A jaw dropping 1990s anti-drug movie, Ticks is infested with genre and period typical cliches. With its ridiculous story and awkward script, the film is clumsy in its approach to serious issues like trauma, racism, and black market crime. However, it excels at gross out horror and intentional camp and improves (in entertainment value) as it blunders toward its over the top finale.
71 Reviews
Vampire bugs !
Coventry31 August 2003
Let's see...spiders, ants, piranha's, rabbits, bees...No, we didn't have giant murdering ticks yet. BRING 'EM ON !!! Maybe that's a bit rough, but in fact it's the basic idea behind this movie. The story is as old as horror itself but it still works and, more importantly, it's still fun !
Somewhere in a God-forsaken town, the local farmers found a new spray for their crops ( their crops are marijuana in this case. That's new! ) but of course the bugs start to grow to enormous size as well and begin to attack humans! A group of troubled teenagers who're there for some sort of consciousness-weekend become the main target. OK, Ticks is filled with the obvious "monster-clichés" but it's a well made and highly entertaining B-movie. I confess, director Tony Randall can't do much wrong in my eyes. This man made the very good Hellraiser sequel Hellbound, so I'm interested in all other films he made. Ticks also has a few familiar faces. Clint Howard to begin with. This guy is doomed again to play the weird loner who becomes the first victim of the killer bugs. Seth Green had one of his first major film roles in this film as well. He looks pretty dorky here, but it sure didn't stop him from building up a decent career in Hollywood. Alfonso Ribeiro is also a part of the cast but it's pretty laughable to picture him as a "bad-ass" from the ghetto, when you keep in mind he played Carlton in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air for so many years. I didn't recognize the rest of the cast, but all the girls have sweet faces. Unfortunately, Ticks goes very much over the top near the end. But by then you already forgave Tony Randall and the rest of the crew for that stupid ending. Bad case of Writer's Block, I guess...
Somewhere in a God-forsaken town, the local farmers found a new spray for their crops ( their crops are marijuana in this case. That's new! ) but of course the bugs start to grow to enormous size as well and begin to attack humans! A group of troubled teenagers who're there for some sort of consciousness-weekend become the main target. OK, Ticks is filled with the obvious "monster-clichés" but it's a well made and highly entertaining B-movie. I confess, director Tony Randall can't do much wrong in my eyes. This man made the very good Hellraiser sequel Hellbound, so I'm interested in all other films he made. Ticks also has a few familiar faces. Clint Howard to begin with. This guy is doomed again to play the weird loner who becomes the first victim of the killer bugs. Seth Green had one of his first major film roles in this film as well. He looks pretty dorky here, but it sure didn't stop him from building up a decent career in Hollywood. Alfonso Ribeiro is also a part of the cast but it's pretty laughable to picture him as a "bad-ass" from the ghetto, when you keep in mind he played Carlton in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air for so many years. I didn't recognize the rest of the cast, but all the girls have sweet faces. Unfortunately, Ticks goes very much over the top near the end. But by then you already forgave Tony Randall and the rest of the crew for that stupid ending. Bad case of Writer's Block, I guess...
Bloodthirsty ticks get the munchies real bad!
The_Void12 June 2007
Insects make good horror movie material due to the fact that a lot of people are scared of them. There have been movies about giant spiders (Kingdom of the Spiders), scorpions (The Black Scorpion) and ants (Them!), and while ticks aren't exactly the most exciting insects around; their bloodsucking nature does make them a good subject for a film such as this. As you might expect considering the fact that this film was a direct to video release, most things about it aren't exactly brilliant. However, it's obvious that the most important thing about a film like this is the gore and Ticks certainly isn't lacking in that department! The story is obviously just a means to an end and sees a class of delinquents going out into the forest for some sort of moral building exercise. However, their little trip is interrupted by a bunch of bloodthirsty ticks that have grown to massive sizes because of chemicals put on weed plants to accelerate their growth. Unfortunately for the kids, the ticks' appetites have grown with them; and now they are on the menu...
The film has a good basis for gore, as it's directed by Hellraiser 2 director Tony Randel (who also directed the less than impressive Children of the Night) and the executive producer is one Brian Yuzna, who every gore fan should recognise. The plot doesn't contain a lot of surprises, although it deserves some plaudits for staying interesting for most of the way through. The story progresses in the usual way for this sort of film - i.e. there are a few clues that something bad is going to happen, then bad things do happen and eventually everything gets out of control. The film doesn't pay a lot of respect to it's insect star as there aren't many references to real life ticks, but then again I didn't go into this movie expecting a natural history lesson. The cast is only notable for the fact that it stars a young Seth Green, although he really isn't that much of a highlight. Alfonso Ribeiro, who is more famous for playing Carlos in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, also makes an appearance (which is completely unlike his TV persona) though he is underused. The film ends well, though too many people survived for my liking, but all the same this is good fun and recommended.
The film has a good basis for gore, as it's directed by Hellraiser 2 director Tony Randel (who also directed the less than impressive Children of the Night) and the executive producer is one Brian Yuzna, who every gore fan should recognise. The plot doesn't contain a lot of surprises, although it deserves some plaudits for staying interesting for most of the way through. The story progresses in the usual way for this sort of film - i.e. there are a few clues that something bad is going to happen, then bad things do happen and eventually everything gets out of control. The film doesn't pay a lot of respect to it's insect star as there aren't many references to real life ticks, but then again I didn't go into this movie expecting a natural history lesson. The cast is only notable for the fact that it stars a young Seth Green, although he really isn't that much of a highlight. Alfonso Ribeiro, who is more famous for playing Carlos in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, also makes an appearance (which is completely unlike his TV persona) though he is underused. The film ends well, though too many people survived for my liking, but all the same this is good fun and recommended.
T&A (Good Ticks and Great Actors)
joehed5 March 2000
This movie was pretty good, but the cast is classic! Seth Green, Ami Dolenz, and Alfonso Ribeiro. I bet Panic looks familiar, yeah that's because he's Carlton on Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. And the icing on the cake is Clint Howard. What an actor. He makes another great appearance in this film as a marahuana farmers.
This movie is not too bad, but definitely entertaining. You'll love Ribeiro's character, especially since he is a hardcore inner city kid. This total contrast to Carlton make nearly everything he says a joke.
If you're looking for a movie with a funny cast, check this movie out. What a sidetracker for a lot of these people's careers. Classic!
This movie is not too bad, but definitely entertaining. You'll love Ribeiro's character, especially since he is a hardcore inner city kid. This total contrast to Carlton make nearly everything he says a joke.
If you're looking for a movie with a funny cast, check this movie out. What a sidetracker for a lot of these people's careers. Classic!
Typical giant insect movie.
Aaron137511 April 2003
This movie has some kids going on a retreat or something (been awhile since I have seen it). During their trip they run into these pot growers who don't want them there. In the place where they are growing pot somehow or another the ticks start to grow big and go on the rampage. Nothing to special in this one, but it is far from a boring and terrible movie. It moves pretty fast and there are some good kills in this one. There is also a rather cool scene where this one kid splits open. The ticks aren't to bad looking, and I don't think they were computer animated. The ending is the same old trick as in other horror movies and nothing to surprising. Though can anyone tell me why the one kid felt the need to take all those steroids when he was walking through the woods hurt? I don't believe they would have any positive impact that would help him.
I love bug movies!!....
stormruston26 March 2003
...and this is a average one with a few real great scenes.The typical "at camp" when things go buggy story line that we are all comfortable with.
Above average humour and effects makes this one worth watching,only the first fifteen miniutes were slow.
Above average humour and effects makes this one worth watching,only the first fifteen miniutes were slow.
Mother nature bites back at Movie Executives who commission this kind of rubbish.
Wilbur-107 September 2000
The English video cover makes this look like some 'Alien' clone, but instead it turns out to one of those irritating man-tampers-with-nature half-baked horror films.
A group of inner-city delinquents are taken out to the woods on a survival holiday. They find themselves attacked by blood-thirsty ticks which have grown to the size of large spiders as a result of steroids used on the local marijuana crop. Needless to say the film is derivative garbage, with no attempt to haul itself onto the lowest rung of the ladder.
The cast seem to have a degree of ability but the script and storyline give them absolutely nothing to work with, and things stumble along to the inevitable conclusion as most of them escape BUT what is clinging to the underside of their van ??
This may have worked better with some 'Tremors'-like humour - the horror elements are too weak because of the one-dimensional characters; this is a film where you really do not care about anyone and the whole experience is like watching a cartoon. As such it is watchable to a degree, but leaves not the slightest lasting impression.
If the horror genre continues churning out this kind of formulaic drivel for the empty-headed teenager heaven help us. I was rooting for the Ticks all the way.
A group of inner-city delinquents are taken out to the woods on a survival holiday. They find themselves attacked by blood-thirsty ticks which have grown to the size of large spiders as a result of steroids used on the local marijuana crop. Needless to say the film is derivative garbage, with no attempt to haul itself onto the lowest rung of the ladder.
The cast seem to have a degree of ability but the script and storyline give them absolutely nothing to work with, and things stumble along to the inevitable conclusion as most of them escape BUT what is clinging to the underside of their van ??
This may have worked better with some 'Tremors'-like humour - the horror elements are too weak because of the one-dimensional characters; this is a film where you really do not care about anyone and the whole experience is like watching a cartoon. As such it is watchable to a degree, but leaves not the slightest lasting impression.
If the horror genre continues churning out this kind of formulaic drivel for the empty-headed teenager heaven help us. I was rooting for the Ticks all the way.
OK mutant nature on the rampage horror film.
poolandrews26 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Infested, also known as Ticks, starts in a illegal marijuana growers hideout where a barrel of steroids, that is used to enhance the growth of their crop, begins to leak onto a tick pod which starts to pulsate... Jump to Los Angeles where Holly Lambert (Rosalind Allen) runs the 'Wilderness Project' which helps troubled teens by taking them on a trip to the great outdoors. Along with her partner Charles Danson (Peter Scolari) & his teenage daughter Melissa (Virginya Keehne) they pick up a traumatised boy named Tyler Burns (Seth Green), an idiot with an attitude Darrel Lumley (Alfonso Ribeiro), a couple of lovers Dee Dee Davenport (Ami Dolenz) & Rome Hernandez (Ray Oriel) plus a young rape victim Kelly Mishimoto (Dina Dayrit) & set off for the isolation of the woods. Meanwhile the tick pods have hatched & mutant ticks are running around all over the place laying more & more pods everywhere. Once the dysfunctional van load of teens arrive it's not long before they are menaced by the flesh eating, blood drinking ticks that infest the woods & their cabin...
Directed by Tony Randel I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed by Infested, I thought it was OK nothing more. The script by Brent V. Friedman just wasn't what I was hoping for or expecting after hearing reasonably good things about it. Nothing really holds the film together, the clichéd teenage character's become very irritating after a while, the ticks barely interact with humans until the last twenty odd minutes & the first hour of Infested feels like a pre credits sequence stretched out. The contamination of the ticks which make them grow & then after they just sort of 'hover' in the background for what seems like ages, they never really do anything or cause anything significant to take place. Finally they just spring from nowhere & attack everyone during the climax, it feels odd & I got bored waiting for Infested to come to life. I mean you have this potentially great story, cool slimy giant blood drinking ticks, annoying character's who the audience want to die in the goriest way possible & the obligatory isolated location but Infested fails to take advantage of any of these things. Instead it would rather have lots of dialogue, no deaths, an unnecessary sub plot about drug growers & not much else. There is also a flashback scene of which nothing ever becomes of. Having said all that Infested is OK I suppose, it moves along at a fair pace & is watchable, if ultimately disappointing.
Director Randel doesn't do anything to liven the film up, it's competently made but it has no real style or flair to it. The ticks themselves are OK, they are just puppets covered in slime, although I have no idea where the giant monster one comes from at the end. The gore is very sparse, there are plenty of slimy tick pods & the little critters running around but they only kill one teenager throughout the entire film, just one. They also kill three drug growers as well but when three of the four deaths happen within the last fifteen minutes you can probably understand why Infested becomes frustrating to watch. I mean I'm not watching a film about mutant killer ticks for the high drama, the emotionally driven wonderfully realised dialogue or the superb Oscar worthy acting am I? No I ain't, I want to see the mutant killer ticks do what mutant killer ticks do best, kill annoying teenagers.
Technically Infested is alright even though it was made-for-video which is never a good sign, it's generally well made but nothing stands out as being particularly brilliant. Some of the special effects are fairly impressive while others are far from impressive. The gore is tame, someone's face & body splits open & a huge tick crawls out plus someone's leg is caught in a bear trap & there are a few splashes of blood here & there but that's it. I want my money & 85 minutes of my life back. The acting doesn't impress particularly.
Infested is a clichéd, predictable, disappointing & frustrating film throughout. It could have been so much more. Average at best & only worth a watch if there's absolutely nothing else on or if you can get hold of a copy cheap, very cheap that is.
Directed by Tony Randel I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed by Infested, I thought it was OK nothing more. The script by Brent V. Friedman just wasn't what I was hoping for or expecting after hearing reasonably good things about it. Nothing really holds the film together, the clichéd teenage character's become very irritating after a while, the ticks barely interact with humans until the last twenty odd minutes & the first hour of Infested feels like a pre credits sequence stretched out. The contamination of the ticks which make them grow & then after they just sort of 'hover' in the background for what seems like ages, they never really do anything or cause anything significant to take place. Finally they just spring from nowhere & attack everyone during the climax, it feels odd & I got bored waiting for Infested to come to life. I mean you have this potentially great story, cool slimy giant blood drinking ticks, annoying character's who the audience want to die in the goriest way possible & the obligatory isolated location but Infested fails to take advantage of any of these things. Instead it would rather have lots of dialogue, no deaths, an unnecessary sub plot about drug growers & not much else. There is also a flashback scene of which nothing ever becomes of. Having said all that Infested is OK I suppose, it moves along at a fair pace & is watchable, if ultimately disappointing.
Director Randel doesn't do anything to liven the film up, it's competently made but it has no real style or flair to it. The ticks themselves are OK, they are just puppets covered in slime, although I have no idea where the giant monster one comes from at the end. The gore is very sparse, there are plenty of slimy tick pods & the little critters running around but they only kill one teenager throughout the entire film, just one. They also kill three drug growers as well but when three of the four deaths happen within the last fifteen minutes you can probably understand why Infested becomes frustrating to watch. I mean I'm not watching a film about mutant killer ticks for the high drama, the emotionally driven wonderfully realised dialogue or the superb Oscar worthy acting am I? No I ain't, I want to see the mutant killer ticks do what mutant killer ticks do best, kill annoying teenagers.
Technically Infested is alright even though it was made-for-video which is never a good sign, it's generally well made but nothing stands out as being particularly brilliant. Some of the special effects are fairly impressive while others are far from impressive. The gore is tame, someone's face & body splits open & a huge tick crawls out plus someone's leg is caught in a bear trap & there are a few splashes of blood here & there but that's it. I want my money & 85 minutes of my life back. The acting doesn't impress particularly.
Infested is a clichéd, predictable, disappointing & frustrating film throughout. It could have been so much more. Average at best & only worth a watch if there's absolutely nothing else on or if you can get hold of a copy cheap, very cheap that is.
Fans of low budget horror and Seth Green: this one's for you!
sethfan12 January 2000
While I was watchng this movie I couldn't help but think that while Peter Scolari was filming this "Friday the 13th meets Arachnaphobia" low budget horror, his "Bosom Buddies" co-star, Tom Hanks, was off earning an oscar for Forrest Gump. Don't get me wrong...I like Peter Scolari; he just seems so out of place in this movie. That aside, if you're a fan of this genre, especially of the straight-to-video variety, you won't want to miss this one. It has everything for you: two-dimensional characters, gore, bad dialogue, gore, cheesy special effects, no plot or storyline what-so-ever, and, oh yeah, I almost forgot...gore. My only real complaint is that there is little to no camp. It's those moments of overdone camera work and melodramatic line delivery that make these "B-movie" romps real gems to have in one's video collection. The closest we get to any kind of decent camp is in the characters of Sir and his sidekick henchman, Jerry. Only these two offer us that overly theatrical style of acting that has the viewer thinking, "they've got to be geniuses!"
You will also want to check this one out if you're a fan of Seth Green. Much of the action centers around him as he has quite a bit of screen time. A very talented actor, Seth is the only cast member that actually attempts to flesh out his character and add some dimension to the role. Unforunately, this venue won't allow him to do that. It is also fun to watch Seth not take the whole thing too seriously. Watch him carefully in the vet's office during the autopsy scenehe's actually trying to hold back some laughter! All of this put together does make Ticks a worth while 85 minutes to spend watching it.
You will also want to check this one out if you're a fan of Seth Green. Much of the action centers around him as he has quite a bit of screen time. A very talented actor, Seth is the only cast member that actually attempts to flesh out his character and add some dimension to the role. Unforunately, this venue won't allow him to do that. It is also fun to watch Seth not take the whole thing too seriously. Watch him carefully in the vet's office during the autopsy scenehe's actually trying to hold back some laughter! All of this put together does make Ticks a worth while 85 minutes to spend watching it.
The Attack of the Giant Mutant Ticks
claudio_carvalho12 July 2022
In Los Angeles, six problematic teenagers are sent to the Wilderness Project, led by the couple Holly Lambert (Rosalind Allen) and her boyfriend Charles Danson (Peter Scolari). They take the van of the project and Charles drives them to spend a few days in the woods. They stumble upon the drug dealers Sir (Barry Lynch) and his hick minion Jerry (Michael Medeiros) that advise that they are in a dangerous area. When the dog Brutus of Darrel 'Panic' Lumley (Alfonso Ribeiro) mysteriously dies, Charles, his daughter Melissa Danson (Virginya Keehne) that is also participating in the project and Tyler Burns (Seth Green) take Brutus to the veterinary Dr. Kates (Judy Jean Berns). Soon they learn that the dog has been attacked by a giant mutant tick transformed by the pesticide used by illegal planters of marijuana, and they return to rescue the rest of the group. But something unexpected happens to all of them.
"Ticks" is an entertaining horror-adventure movie with the story of the attack of the giant mutant ticks. Although the nasty title, the film is not bad. This film was released on VHS in Brazil by Alpha Distributor and it is funny to see that they have not translated the word "ticks", may because this bug is repulsive. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Ticks: O Ataque" ("Ticks: The Attack")
"Ticks" is an entertaining horror-adventure movie with the story of the attack of the giant mutant ticks. Although the nasty title, the film is not bad. This film was released on VHS in Brazil by Alpha Distributor and it is funny to see that they have not translated the word "ticks", may because this bug is repulsive. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Ticks: O Ataque" ("Ticks: The Attack")
Stay Away......
huggy_bear17 May 2003
Not going to waste a lot of time on this one. Stay away. There is not one good thing I can say about this bad piece of work. The acting sucked, the effects sucked, and the ticks sucked (no pun intended). I keep asking myself, why they keep making movies this horrible. Why? What a tremendous waste of money and people's time. For God's sake, they could use their time more wisely by putting on orange vests and picking up trash along the I-10. PLEASE!!!!!
A surprisingly fun and gooey b-movie flick!
ericdetrick200215 June 2005
If you are in the mood for a fun horror movie that doesn't take itself too seriously and has all the right gross out gimmicks- check it out. If it wasn't for a friend mentioning this movie title I would have passed it up. But I trusted his judgment since he is a horror aficionado- and I read some decent reviews in some of my old issues of Fangoria/Gore Zone.
The acting is silly, but it is obvious that this is the way it was written. The key difference between a movie like Ticks (Infested) and some really bad Sci-Fi Channel movie is that everything is done in the Evil Dead 2/ Bad Taste slap stick kind of way. And they go for the gross out money shots in every other scene (lots of pulsating blistering skin waiting to explode, etc). And thank God this didn't have any of the cheesy computer animated gore and FX. I love the latex, goo, and prosthetic body parts of the old school- even if it does look fake. At least you know the actors are actually interacting with it rather then a "green screen".
So, gather a few friends, kick back a few beers or Mountain Dews, and be prepared to rewind a few scenes so you can watch them again!
The acting is silly, but it is obvious that this is the way it was written. The key difference between a movie like Ticks (Infested) and some really bad Sci-Fi Channel movie is that everything is done in the Evil Dead 2/ Bad Taste slap stick kind of way. And they go for the gross out money shots in every other scene (lots of pulsating blistering skin waiting to explode, etc). And thank God this didn't have any of the cheesy computer animated gore and FX. I love the latex, goo, and prosthetic body parts of the old school- even if it does look fake. At least you know the actors are actually interacting with it rather then a "green screen".
So, gather a few friends, kick back a few beers or Mountain Dews, and be prepared to rewind a few scenes so you can watch them again!
ICKY! (and yet... somehow enjoyable)
walkingwithprimeval6 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I'll say this when it comes to killer animal horror films, you sure get a good variety of them (we're actually spoilt-for-choice, in this particular area). The typical examples of "when nature attacks" creature features you'll most commonly find are about sharks and crocodiles/alligators eating people. But every so often, there'll be some right skin-crawling ones which involve overgrown "bugs & insects" that'll leave you feeling thoroughly creeped-out. The specific ones in my head that always stick-out are Kingdom of the Spiders (1977), The Swam (1978), The Nest (1988) and Arachnophobia (1990), which I personally consider to be the all-time greatest natural horror film featuring supersized beasties ever made (honestly, it's absolutely the best one). On a purely surface level, Ticks (1993) may just come off as a paint-by-numbers survival-horror flick at first glance (the pretty generic, run-of-the-mill type stuff you'd normally expect to find), but it's got a few extra twists and turns along the way to make it feel different enough (might not be all that sensational, but there's no denying it certainly manages to be somewhat entertaining).
To summarise what this film is, in essence, isn't really a necessary thing to do because it's very self-explanatory; a diverse gang of juvenile delinquents (each with their own unique set of problems) are overrun and overpowered by endless hordes of oversized, flesh-devouring tick-like creatures (which were once just plain old, ordinary ticks until they "accidentally" became enlarged by the leftover residue of toxic waste), as they try to get away from the hectic "hustle & bustle" stress of everyday inner-city urban life for a quiet getaway to a secluded rural location and just recuperate inside a nondescript cabin in the woods. So rather than calling John Goodman's exterminator character out from Arachnophobia to fumigate the place, it looks like this dysfunctional group of misfit teenagers will have to take care of their little parasitic infestation problem themselves... which probably entails an awful lot of senseless squashing (haha).
In an attempt to make their characters seem more complex than they actually are, the adolescent youths (all of which are in their formative high-school years) each come with the heavy baggage of a serious issue in their lives that they're fathoming out at counselling meetings (fighting their inner-demons, if you like). The little interactions they all have between one another at the camp grounds appear intriguing at the start, but it can soon dwindle down after a while and sometime later it becomes not even all that interesting anymore. Very quickly, there's friction within the group and it's established early on in the film's runtime, which is supposed to help set-up the thinly-layered characters. When put into this sort of situation, what other option do a load of ratty teens with shallow personalities have other than to just bicker a lot amongst themselves (I can't even remember any of their names).
I can't not mention the fabulous Alfonso Ribeiro (still best-known for his role as the zany Carlton Banks), who's untimely demise in the film is an integral part of the horrific events that unfold later on as the steroid-induced queen tick makes her epic emergence (what a great death scene). Behind his stereotypical "tough guy" exterior, there's the slightest semblance of an actual character with some mild-depth who's genuinely a caring soul deep down but he's seemingly too afraid to show that there's a more softer side to himself. He's my favourite one out of the whole lot and deservedly so, as he's the only character who initially comes up with the idea of lighting the ticks on fire to kill them off for good (which by the way, I never knew was the most effective method of dealing with the ugly little monsters in real-life). I've been a long-time fan of Seth Green's trademark comedic style, especially in his Robot Chicken (2005-) sketch-show. Although his brand of humour may not be for everyone, he certainly gets my vote (he's that kind of funny guy who you'd like to hang out with because he just knows how to have a proper good time). Working through their differences together, these two characters slowly gain each other's mutual respect.
Ultimately, this film's saving grace is the realism factor of its old-school effects, which a lot of people will surely find to be utterly spine-chilling. These mutated aberrations of nature were brought to life via good old-fashioned practical-special-effects work and created as a result of utilising several different in-camera techniques, ranging from a decent number of elaborate animatronic props (especially with the supersized mamma tick posing a serious threat) and even some stop-motion models in a few scenes (mostly for the more common titchy ones). For a short while's time, you're suspension of disbelief starts to set in and you totally believe they look real enough to be convincing. Nothing today comes anywhere near as close to looking this authentically lifelike. It's easy to feel disenchanted nowadays as CGI honestly doesn't have the same impact on a person's eyes like this can, so your sensibilities aren't affected by it because your brain is telling you that it's just a meagre digital-graphic (it often seems as though I'm just going through the motions). Don't get me wrong, CGI has it's place in the world. But I personally don't think it looks the same, in my opinion (sorry to say this, but computer-generated horror simply isn't scary to me). Sure, CGI can efficiently produce masses and masses of them, but it only diminishes the tangibility of their appearance as it feels like they're not actually part of the scene itself and only composited in there during post-production (it leaves me feeling desensitised, most of the time).
With this being a horror movie, of course there'll be a body-count of innocent victims (it's only natural to the genre and comes with the territory). But it's often quite shocking when one of the casualties is a beloved household pet, like a dog for instance. To quote Joe Bob Briggs (and I maybe paraphrasing a little, here); "One of the main rules of horror films is that you can kill off as many people as you like, sure. But you should never kill a pet, because then people get upset". And it's true, as a gruesome ordeal such as this will more than likely turn most audiences off your film. It's usually very sad when either a domesticated animal or young child dies in a movie because half the time, they aren't truly aware of what's going on in the grand-scheme of the story's plot (not like how us humans are aware). Something like this will always bring about a great deal of compassion from the viewer, which is the reason behind why they sometimes decide to do it (I just wanted to briefly touch on this subject).
I'm surprised this film never spawned a bunch of lazy straight-to-video sequels, as is the unfortunate case with most other horror movies you see out there which inevitably get turned into an ongoing series. You'd think that a horror franchise centred around a swarming bombardment of fiendish blood-sucking nasties with sharp skin-piercing mandibles would've been ripe for the picking (only to have it be milked dry and run down into the ground). My consensus is that if you're brave enough to take a gander at this film and aren't too freaked out by creepy-crawlies (by which I mean you don't have entomophobia), I say check it out because it's worth a viewing.
To summarise what this film is, in essence, isn't really a necessary thing to do because it's very self-explanatory; a diverse gang of juvenile delinquents (each with their own unique set of problems) are overrun and overpowered by endless hordes of oversized, flesh-devouring tick-like creatures (which were once just plain old, ordinary ticks until they "accidentally" became enlarged by the leftover residue of toxic waste), as they try to get away from the hectic "hustle & bustle" stress of everyday inner-city urban life for a quiet getaway to a secluded rural location and just recuperate inside a nondescript cabin in the woods. So rather than calling John Goodman's exterminator character out from Arachnophobia to fumigate the place, it looks like this dysfunctional group of misfit teenagers will have to take care of their little parasitic infestation problem themselves... which probably entails an awful lot of senseless squashing (haha).
In an attempt to make their characters seem more complex than they actually are, the adolescent youths (all of which are in their formative high-school years) each come with the heavy baggage of a serious issue in their lives that they're fathoming out at counselling meetings (fighting their inner-demons, if you like). The little interactions they all have between one another at the camp grounds appear intriguing at the start, but it can soon dwindle down after a while and sometime later it becomes not even all that interesting anymore. Very quickly, there's friction within the group and it's established early on in the film's runtime, which is supposed to help set-up the thinly-layered characters. When put into this sort of situation, what other option do a load of ratty teens with shallow personalities have other than to just bicker a lot amongst themselves (I can't even remember any of their names).
I can't not mention the fabulous Alfonso Ribeiro (still best-known for his role as the zany Carlton Banks), who's untimely demise in the film is an integral part of the horrific events that unfold later on as the steroid-induced queen tick makes her epic emergence (what a great death scene). Behind his stereotypical "tough guy" exterior, there's the slightest semblance of an actual character with some mild-depth who's genuinely a caring soul deep down but he's seemingly too afraid to show that there's a more softer side to himself. He's my favourite one out of the whole lot and deservedly so, as he's the only character who initially comes up with the idea of lighting the ticks on fire to kill them off for good (which by the way, I never knew was the most effective method of dealing with the ugly little monsters in real-life). I've been a long-time fan of Seth Green's trademark comedic style, especially in his Robot Chicken (2005-) sketch-show. Although his brand of humour may not be for everyone, he certainly gets my vote (he's that kind of funny guy who you'd like to hang out with because he just knows how to have a proper good time). Working through their differences together, these two characters slowly gain each other's mutual respect.
Ultimately, this film's saving grace is the realism factor of its old-school effects, which a lot of people will surely find to be utterly spine-chilling. These mutated aberrations of nature were brought to life via good old-fashioned practical-special-effects work and created as a result of utilising several different in-camera techniques, ranging from a decent number of elaborate animatronic props (especially with the supersized mamma tick posing a serious threat) and even some stop-motion models in a few scenes (mostly for the more common titchy ones). For a short while's time, you're suspension of disbelief starts to set in and you totally believe they look real enough to be convincing. Nothing today comes anywhere near as close to looking this authentically lifelike. It's easy to feel disenchanted nowadays as CGI honestly doesn't have the same impact on a person's eyes like this can, so your sensibilities aren't affected by it because your brain is telling you that it's just a meagre digital-graphic (it often seems as though I'm just going through the motions). Don't get me wrong, CGI has it's place in the world. But I personally don't think it looks the same, in my opinion (sorry to say this, but computer-generated horror simply isn't scary to me). Sure, CGI can efficiently produce masses and masses of them, but it only diminishes the tangibility of their appearance as it feels like they're not actually part of the scene itself and only composited in there during post-production (it leaves me feeling desensitised, most of the time).
With this being a horror movie, of course there'll be a body-count of innocent victims (it's only natural to the genre and comes with the territory). But it's often quite shocking when one of the casualties is a beloved household pet, like a dog for instance. To quote Joe Bob Briggs (and I maybe paraphrasing a little, here); "One of the main rules of horror films is that you can kill off as many people as you like, sure. But you should never kill a pet, because then people get upset". And it's true, as a gruesome ordeal such as this will more than likely turn most audiences off your film. It's usually very sad when either a domesticated animal or young child dies in a movie because half the time, they aren't truly aware of what's going on in the grand-scheme of the story's plot (not like how us humans are aware). Something like this will always bring about a great deal of compassion from the viewer, which is the reason behind why they sometimes decide to do it (I just wanted to briefly touch on this subject).
I'm surprised this film never spawned a bunch of lazy straight-to-video sequels, as is the unfortunate case with most other horror movies you see out there which inevitably get turned into an ongoing series. You'd think that a horror franchise centred around a swarming bombardment of fiendish blood-sucking nasties with sharp skin-piercing mandibles would've been ripe for the picking (only to have it be milked dry and run down into the ground). My consensus is that if you're brave enough to take a gander at this film and aren't too freaked out by creepy-crawlies (by which I mean you don't have entomophobia), I say check it out because it's worth a viewing.
Not That Bad
gwnightscream29 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This 1993 horror film features a group of troubled teens and 2 social workers that head to a wilderness retreat and soon become terrorized by mutated ticks that grow from Marijuana plants. This isn't that bad, except for the 2 idiot villains, but it's got some grotesque make-up effects, an eerie score and Seth Green (Austin Powers), Alfonso Ribeiro (Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), Peter Scolari (Bosom Buddies), Clint Howard (Evilspeak), his father, Rance (Cocoon) and the lovely, Ami Dolenz (Miracle Beach) are also featured. Give this one a try if you're into creature features or B movies.
Don't Tick me off
obe-one16 May 2000
I know this is a low budget horror film, but I liked it anyway. Not a lot of gore by today's standards, but the make-up and special effects were good. It was also enjoyable to look at Ami Dolenz, and to watch the bad guys get "ticked". Two thumbs up!
Yuk
frankfob26 May 2002
Not yuk for the ticks--yuk for the movie. It's just about as lousy as you would expect a movie about killer ticks to be. Pretty much everything in this picture is 12th-rate, except for two things: the photography (which looks very good) and Rosalind Allen (who looks even better). Allen is just so stunningly beautiful, and is a good enough actress, that you wonder why she keeps getting herself trapped in low-budget junk like this when she can do, and has done, much better. She has the class, attitude and bearing of a Grace Kelly, which makes this cheap movie look even cheaper. If you're a Rosalind Allen fan, check it out. If you're not, then there is no reason on earth why you should come anywhere near this movie.
Entertaining
tampaaries9 November 2021
I wasn't expecting much from this movie but it was surprisingly not as bad as I thought it would be, kept me entertained for sure but seeing the guy from Fresh Prince of Bel Air play a tough guy character was too much for me to handle lol.
This was like watching a 1950s horror/sci-fi film.
philwages16 November 2000
This was like watching a 1950s horror/sci-fi film. Not that I'm dogging the 1950s sci-fi classics, but this came out in 1993. So, it should have been a much better acted film (or should have been released by Troma). Don't watch unless you've seen every other horror/sci-fi film in existence!
Great effects! No need to think
loomis78-815-9890345 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Some marijuana growers in the California forest area are using steroids to enhance their plants. Unfortunately the effect has mutated the Ticks in the area to grow to about the size of a human hand. This happens at the same time that two social workers (Scolari & Allen) have brought a van full of troubled teens into the same area on a retreat that is supposed to help the kids with their problems. The group of kids is written as obnoxious or stupid so we could care less about what happens to them. Director Tony Randel seems to know this so he brings the ticks on early and the gooey bloody fun begins. Following a 1950's style monster movie plot, this movie has fun with the crawling creepy ticks doing maximum damage. Clint Howard as one of the pot growers makes the most of his limited screen time in a truly inspired and nasty demise. He gets his leg caught in a bear trap and the ticks burrow into his flesh which includes his face as he overacts and screams into the camera "I'm infested"! A truly fun scene that should put a smile on any horror film fans face. Randel keeps the action coming and the top notch gore by KNB will amaze and keeps any monster movie fan watching. The gory entertainment continues as you continue to ignore the bad characters being introduced and concentrating on what crazy thing the creepy little ticks are going to do next. The great mix of gore and entertaining fun doesn't necessarily make this frightening, but it does make it a great no-need-to-think action horror film that delivers. You may find yourself watching this one with your feet of the ground.
Seriously Flawed Horror Film
gavin694219 February 2012
Teens camping in a northern California retreat are terrorized by mutant insects created by evil, polluting pot farmers, what will throw them into a terrifying fight for their lives.
I feel like this movie should have been so much better than it was. First of all, the cast is pretty decent: Carlton Banks, Seth Green and Clint Howard? Not a bad mix to start with. Then you have Brian Yuzna (Re-Animator) as the executive producer. And add on KNB for the effects? That is a solid combination.
And to be fair, the acting was decent, the direction was pretty good and the effects were definitely excellent (the pods looked cool and the big transformation sequence was well-executed). I see the flaws coming in to the film from two directions:
One, it does not balance the humor and horror properly. It has a few moments that are almost funny, but not outright so. You either need to be straight horror, or the right balance of horror and humor -- and the balance was way off here. They took themselves too seriously for what they were working with.
Second, it seems that two stories were conflated in to one, and that made the plot convoluted. Mutant ticks are bad and homicidal farmers are bad... but did they both belong here? I think not. I understand the hormone on the plants made the ticks big... but we never needed to actually see the farmers. It turned what could have been a fun, simple film into a messy triangle.
From what I understand, this film is pretty hard to find on DVD outside of bootlegs. And I am okay with that. I have little interest in ever seeing it again.
I feel like this movie should have been so much better than it was. First of all, the cast is pretty decent: Carlton Banks, Seth Green and Clint Howard? Not a bad mix to start with. Then you have Brian Yuzna (Re-Animator) as the executive producer. And add on KNB for the effects? That is a solid combination.
And to be fair, the acting was decent, the direction was pretty good and the effects were definitely excellent (the pods looked cool and the big transformation sequence was well-executed). I see the flaws coming in to the film from two directions:
One, it does not balance the humor and horror properly. It has a few moments that are almost funny, but not outright so. You either need to be straight horror, or the right balance of horror and humor -- and the balance was way off here. They took themselves too seriously for what they were working with.
Second, it seems that two stories were conflated in to one, and that made the plot convoluted. Mutant ticks are bad and homicidal farmers are bad... but did they both belong here? I think not. I understand the hormone on the plants made the ticks big... but we never needed to actually see the farmers. It turned what could have been a fun, simple film into a messy triangle.
From what I understand, this film is pretty hard to find on DVD outside of bootlegs. And I am okay with that. I have little interest in ever seeing it again.
Fun early 90s creature feature.
b_kite13 December 2019
Another passable Horror Film
Bayjohn11 February 1999
One thing is for sure: Ron Howard must be ashamed of his brother after watching this film. Clint has a memorable role as a forrest bum that meets his demise from the Ticks.
Peter Scolari must have needed the money to make a car note or something. And yes, the kid from "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" is in this one as a supposed tough kid from the Bronx or something, but comes across as a throwback from the mid-eighties breakdancing films.
If you decide to watch this film, do it in the form of the "MST3K" guys and enjoy yourself!
Peter Scolari must have needed the money to make a car note or something. And yes, the kid from "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" is in this one as a supposed tough kid from the Bronx or something, but comes across as a throwback from the mid-eighties breakdancing films.
If you decide to watch this film, do it in the form of the "MST3K" guys and enjoy yourself!
Lean and mean
Phroggy14 May 1999
I don't really understand the criticism about this film ; maybe if it had a 50 millions $ budget, everybody would find it "cool"? Tony Randel did his best and the movie still boasts good production value despite the numerous troubles they had on the set. This one's mean, politically incorrect (no "back-to-the-nature" crap) and without the shoddy humour and cute one-liners everybody seems obliged to include in his horror just because Freddy said so (c.f. "Nightwatchers"). I saw it three times with friends who enjoyed it as much as I did. And I don't care if some of the actors ended up in some moronic TV fodder for brainwashed teenagers. Not a great movie (unlike Brian Yuzna's "Return of the living dead 3"), but strong, however.
86 minutes of good gross-'em-out fun.
Hey_Sweden27 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The "nature strikes back" sub genre was particularly big in the 1970s after the success of "Jaws", but it's proved to have real staying power ever since, as evidenced in this no-fooling- around, gleefully gory mutant killer insect flick. The title insects have increased in size and become more vicious than usual. This is all thanks to local marijuana growers who have used herbal steroids to speed up the growth of their crops; their system has developed a leak and contaminated the resident ticks. Now a group of troubled kids and their two chaperones have come to the woods for a getaway and will serve as a potential smorgasbord for the ravenous blood sucking beasts. You know you'll be in for a good time perusing the cast list of this one: Rosalind Allen, Ami Dolenz, Seth Green, Alfonso Ribeiro, Peter Scolari, Barry Lynch (younger brother of Richard Lynch), and Clint *and* Rance Howard. The assorted young ladies are all quite attractive to look at, and the performances are all pretty entertaining. As many others before me have noted, it's hard NOT to be amused by the prospect of Ribeiro, otherwise known as Carlton from TVs' 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air', unleashing his inner gangsta. Green is a likable enough young hero, Clint H. is an absolute hoot as always, and Lynch is, like his sibling, good at creating a suitably scuzzy villain. Director Tony Randel ("Hellbound: Hellraiser II") keeps everything moving at a good clip, and gets things off to a truly juicy start. The KNB makeup effects group create lots of wonderful visuals bound to get the audience going "Ewww..." on a regular basis. The highlight involves a sort of giving-birth type gag, and people are sure to love it. Things build nicely to a fairly exciting climax with the characters confined to a small rural location in the "Night of the Living Dead" tradition, and a forest fire raging out of control. All in all, this is very acceptable "turn your brain off and enjoy" gooey and grisly mayhem done with style and humour, and an unsurprisingly "it ain't over yet" kind of ending. Seven out of 10.
Poor Seth Green
CaptRon-211 April 1999
If it wasn't for Seth Green this movie wouldn't have been worth the space it took to advertise it in the paper. It was one of those USA Network Bad Days at the Movies and I can see why, only Critter's was worse than this movie. I will be willing to bet that Seth will not list this film on his resume.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
