Monday, October 22, 2007

The Killer Shrews


(1959) **1/2

ROOK - ...'Sho is a lotta quiet out theyah... Almos' smell it, caint'cha?
CAPTAIN THORNE SHERMAN - No, but I can hear it.


The guy from The Dukes of Hazzard’s and Forrest Gump-Bubba-look-a-like, Rook are on route to a small island to drop off supplies and to seek shelter from a coming hurricane. Docking their boat they are greeted by roly-poly Dr. Craigis, his Swedish daughter, Anne, and angry-for-no-reason, Jerry. All are disappointed to learn that Dukes of Hazzard’s guy, Captain Thorne Sherman, will not be taking any passenger off the island given the impending storm. Furthermore they seem annoyed that he wishes to stay on the island for the night.

With little to do until the hurricane blows through, Captain Sherman goes with the gang to their island home while leaving the-red-shirt-guy, I mean, Rook to look after the boat (whatever “look after the boat” means). Captain Sherman eventually learns that there are dangerous animals roaming through the island woods, which is why the doctor was so eager to have his daughter leave the island on Captain Sherman’s boat. But that’s only half the story.

It turns out that a lot of research has been going on in this tropical paradise. At one point, for the benefit of Captain Sherman, but really for the benefit of us, one of the doctor’s colleagues comes in with a tiny shrew and explains that shrews have an incredibly high metabolism and must eat three-times their body weight daily to survive. Dr. Craigis is studying shrews because their brief breeding cycle along with their short lifespans makes them the ideal research subject. Dr. Craigis’ goal? Get ready for this one. Wait for it. Wait for it.

He wants to develop a way to breed human beings to be half their current size in order to take pressure off the Earth’s limited food supply? Huh? Wouldn’t it be easier to find a way to make food bigger? My head is spinning. Anyway, wouldn’t you know it, combining shrews with metabolism experiments proves to be a bad idea. In fact, he achieves the opposite of what he was going for. Rather than shrinking the shrews while lowering their metabolism, he makes them huge while increasing their metabolism (!) Where did he go to school, Suckith U? What’s this all mean? It means that the island is full of dogs-with-pieces-of-carpet-tied-to-them, er, I mean giant killer shrews!

Once all of the above is established, the rest of the film follows these bozos as they try to prevent the dogs-with-carpet-pieces from breaching the doctor’s adobe house (apparently it’s really easy to chew through clay walls). Later, after the “shrews” get the run of the place (and a few are munched), they must work their way back to the seashore to get to Captain Sherman’s (we’re told that shrew can’t swim, and they are perfectly happy to resort to cannibalism if no other food is available).

It’s sometimes difficult to rate these old b-movies. Obviously from a strict “horror” standpoint Attack of the Killer Shrews would receive zero stars. However it falls into the so-bad-it-s-good category. The extra half star is because this film is unintentionally hilarious. Like most b-movies at the time it ends abruptly, like this review.

12 comments:

DKC said...

I love the James Best montage!

AC said...

this is another MST3K movie.

Thanks for explaining the "so bad it's good" decision, as I was starting to question the horrorthon barometer for a sec!

Does the Horrorthon ratings scale tend to shift late October as the contest nears its completion (assuming lack of sleep and tolerance for crap do start to wear thin)?

JPX said...

I haven't found that the ratings shift. For me, a truly "bad" movie means that it's not remotely fun to get through. The example that always comes to mind from my Horrorthon experiences is Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, which to this day is one of the worst films I've ever seen (also see any movies from Troma Pictures). A lot of these b-movies are obviously "bad" but I find them charming and sweet in a naive kind of way. I love the film noir genre, but the majority of the films are ultimately silly in terms of language ("Then a dame walked into my life") and ridiculousness of plot, but I adore them.

Our Horrorthon rating scale is something we've always struggled with because it doesn't capture this distinction, and perhaps it should. For example, it is possible to have a five star movie like Alien but also a five star b-movie like, say, The Day the Earth Stood Still. The five stars in both cases mean very different things. The problem is that the "scale" system should probably include two separate scales to differentiate between quality movies and quality b-movies. Either that or perhaps we should be using a Likert-type scale?

AC said...

ack, attack of the killer tomatoes is on my roster! i was hoping it was so-bad-it's-good.

thanks for the clarification about the scale.

JPX said...

Abort, abort!!!

Whirlygirl said...

Great review!

"It means that the island is filled with dogs-with-pieces-of-carpet-tied-to-them."
Ha! That is such a true statement.

I agree with your **1/2 rating, I give it the same rating for the drunk and the fainting, useless girl. They are hysterical!

50PageMcGee said...

i try not to use the star system as a comparison of quality, but rather of merit. i give out the stars if i think the flick did its job well enough to earn them.

i also try to take into account how significant that job actually was. if the movie's only purpose is to make me want to vomit, it's only getting five stars if that vomit is copious and repetetive.

i gave TCM:B five stars. i also gave five stars to the shining. do i think tcm:b is on the same level of quality? no way. but as this is a horror blog, gore and misery become compelling features for the rating.

50PageMcGee said...

i do, however, notice i'm much stingier with stars the further back i go. even if the killer shrews were a sensational b-movie, it's still working with tools i'm not all that impressed by -- i can't help that i grew up when i grew up (i wasn't all that blown away by the original king kong either).

seventies movies do this to me as well. i look at the hair and the clothes and instantly don't want to cut any slack to anyone involved.

older movies have to do something so remarkable to get me to cough up the higher end stars.

i usually go for ***1/2 in this case -- according to thonscore, that means "great fun"

AC said...

interesting distinction i'mnotmarc.

jpx, i think i HAVE to see "attack of the killer tomatoes", if only to grant a no or 1 star rating this 'thon. it will also help me anchor my other low ratings more reliably (that's the scientist in me).

a Jordan review of "attack of the killer tomatoes" would be something to see....

JPX said...

I'd love to see Jordan review something bad!

50PageMcGee said...

it's been done:

http://horrorthon.blogspot.com/2006/10/bringers-of-wonder.html

AC said...

thanks i'mnotmarc. reading that review only made me want to see "bringers of wonder." plus jordan gave it 4 stars!

Malevolent

 2018  ***1/2 It's 1986 for some reason, and a team of paranormal investigators are making a big name for themselves all over Scotland. ...