The Crawlers (1990) Poster

(1990)

User Reviews

Review this title
40 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Run, don't crawl, away from the video The Crawlers
FieCrier23 October 2004
I don't know what to make of the title "Contamination .7" or "Troll 3." I saw this on video as "The Crawlers." There is nuclear contamination in the movie, but the figure ".7" and what it might mean was not mentioned (that I caught), and there are no trolls in the movie, but I haven't seen Troll or Troll 2, so I can't comment on what it might have in common with them.

The best thing about this was the cover of the video box. It has a pretty good illustration. Actually, the DeSoto was pretty nice too.

The movie starts dividing our attention between two young women on a bus. One gets stranded at a small gas station, while the other is returning to her small town home after having left it and her fiancé when she was in high school. For some time we keep cutting between the two of them, which is awkward.

Most of the acting was pretty poor, unfortunately. The Sheriff and his deputy, the nuclear plant's executives, goons, and whistleblower were are particularly bad. The threat in the movie is roots which have been contaminated by radioactive waste. They're now extremely long and carnivorous. What isn't clear is if they are just roots crawling around like worms, unconnected to anything, or if they are the roots of some tree or trees that are likewise mutated. We never see.

At one point, the townspeople show up to fight the roots. How that came to happen is not explained. Inexplicably, their solution is to find the barrels of nuclear waste that had been dumped in the forest and dig them up and put them in their trucks. They start to do this without any protective suits! Another solution is to bury the barrels under even more dirt, which doesn't make much sense either. Why the roots would stop attacking, or why they would die, when the barrels are carted away or further buried is entirely unclear.

The ending is particularly bad. It involves two horror clichés: the end that is not an end, and the freeze-frame.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
One for bad film lovers.
poolandrews9 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Contamination .7, or The Crawlers as I think it's more commonly known, is set in the small American town of Littleton where Josie (Mary Sellers) has just returned after several years away to reunite with her family there & her ex boyfriend Matt (Jason Saucier) as well. However Josie has picked a bad time to return home as the corrupt head of a nearby nuclear power plant has been stealing the money used to safely dispose of radioactive waste & dumping it in the local woods which has the unwanted side effect of producing mutated killer roots which have a taste for human flesh! Can the residents of Littleton save themselves from becoming tree food?

This Canadian production has Martin Newlin credited as director but that's just a pseudonym for Fabrizio Laurenti & the IMDb also claims Joe D'Amato had something to do with it but the version I saw only had one credited director, anyway this has a pretty bad reputation & I can't really say it's undeserved. The script by Laurenti, Albert Lawrence & Daniele Stroppa is an eco-horror with a message, basically pollution is bad. Now this sentiment is all very well & good but it would have helped if there was a decent film behind it & then there's the fact that Contamination .7 is far from the first film to tackle this issue. The character's & dialogue are poor, their decision making is hopeless & at times strange, some of the scenes here are just plain ridiculous & make no sense, it's too long at 100 odd minutes, it has next to no gore or exploitation & it's just very badly written & thought out right down to a none event of an ending. Having said that I actually found it watchable in a really bad kind of way, I don't know why but I was actually glued to it! Maybe just to see how bad it got I don't know but I've certainly seen worse & there was just something here that I liked, I mean I didn't like it much but as far as I'm concerned I saw something in it.

Director Laurenti doesn't impress here with plenty of continuity mistakes & probably the single most pathetic model bulldozer special effect ever, the model they use is obviously a kids toy & it looks terrible. Then there's the killer roots themselves who never really do much apart from wrap themselves around people & we never see what they are attached to either. There's no gore here except one scene when the corrupt Sheriff has a root enter his mouth & exit through his eye socket...

Technically this is alright, forget about the continuity mistakes, it's quite well made & beats hands down many low budget horror films that are made these days. The acting is poor by an obviously amateur cast some of whom appear to have been very badly dubbed in particular the Sheriff.

Contamination .7 is a terrible film for sure & I'm not saying otherwise but for some strange reason I sort of liked it for what it is, don't get me wrong as 99.9% of the film going public will hate it with a passion but I guess I'm in that 00.1% minority & proud of it although I'm not quite sure what that says about me.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Nobody worth "rooting" for here.
Hey_Sweden5 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This fatally silly B horror picture is much more of a time waster than even a time killer. Sometimes its glaring incompetence does generate some genuine chuckles, but for the most part this is one movie that even die hard fans of the genre can safely pass by. The acting is terrible even for this sort of thing, the script is pretty blah, the dialogue is lame, and there's a serious lack of thrills from start to finish. The special effects are no more than adequate, although there is *some* good makeup here and there. In the directors' chairs are notorious Joe D'Amato (using his David Hills pseudonym) and Fabrizio Laurenti (here billed as Martin Newlin); the prospective viewer is really better off visiting, or revisiting, D'Amatos' "Buio Omega" instead.

Sexy young Josie (Mary Sellers) returns to her rural home town after some time in the big city, in time to get caught up in strange events. It seems that the trees in the nearby forest are contaminated with radioactivity (because, of course, there's a nuclear power plant in the vicinity) and now they've become predatory, with roots that lash out and snare a number of hapless victims. Josie is among the insipid heroes also including her would-be boyfriend, Matt (Jason Saucier), investigative reporter Brian (Patrick Collins), who's the grandson of one of the locals, and drunken scientist Taylor (Bubba Reeves), who realizes early on that there's a danger.

Overall, an uninteresting and barely entertaining feature that features what has to be one of the worst acting performances that this viewer has ever seen, by Vince O'Neil as the sheriff. He makes some of his co-stars seem like Olivier by comparison. All of this leads to a very, very absurd finale where the townsfolk band together to do something, although one has to wonder *what* they hope to accomplish. It makes no sense whatsoever. You add to this the extremely overused "It ain't over yet!" final moment and the end result is an inane mess that *should* fade into obscurity.

Four out of 10.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
NO TROLLS ANYWHERE!
Cristian-326 October 2000
So this is the infamous Troll 3. Would you look at that? Nothing's happening! No trolls anywhere to be seen here! That's only one reason why this film SUCKS!

It's not one you can watch alone because part of the fun would come from joking about it with someone else. Watching by yourself is just torture! TOR-CHAR!

Maybe this movie should have been called "The Living Dead who Refuse to Rot" because the majority of the "actors" talk like zombies! Like the Sheriff character. Oh my goodness! Here's probably one of the worst actors to ever be in a non-porn movie. And I thought the mother in Troll 2 was bad! But he's not the only one! The boss in the power plant and just about everyone here is terrible!

Worst line delivery: "Ok, doctor we'll just evacuate the entire country before you can say Jack Robinson". Actually anything said by the sheriff makes you want to kill him. He's amazing in the sense that every single line he says sounds exactly the same!

There are no little creatures here, no trolls, no goblins, no nothing. Whoever renamed this movie to "The Crawlers" and removed the "Troll 3" name shows me there is hope for the world after all. Because this movie HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TROLLS!

They must've saved a lot of money by using killer roots instead of creatures.

Who finances this kind of c**p and why? I can only think that the targeted audience is that of non-english speaking countries where the people are used to dubbing.

I bought this (for $3.75) expecting at least the fun I had with Troll 2 because in spite of that movie's long list of shortcomings it had some very funny elements. None of those elements are present in Troll 3. There is however a hysterical scene where the killer roots kill a man in a suit who's chasing the "hero" with a gun. The guy takes forever and a day to die and he screams pathetically through it all.

Troll 2 had a little boy and a monster on the video cover, neither of which were in the movie. Troll 3 has a sexy girl on the "Crawlers" cover who, you've guessed it, is nowhere to be seen in the movie.

Troll 3 just plain sucks.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
May God have mercy on your soul
ParaGraph11 June 1999
The movie that end all bad movies - I could do better with a videocamera and no script. . I've seen a couple of bad films in my life, but I never have seen a movie as bad as this one before. This movie is a HUGE mistake, After I watched The Crawlers, I got sick for the entire week in bed because of it. But you have to rent this movie, trust me folks...the worst effects, and down right horrible acting...but that's what's good about it! I couldnt stop laughing for days. All in all, the best worst movie of all time. Rent and watch it with friends for good laughs.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Count the blessings
Ripe Peach4 March 2001
I'm prompted to write this review because my cable company is promoting this... feature film... as a PAY PER VIEW. I kid you not.

Let me open by saying that it's not the worst film I've even seen. That honour goes to US Seals. It's not even the worst horror; there's a dubbed Swedish monstrosity involving terrified cats being thrown at bored actors that just (JUST) edges out Crawlers.

Let's count our blessings though. The production company that "funded" this movie is an Italian outfit that thankfully hasn't managed to branch out beyond the likes of "Troll 2" and "Quest For The Mighty Sword (aka Ator III: The Hobgoblin)". And both of the writers had never written anything before - and haven't written anything since. Let's be thankful for that.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
With this many names, it's got to be good right?
Java_Joe10 December 2018
Let's face it, the only reason anybody knows about this movie is that it was st one point known as "Troll III" in an attempt to cash in on the infamous "Troll II". Problem was like Troll II it had nothing to do with the original movie or had anything to do with trolls, goblins or a town called Nilbog.

No instead here we're dealing with radioactive trees that were created using toxic waste. And yes, that is as stupid as it sounds. It's not even an enjoyably bad movie. It's dull, boring and totally not worth your time. I actually got this on one of those multiple DVD sets where they put 4 movies onto the same disc, or two discs in this case, and because you want to see one of them you wind up seeing all four just to see how bad they are. And trust me. They're bad.

So yeah there is no reason to see this movie even out of morbid fascination. It's just not worth it.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
the real scoop on this loser
HEFILM9 January 2016
The movie is bad on its own, regardless of it being passed off as a sequel to other bad Troll movies. It has an odd feel because though it looks to be actually shot in pretty good United States Locations it is directed by an Italian or Italians and so the way English is spoken sounds foreign and the actors are, sorry to say, really bad. Unlike many of these Italian productions they didn't spend or didn't have money to drag any American name actors into the movie leaving us with what seems like a totally amateur cast.

This can be seen now under its original title and in HD on cable and that may be a hate crime against those who watch it but at least it's not pretended to be something it's not.

The "monster" in the movie is a bunch of not very convincing tree roots that actor struggle to pretend to fight with--usually to pretty unconvincing results. It tries a sort of Psycho plot set up which has a lousy and bloodless pay off. The gal in this segment is sort of appealing and very attractive in somewhat skimpy clothing--but don't expect any nudity from her. Most of the deaths are bloodless=cheaply done. Also the movie has no nudity and no style and not much sense.

There is some decent helicopter footage of actual wilderness and towards the end some nice bulldozers at night "attacking" the monster roots--though this sequence also features a funny Tonka Toy miniature that ruins that scene. Also the movie features a toy helicopter explosion.

A poorly made film that is barely pro level production, the acting and casting is really bad and so there is nothing to keep you going between badly done very stiff tentacle tree root attack scenes that come pretty few and far between.

I kind of enjoyed the freeze frame ending. Easily one of the most poorly made films of its era. Has some high=low lights but is for the most part a slow ride of filler material of family drama etc.

Music score is cheesy and dated and would have sounded just as cheesy and dated when the movie was new. There is one memorable scene between angry town people and evil corporate exec that almost makes this a must see for bad movie fans. The only person who should not feel bad about being involved in this movie is whoever was the location scout.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You think that smoking is bad for your health? Watch this...
tmccull5215 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie wasn't just bad, it was stupefyingly, mind-numbingly bad. If I were in any way connected to the production this film... in ANY way.. I would sue to have my name removed from the credits, then legally change my name, renounce my United States citizenship, apply for gender reassignment surgery and then move to the most remote corner of the planet, just to avoid being associated with it.

How might I put this in comparative terms, film to film? This movie makes "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" seem like "The Avengers" by comparison.

The acting was beyond atrocious... worse than 1970s era porn. The scene where the two would-be corporate hit men get killed was genuinely, laugh-out-loud ridiculous. This movie is like a snowball of stupidity rolling steadily down the side of Mt. Everest. I had to keep watching just to see if it could get any worse as it went along. On that count, it did not disappoint.

I do have to tip my hat to the actor playing the corrupt sheriff in the film. His may have been THE worst performance that I have ever seen in any film. You may very well wish to gouge your eyes out with a dull, rusty spoon and lobotomize yourself with a barbecue skewer after watching this bomb.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I thought I had seen bad before
Melaugh22 February 1999
The pain felt while watching this movie is almost life changing. From the acting, writing direction, and god awful special effects, this movie failed on every conceivable level. Now, this doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it, of course. After all, it's rare to find a film that can serve as fodder for so many jokes.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I'd give it .7 stars
videomachine20009 February 2020
I saw the US version called Contamination .7 and .7 is all the stars it deserves. Unless you can give it a negative rating. This film is proof that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is full of good intentions that go hellishly off point.

It disappoints in every way you can imagine, and in some ways that are actually novel. I especially liked the undramatic chase scenes with recycled shots to milk the drama that didn't happen.

The only way the acting could be worse would be if the actors were holding the scripts in hand in the scenes.

If you are really bored... or really like the pain of watching awful films, then this is your movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
unremarkable, but i enjoyed it
davidmalaimo17 March 2020
Okay maybe an 8 is pushing it. 8 is a movie i'd really recommend and i don't think i'd recommend this movie to anyone. but i actually really enjoyed this fairly unremarkable movie, and so thought i'd give it an 8 to sort of counteract the scathing reviews by everyone else.

so, yes this movie is slow, it does get pretty boring. but i really enjoyed the setting. i enjoyed the look of it. it sort of took place in a twin peaks type area that lacked any of the artistry and was just very plain looking. i kind of enjoyed that about it. it had a little bit of a slice of life kinda feel to it. the acting was horrible but interesting to watch. this isn't a so bad it's good movie. it's just a bad movie that you might like if you enjoy really low budget movies that don't really try to be anything, but kind of just breath their own way and remain humble throughout.

the only reason i watched it is because it was on a 4 dvd set along w/ The Dungeonmaster, Cellar Dweller, and Catacombs. i saw the first two and wanted to watch catacombs but figured i'd peep this first just so i could have seen everything on this collection. the ONLY reason i would ever recommend this movie is if you already have it and are well acquainted with the worst of the worst movie. still, i've seen much worse.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Like the man said, bad things usually come in Trees, dude!
Weirdling_Wolf30 July 2023
Not quite operating at the same giddy level of psychotronic insanity as 'Troll 2', this pleasingly pulpy, schlock-tastic Filmirage creature feature cheapie remains good for a few beery laffs. Local gal, Josie (Mary Sellers) arrives in her home town from a sojourn in the city, hopeful of rekindling an old flame, finds herself in the maniacal midst of an escalating eco disaster! Due to nuclear waste from a nearby power plant being illegally dumped in the forest, ravenous radioactive crawlers are carnivorously chowing down on the rapidly diminishing local population! Lumbered with wooden performances, spit n' sawdust effects, and a script better suited for compost, as an an out-an-out horror, 'The Crawlers' is pretty weedy, but I still had a pretty good vine! 'Highlights' include another competent score from, Carlo Maria Cordia, and the astonishingly wretched acting by, Vince O'Neil as the Sheriff is amusingly exaggerated by the rather more naturalistic performance from Chester The Dog, and the young lovers 'romantic' waterfall tryst was, like, pretty real.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Roooooots! Bloody Roooooots!
capkronos11 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Big city girl Josie (Mary Sellers) has just arrived back in her small Alaskan hometown for an extended stay with her mother and kid brother, and decides to possibly reconcile with her former high school boyfriend Matt (Jason Saucier) while she's there. Down at the nearby nuclear power plant, illegal chemical dumping (part of an obligatory and half-assed cover-up subplot) has resulted in animated, super-intelligent, radioactive tree roots that are killing everyone off. Victims include an obnoxious sheriff, a female hitchhiker passing through town, a farmer and his wife, a hooker with a heart of gold and a gas station attendant and his pet dog Chester. The roots mostly just trip or strangle people and make a hilarious whip-cracking noise whenever they attack. They also make a (toy) helicopter explode by pulling it about two feet to the ground. During the film's one and only bloody scene, the roots go into a guy's mouth and then poke the eyeball out of a mannequin head. And that's about all she wrote with this dull-as-dishwater waste of time, which would be totally forgotten by now if not for a misleading title change linking it to the notoriously awful camp classic TROLL 2. So be forewarned, no trolls make an appearance in CONTAMINATION.7 (aka TROLL 3). Hell, there aren't even any goblins.

And unfortunately, while TROLL 2 failed in an enjoyable awful way, this one fails to reach that film's same level of redeeming unintentional hilarity. Though thoroughly inept, it's also boring, clichéd, slow-moving and far too tame to really be enjoyable. The fact they used inexperienced local "talent" to fill out the cast, along with providing these laughably bad amateur thesps with truly rotten dialogue throughout the film, is the only point of possible enjoyment, though even that got old quickly.

Probably best known as THE CRAWLERS here in the States, though the version I viewed was titled CREEPERS. Don't know if that's a cut version of this film or not, but I highly doubt it. I'm also not sure of Joe D'Amato's actual involvement since his name (or "David Hills" for that matter) is nowhere to be found in the credits. Only one director is listed and that's "Martin Newlin;" the same alias used by Fabrizio Laurenti for the Linda Blair/David Hasselhoff film WITCHERY (1988).
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I root for this trashy monster movie.
EyeAskance1 August 2003
The future of bad movies seemed grim and uncertain during the mass-destruction of the American drive-ins...but with dreck like THE CRAWLERS continuing to pop up, there may be hope for the future of schlock after all.

About the film...it involves a small town being threatened by creeping carnivorous tree roots(rubber garden hoses, in all honesty). Take this hopeless premise to further lows by putting it in unsteady hands of monolithic movie-making incompetence. Now, provide a cast of featureless thesps, and give the dire results of these efforts a misleading re-title which implies that it's a follow-up to something which in no possible way could have generated enough enthusiasm to merit such an endeavor. PRESTO! there you have it. Instant bad-movie gold.

I own a copy, and you should, too. 3.5/10
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film wraps around your neck and chokes the very life out of you
Aaron137515 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard this film was awful, but I did not take heed of this warning. Instead, I thought, it might be a 'it's so bad it's good' movie. I had also heard that this film was also packaged as "Troll 3", which had me perplexed as I knew the film was about killer trees so how could they tie this film to that one...well I found out! The acting is on par with that scene in "Troll 2" where the guy goes, "There eating her, and then they are going to eat me...oh my god!" Except, the horrific acting is all through this film, there are no good effects aside from one okay kill and most insane is that there is no nudity! I mean, these girls are nobodies, how can a movie maker not get a bunch of nobody actresses to get naked? Not that I wanted to see the mousy lead girl, but the girl they tease as the star was attractive and the hooker had nice cleavage. This film was made by MGM, the same company that brought us the superbly entertaining "Return of the Living Dead" which featured actors of note and they got Linnea Quigley to not only go topless, but full nude and she is an incredible actress compared to the idiots in this film! So you get nothing! Most of the kills are off screen, the sex is off screen and what we get on screen are a bunch of people you will want dead by the film's end. I will be honest, I was pulling for the roots to kill the entire town, and especially that annoying kid! All they did was tease though...

The story has a couple of girls coming to a small town. At first, they make it out that this one girl who was rather attractive was going to be the lead one, but that was just a tease. No, our main girl is this mousy looking girl coming home is the lead one. It's a shame, because not only was the other girl more attractive, but she was probably the best actress in the film...of course, that is not saying much at all. Well seems a guy at the local power plant has been detecting radiation outside the plant and there is something shady going on. People start turning up dead as there is one off screen kill after another. Finally, we learn that the plant is illegally dumping waste into the woods which causes the roots, not the trees mind you, to come alive and kill people and if you think there is a scene that is as hot as the DVD cover of this film, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.

This film was just bad on so many levels. I do not see how MST3K missed this one, except perhaps it is because it was made by a major distributor in MGM and was fairly new (1993). Granted, I thought the film was from the 80's as I cannot believe this one was made the same year as Jurassic Park, heck, I cannot believe it was made the same year as Super Mario Brothers! The effects of the roots were ripped straight from Evil Dead and at times it looked somewhat okay, but even when it looks good it gets totally undone by the bad acting going on. I also love the scene where they describe the girl from the beginning who got killed and people say she was blond when she was clearly a brunette.

So bad, bad and bad. I did not enjoy it as it gave me nothing. Had they given me some more gore and nudity it would have been more watchable with a shortening of the run time as well. As is, it seemed to take forever to get to the kills and then you think it is going to wrap up and the whole town comes in and they start preparing for their counter attack on the roots. How MGM, who made good horror films, came out with this crap I will never know. I have seen adult movies with better acting and effects than this, I have seen straight to DVD horror films shot with a video camera that are better than this! Heck, this is a film that Manos is better than! Not a good film, fails miserably on almost every front.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So this is the infamous Troll 3.
Crow101330 December 1999
Yes you heared right. This is the third and (God help us) final entry into the Troll trilogy. But before I drone on about this film, let's review. Troll: A little girl is possessed by a troll and turns everyone in her apartment into foiliage. Troll 2: A little boy is pursued by GOBLINS! Not trolls. Troll 3 a.k.a. The Crawlers: A small town in Alaska (?!) is being wiped out by killer weeds. Do you notice something? No film has anything to do with the one that preceeded it. In most cases THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TROLLS! Now on to The Crawlers. It's cheap, it's boring, it's stupid, it's fake, it's out of print (thank God), it's got to go. I have to move on now, I'm far too upset.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Trash
williamroggenkamp20 July 2020
If you rate this movie higher than a 1 you are a worse villain than the damn roots in this trash movie.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hilariously Bad, wonderful treat for bad film collectors
jmike15 August 2020
If you enjoy serious, but so bad they are funny films, you need to watch this Italian masterpiece. I don't know if I should give this 1 star for being awful or 10 starts for being genius. I had this forever on VHS (under the tile The Crawlers) but just purchased the stunning new Shoutfactory-MGM Bluray (under the another of the film's titles, Contamination .7). The Blu Ray looks and sounds incredible and really shows off the fact the cinematographor did a great job of making this piece of garbage look pretty. The plot involves a "nuclear" power plant that dumps their "waste" (conveniently packaged in bright yellow 55 gallon steel drums that one person can lift by themselves) into a nearby stream and that somehow creates killer tree roots that look like rubber hoses that make loud whip crack noises as they strange people (and at least one dog). But the "nuclear" plant is obviously a coal fired power plant with long ramps and conveyor belts to load the coal to be burned and has a large smoke stack feautured prominently in the background. A plant worker/scientist/alcoholic, Dr. Taylor, discovers the radiation poisoning in the forest and then leaves a detailed map with the sex worker (after a visit) and she then passes it on to someone who gives it to a "big city" reporter who happens to be visiting after his grandfather was killed by the tree roots. The scientist later emerges and flies around in a helicopter and finds the radiation spill site. Being an expert on radiation, he immediately demands the helicopter land right in the middle of the spill so he can touch the radtioactive waste up close wearing no protective gear of any kind. Of course the tree roots soon kill him and then make the helicopter explode when the pilot tries to leave. In response, the whole town, complete with all their youg children and the local sex worker, none with protective gear, immediately drive directly into the middle of the radiation spill so their kids can soak up a nice high dose. The neighbors seem to have a plan. Some of them easily pick up the barrels of "nuclear waste" and load them in their pickup trucks, presumably to take home and use as fertilizer. Others, decide to sort of throw some dirt and tree limbs over the leaking barrels as that will surely stop the waste from leaking into the ground and creating more killer tree roots. The roots then start to attack but the "big city" reporter shows back up with people in bull dozers to push and break open the waste barrels (which will obviously stop the spill). A laugh riot as everyone in the film is completely serious. The ending sets us up for a sequel that apparenly never happened. At one time the film was released as Troll 3!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The root of all awful
Woodyanders4 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Radioactive waste from a nearby nuclear power plant that's been illegally dumped in the woods causes the trees in said forest to mutate into lethal man-eating plants. Sounds like a good deal of incredibly silly and kitschy fun, right? Well, it sure ain't remotely amusing or entertaining, thanks to flat (non)direction, a painfully plodding pace, terrible acting from a lame no-name cast, a meandering narrative, cruddy (far from) special effects (the killer tree roots look like dirt-caked garden hoses!), precious little in the way of graphic gore, zero tension or creepy atmosphere, insipid characters, laughable attack scenes, plain cinematography, a drab and uneventful script, and a generic brooding hum'n'shiver synthesizer score. Worst of all, this excruciatingly tedious clinker proves to be way too limp and lifeless to even qualify as enjoyable in a so wretched it's weirdly wondrous sort of way. Only the positively ludicrous solution that the imperiled townspeople come up with for fighting back against the trees manages to achieve a certain jaw-dropping campy hilarity. That aide, this one overall sizes up as one pitifully dull'n'dismal yawner.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Roots of Evil. Trees of Death.
Vomitron_G27 May 2011
"Creepers" AKA "The Crawlers" AKA "Contamination.7" wasn't even half as bad as I expected it to be. Practically all the aspects (from story, over effects, to acting), which I thought would be abominable, turned out a lot better. Lots of likable characters in a small town, almost places this movie along the lines of a movie like "Critters" (1986), though by far not of the same quality level, naturally. It's just a bit of shameless B-horror movie fun, but it's too bad that there's only one memorable killing in it, really (the root of a tree going in one's mouth and coming out of his eye socket, good stuff!). If it would have had a couple more, I wouldn't even have flunked it. Inexplicably, this film was also released onto the video market under the "Troll 3" title. The only explanation I can find for this, is that "Creepers" was also made by Italians. They did the same with the humongously bad "Troll 2" (1990), which had nothing to do with John Carl Buechler's original "Troll" (1986). Safe to say that "Creepers" aka "Contamination.7" is a better film than "Troll 2". But that's not saying much, of course.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Its not TROLL 2 Bad...
phoenixyk19 January 2017
Well, I would not go out of my way for this one...

Its a nice idea, but DAMN its so cheesy!!!

I really do not know what more to say - Its a typical Exploitation Movie in many ways... Seriously Low Budget, Very Poor Acting, all around its fun!

I saw someone review say that it was being offered as a PAY PER VIEW? Dear God NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

If you see it on The Horror Channel or something, take a chance... Its harmless fun!

Is there anything good I can say about the film? Yes... A Very predictable but good twist ending!

Just like Troll 2, You would not be missing out in this Sequel - If you can even call it that... It has nothing to do with its predecessors ... Not even under its many other names!

But if you want Cheese... Worth a shot!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the minds that brought you Troll 2
Fanon7 June 1999
They say lightening doesn't strike twice but check out Crawlers. This film is produced by the people who brought you that masterpiece known as Troll 2. Honestly this film doesn't match the pure genius of Troll 2 but it sure comes close. First, check out the Alaskan setting. Everyone knows that Alaska is beautiful and scenic but who knew it was so freaking hot! That Alaskan summer will kill you. At least five characters complain about the ungodly Alaskan heat. Second, the boss at the nuclear power plant might be the greatest actor I've ever seen on film. His tone of voice never changes. Its an amazing feat of line reading and I do mean line reading. This man deserved an award for this performance. No one can be that horrible. I believe its a commentary on the robotic nature of our everyday lives. This man deserves our respect. Third, look out for those flying roots. Tremendous special effects work permeates this film. Check out that helicopter crash. Was that a fisher price model? I do believe it was. And how about the tonka truck bulldozer. I guess they only had enough money to rent the real deal for a very brief time. All in all this film isn't quite as good as Troll 2 but it come pretty close. Watch and learn about the true art of filmmaking.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Boring, but with some good scenes.
MonsterVision9919 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This has to be my least favorite entry in the Troll saga, it was directed by Joe D'Amato, a director that I like, really, some of his movies I didn't care for, but I love some of his movies, this is one of his weaker films, it wasn't directed by him entirely, it was also directed by Fabrizio Laurenti, the film itself is very boring, the plot is interesting, but some of the films time is dedicated to this uninteresting love story that goes nowhere, the only parts that I consider to be interesting, where the scenes when a scientist was trying to expose a company for contaminating the forest, some of the gore scenes were pretty OK, even if they were bad, they are at least entertaining, if you are aware that you might be bored maybe you'll get some enjoyment out of the most interesting parts.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed