48
Metascore
10 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 75Slant MagazineEric HendersonSlant MagazineEric HendersonCritters 2: The Main Course offers a heaping helping of everything that’s missing from the first film: a reasonably intelligent and witty script, a supple and unchained playfulness, and an anarchic mélange of diverse genre riffs.
- 60Time OutTime OutGarris plays it for laughs, and despite dull moments (and the obvious plagiarisation of Gremlins), does a pretty good job.
- 50TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineAs sequels go, Critters 2: The Main Course is particularly bereft of imagination. Save for the opening 20 or 30 minutes, the film is pretty much a clone of the original.
- 50Los Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonLos Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonThough it's somewhat better than its predecessor, largely through sheer directorial and photographic panache, it's still pretty disreputable and mindless. [29 Apr 1988, p.4]
- 50Miami HeraldMiami HeraldThe original's mildly offbeat sense of humor is at work in 2, and the cheesy special effects return as well (the Krites look like nothing so much as deranged Muppets). Still, this is the kind of goofy B-movie that will look good on the small screen -- so watch for its release on tape. [07 May 1988, p.B5]
- 40The New York TimesCaryn JamesThe New York TimesCaryn JamesCritters 2 piles up every stock movie idea you can remember about small-town heroism, macho sheriffs and alien invaders. But whenever it shows a glimmer of wit about those cliches, it leaps back to its safe, dull, derivative style.
- 40Washington PostRichard HarringtonWashington PostRichard HarringtonCritters 2 is flat, lacking the kinetic energy, tight pacing and generally better acting of its predecessor.
- 25Chicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertChicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertIt lacks all of the style and sense of fun of the original Critters (1986) and has no reason for existence - aside, of course, from the fact that Critters is a brand name and this is the current model.