great, the acting worked, and I liked the characters... but it was missing something.I don't know what but it was. I still recommend it of course and I decently enjoyed it. Critters 3 was not as much horror and more funny but it still worked. The critter effects have slightly changed but still basically the same. The critters are now more slimy and darker in color. It was great to see Charlie return again Leonardo DiCaprio did a great job in his role as Josh. Having a critter main protagonist was interesting and fun, and I liked the development in the other critter's characters also. It was very slightly off beat but fun to watch and entertaining. To sum it all up it was not as good as #2 but stayed true to the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Little sharp-teethed stand up comedians

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls
22 November 2011

The DVD-cover suggests that - following two episodes set in the remote Kansas countryside area - the Krites will now be spreading fear and terror in the big city, but the truth is they never get any further than running amok in a ramshackle old apartment building and frightening a handful of its tenants. Part three in the series is an okay time-waster, but very forgettable and obviously lacking the joyous and charming spirit of the first two films. It sometimes seems that, with entering the 1990's, it suddenly became impossible to make cheesy & light-headed horror like they did in the 1980's. Oh well, at least number three is still a dozen times better than the truly awful fourth installment, which was shot back-to-back with this one and takes place in outer space. "Critters 3" particularly marks the further and irreversible descent of the franchise into comical territory. Mainly due to the eccentric design of the monsters – courtesy of the amazing Chiodo Brothers – the series bathes in a light-headed and silly atmosphere, but the two previous films nevertheless found a better balance between the comedy aspects and genuine horror. Here, the little supposedly ravenous and evil creatures almost look like tiny stand up comedians. They giggle non-stop, eat beans and fart, watching cooking programs on TV and entertain themselves with food fights. Meanwhile, a bizarre posse of low-keyed tenants (among them THE Leonardo DiCaprio in his very first long-feature film) attempt to escape the Critter-terror through fleeing to the roof. Why they just don't go out via the front door, I don't know… Don Opper reprises his role as bounty hunter Charlie, and he seems to get more imbecilic with every episode. I don't really feel like mocking DiCaprio's appearance because, in all honesty, he gives a good performance and depicts a likable teenage character.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Well, at least little Leonardo DiCaprio were cute ...

Author: hegstad9 from Norway
30 October 2005

Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.

He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The only film where Leo looked his age

Author: bowmanblue from United Kingdom
20 August 2016

In case you don't know, 'Critters 3' is best known for being the first ever film to feature Leonardo DiCaprio. Here, he plays a kid who is a kid. Then, forever after, he was destined to play an adult who looks like a kid. But then that's just me being bitter at his seeming inability to age.

Anyway, if you haven't seen 'Critters 3' then you might want to start with the first two, as they're arguably better and, well, chronology and all that. The Critters are little alien monsters who crash-landed on Earth and generally eat everyone and everything – or rather everyone and everything who isn't one of the lead cast. These baddies tend to only eat people you won't really care about. Or at least they certainly do now! I haven't seen another monster/slasher film where the villains do so little damage to so few people. If the Critters franchise was ever really classed as 'horror' (which it wasn't really – it was more only every horror with a spoonful of comedy). Now, it really is played out tongue-in-cheek with no real attempts to scare you. The Critters roll and bounce around the place, bumping into things and come across more like Mr Bean with bigger teeth than anything that really threatens humankind.

Critters 3 is a short film. And for good reason. There really isn't that much in the way of plot to fill it. You get the little monsters brought back from the countryside into a big city. You'd think that with the added number of human-prey this would make a change from the farm-country the previous two were set in. However, the whole film is basically set in one apartment block. And, for some reason, no one (Critter or human) ever really seems to make much of a play to leave the building. You could argue that this creates an air of tension and claustrophobia. But it doesn't. It's just a cheap continuation of the franchise.

Yes, I know I'm being kind of negative. And this is yet another step down for the franchise. But that's not to say that I didn't find some enjoyment in it. The Critters themselves – one again – are the real stars and, for all their 'prat-falls' they're still quite fun to watch.

If you like your eighties monster-horror films then you're probably best off sticking to the first one (which most people seem to think is best, personally, I preferred part 2, but anyway...). However, if you REALLY like the Critters and want to see more of them, you can try this – it's the sort of film where you can surf the net and watch it at the same time and still miss much. Plus, did I mention it had baby-faced Leo in it? He's being chased my fur-balls – c'mon, that's got to be worth watching, right?

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

"Not Bad, But Unnecessary Sequel!"

Author: gwnightscream from United States
10 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Don Opper, Aimee Brooks, John Calvin and Leonardo DiCaprio star in this 1991 sci-fi/horror sequel. This begins with teenage girl, Annie (Brooks), her father, Cliff (Calvin) and little brother, Johnny (Christian & Joseph Cousins) heading back from vacation to their L.A. apartment building. Along the way, Annie and Johnny meet bounty hunter, Charlie McFadden (Opper) who tells them about the town of Grover's Bend and it's previous encounters with the Critters. After coming home, they and their neighbors become terrorized by a new batch of hungry aliens. Soon, Charlie comes to their rescue and helps them fight against them. DiCaprio (Titanic) is younger in this and plays Josh, the stepson of their ruthless landlord. This sequel isn't bad, but unnecessary because the last film ended well. I still recommend it if you're a fan of the Critters.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

There are better movies.

Author: jacobjohntaylor1 from Barry's bay Ontario Canada
4 July 2017

This could have been a good movie. The ending kind of ruined it. It was a cliff hanger ending which could have been good if the ending to Critters 4 had not been so bad. Critters is a mush better movie. Critters 2 is also a lot better. I did kind like this movie when I was watching it. It really was not that scary. Kind of scary I guess not has as scary has Critters or Critters 2. Critters and Critters 2 are some of scariest movies of all time. And this one is not really. It not as bad as The silence of the lambs. But it is not great. I do not really buy some of the stuff that happens in Critters 4. And you can not really watch this movie with out watching Critters 4. There were some good actors in this movie. But still not that good.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Middling third entry in the series

Author: Woodyanders ( from The Last New Jersey Drive-In on the Left
7 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first two "Critters" films delivered a winning blend of thrills and humor that was done with a considerable amount of vitality and a certain quirky sensibility. Alas, this second sequel to the enjoyable original doesn't offer much in the way of energy or inspiration. The premise is promising enough: The Crites terrorize a motley assortment of folks in a rundown Los Angeles apartment building. Unfortunately, director Kristine Peterson, working from a surprisingly drab and unimaginative script by celebrated horror writer David J. Schow, lets the story unfold at a plodding pace and crucially fails to generate much in the way of either tension or momentum. Moreover, although there are a few decent comic moments (the sequence with the blithely disgusting Crites pigging out in a kitchen is reasonably funny) and several cool fanged furball attack set pieces, this film is never as dynamic and flat-out sidesplitting as it could (and should) have been. This movie does finally get cooking to a moderate degree in the fairly lively and stirring last third, but it's not enough to alleviate the general tedium. The able cast do their best with the mediocre material: Aimee Brooks contributes a charming performance as the cute and spunky Annie, series regular Don Opper amuses as geeky and klutzy bounty hunter Charlie, Katherine Cortez does well as plucky telephone repair woman Marcis, a then unknown Leonardo DiCarprio acquits himself passably in his film debut as the likable Josh, plus there are sound turns by Diana Bellamy as the excitable Rosalie, John Calvin as struggling single dad Clifford, William Dennis Hunt as sleazy landlord Mr. Briggs, Geoffrey Blake as obnoxious handyman Frank Longo, and Frances Bay as sweet old lady Mrs. Menges. Terrence Mann makes a very brief appearance at the sequel set-up ending as bounty hunter Ug. A strictly acceptable, but overall nothing special timewaster.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"You are what they eat."

Author: Backlash007 from Kentucky
26 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


"You are what they eat." Isn't that a much overused tagline? I think so. Critters 3 is by far the worst in the series. I can't believe David J. Schow wrote it!! This time around there is no Scott Grimes and very little Don Opper (the Reggie of the series). Ug (Terrence Mann) is also reduced to one scene at the very end. What we get in place of our beloved trio of heroes is a very annoying cast and a young Leonardo DiCaprio. The rural setting is also changed. This sequel takes place in the city. And while that seems like a cool change, they do not utilize it enough (for budgetary reasons I'm sure). Just like Jason didn't quite take Manhattan, the Critters are confined to one run down inner city building. This was shot back-to-back with Critters 4, which is evident by the cliffhanger, to be continued ending. The ending, oddly enough, is the best and most inventive part of the film. As Charlie is about to blow away the last two Critter eggs, he receives word that he must stop because that would be the destruction of their species. Pretty sweet set-up for a sequel in my opinion. However, this entry could have been avoided.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history