Slither (2006) User Reviews

An homage to everything

[Newski_the_Hippie · 7/10 · 5 March 2006]

James Gunn wrote Slither as an homage to the horror movies he loved. Every single one of them. From the Deadly Swarm, to The Fly, to the Toxic Avenger, to Basket Case, to some films most people wouldn't know much about.

The film is about a loving husband (though noticeably not the best. His love for his wife is one of his better sides) who is stung by an alien insect. He starts mutating into a squid beast while slug like monsters Terrorize a small town where cell phones don't exist.

It's obvious from the previews that this is a bit of a comedy. You'll be surprised at just how suspenseful it really is. The horror ranges from cheap pop-outs, hilarious gore, and heart pounding action in a genre bending film that is like Tremors for adults.

The movie is well acted, and all the actors have such great chemistry together. While the movie isn't an excellent film, those looking for a good time have nothing to complain about. It keeps the audiences entertained like few other movies can.

They don't make 'em like this anymore. Oh wait, ... they DO!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 23 September 2006]

In case you're a loyal fan of horror movies, I'm pretty sure you've already heard (and probably even USED) the cliché saying in this comment's subject line. We sometimes get the impression that the only horror films Hollywood serves us nowadays are uninspired slashers and colorless remakes, all staring untalented bimbos and washed up hip hop stars that urgently need to boost up their careers by playing a film role. For all these reasons (and many more), James Gunn's "Slither" is an immensely joyful movie to observe, as it's a genuine homage to the cheesy, gooey and especially GORY old-school horror days! Gunn's fluently written script catapults us straight back to the 1980's, with its typical little town setting, witty redneck characters and – above all – make up effects that don't rely on advanced computer techniques. The story opens when an evil alien monster crash-lands his "eggshell" in the woods and literally invades the body of local town figure Grant Grant (Michael Rooker). Grant then impregnates a slutty townsgirl and she "gives birth" to thousands of eerie slugs that go on infecting the rest of the villagers. Grant's loving wife Starla teams up with the Sheriff, who's also her biggest admirer, to battle the slugs and prevent total elimination of the hunting town's population. Judging by James Gunn's age and background, he grew up during one of the golden eras of horror and this is clearly noticeable by the amount of tributes and references he put into his own film! Little aspects and gimmicky ideas from "Basket Case" over "The Blob" onto "Tremors" all feature in "Slither" and yet never at one point the film becomes overly hectic or stupid. It doesn't contain much tension or originality, but that largely gets compensated by the imaginative splatter. Grant gradually turns into a large-sized pile of slimy smut (similar to Brian Yuzna's "Society") that sucks innocent villagers into his stomach...or something like that. Other people get their head blown to pieces by a shotgun, or entirely eaten by the slugs and one poor sucker is even cut in half by Grant's tentacles. The dialogues are often hilarious, particularly the mayor is quite a character, and the cast members all seem very happy to be a part of this production.

This is more like it!

[bookembarnes · 7/10 · 17 May 2006]

Wow! What a fun and engaging movie. This film packs more punch and originality in its presentation that any comedy horror since "Dead Alive". If you are a horror fan like me YOU WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED. The acting is well-done and the comedy is blended perfectly. If you like body piercing alien tentacles, and slimy slugs crawling down your throat and controlling your brain, this movie's for you. Every scene is a homage to great cult classics and hits its target audience in the head with a 50 pound bag of fun dropped from the Empire State Building. Granted, I'm no film expert but I am an avid moviegoer and I give this one a very anti-ebert 2 thumbs up (16 tentacles and 100,000 slugs). The reason this movie isn't rated higher is simply it's not a great or a classic by any means. It is just a no-holds-barred good time, and sometimes thats the best time you can have in the confines of a movie theater with a fat red haired woman sitting next to you chomping her week-size tub of extra buttered popcorn and screaming every time she sees the firefly guy in danger. ....sigh....7/10

AFFECTIONATE HOMAGE TO LOW BUDGET B HORROR MOVIES.

[andrewchristianjr · 7/10 · 21 August 2021]

A horror comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously, and delivers scares and laughs in equal and effective measure, and serves as an affectionate homage to low budget B horror movies. Its over-the-top violence may be hard to watch, but its compelling performances, witty and clever script, stylish direction and stunning visual effects make for an entertaining and thrilling viewing experience.

Decent '80s comedy horror throwback

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 22 December 2016]

So I followed up my watching of DISTURBIA with another Hollywood production that's an instantly recognisable updating of many older themes movies. There's a bit of a difference, though, as the guys who made SLITHER are clearly fans of the cheesy monster movie sub-genre and their movie is an updating, not of a Hitchcock classic, but of a number of slimy '80s B-movies. Off the top of my head, I counted the likes of THE DEADLY SPAWN, NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, THE BLOB, and Troma as various influences here. SLITHER is a rare beast, a comedy-horror hybrid that's actually funny and scary. I always hate to see creepy worms in films and the ones found here are some of the creepiest.

In essence, the plot is the same as in NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, except on a larger scale: this time, a whole town is taken over, and we see it. There's plenty of reference to the zombie flicks of old, too. One thing you notice is that the special effects are great, for the most part; the big tentacled beast is a bit overly CGI, but the worms look fine. The bathroom set-piece is particularly well down. The action-focused template keeps the movie drumming along nicely and it only put a foot wrong once for me (the gross-out scene involving the bloated woman was just too much, I thought). Nathan Fillion makes for a fine everyman hero, and Banks and Saulnier give him solid female support. Particularly good in the supporting cast is Michael Rooker, playing a guy who transforms into a monster. Rooker is usually typecast as a serial killer or a cop but he's given different material to work with here, and he's fine.

Anyway, the story is simple and the situations tense. There's gore, with heads getting blown apart, and lots of grisly sequences with victims getting impregnated/taken over by the slithering worms. The climax is formulaic, but amiable enough, and as a whole I enjoyed this movie. It makes a difference when a film is made by fans for fans – as was the case with the superior NIGHT OF THE CREEPS.

slither will make zombie and scifi film fans more than happy.

[denigmatic · 7/10 · 30 October 2021]

Slither is like a party for a scifi and zombie genre fans, it's have the same vibe like The Faculty, the character is explained enough and the story is not so complicated, so don't watch this film too seriously just enjoy the weird, the thrill and, the comedy.

She packs a boxed lunch Slither

[jaredmobarak · 6/10 · 14 April 2007]

I think I might enjoy the comedy/horror genre more than the actual horror films they parody. James Gunn, (yes, the man who brought us what I can only imagine are fantastic scripts for Scooby Doo 1 & 2—not sure since I would never watch them), has broken into the mix with his film Slither. It appears he understands the appeal these films have and jam-packs it with gore, camp, and humor. The audience can never wonder if what transpires is unintentionally funny because they are too busy thinking about the parts that are unintentionally scary. A comedy, through and through, Gunn gathers a nice group of actors to play up the cheese yet still make us believe they are smack in the middle of the otherworldly situation they are in.

The basic premise here is that an alien life form—not Martians as they are from Mars of course—has come to Earth to make it its next world for consumption. Our villain inhabits a local and makes him go out to either infect, impregnate, or devour all other forms of meat, human or otherwise, along his journey. This host just happens to be involved in a somewhat loveless marriage with the resident good-looking teacher, who or course is the object of our hero's affection, the chief of police. Once the creature's first mate unleashes his spawn of collective-consciousness worms, the town comes under attack and only the chief, the host's wife, and the obnoxious mayor can save the day.

Amidst all the zombie-turning and the blood, acid spit, and limb jellying, we are treated with some great laughs and one-liners from people who truly know how to deliver the script deadpan for added effectiveness. The great Michael Rooker plays the host body to campy perfection. What role of his hasn't oozed tongue-in-cheek outbursts and over-the-top facial expressions? Gregg Henry takes the unpolished politician to new heights and everything he says gets a laugh as result. Even his introduction in the film, swearing in the midst of his constituents and their children, is a tired gimmick, but still effectively funny. As for our real heroes, we are treated to some good forbidden chemistry between Nathan Fillion and Elizabeth Banks. Fillion is king of sarcasm and always stays in a realistic mode unfazed by the horrors happening around him. Someone else could have allowed the film to become unhinged if they didn't take this role seriously; the comedy relies on this character not seeing the humor around him. With Banks, a favorite of mine who is underused in movies, I was not a big fan of the fake accent, but I guess it does fit the aesthetic of what is going on. And as the mayor says, she is hardcore—when she kills her first infected assailant, it's priceless.

Definitely more entertaining than expected, I can still understand the lack of love at the box office. The trailers showed that there would be some subversion to the horror with humor, but didn't quite go all the way with it. I'm sure people were confused in what to expect and those who wanted scares were disappointed as were those that wanted pure laughs. To me, Gunn masterfully mixes the two just right for an enjoyable ride in Hicksville, USA during an interstellar battle for supremacy. He gets all the little moments right, the grenade folly, the corny love scene music, and even the extras looking like they are from a backwoods/ incestuous town. The look was right and the delivery just as effective as I laughed pretty much straight through.

A Horror Movie Made By Horror Fans for Horror Fans

[w00f · 8/10 · 31 March 2006]

Today, I am a happy gorehound. I've just seen "Slither," and it was a truly good time! OK, let's face it... this one isn't going to win any awards for originality. The story here is "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" meets "Night of the Living Dead" with hints of "The Blob," David Cronenburg's "Shivers," and a more-than-passing special effects nod to Brian Yuzna's "Society." But it WORKS here.

James Gunn, a veteran of Troma Studios, has made a horror fan's horror flick. Laced with homages to everything from 1950's drive in cinema to R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" books (not to mention a clip from a Troma movie on a TV in one scene). Gunn clearly knows his audience, because he IS his audience. He delivers up a movie that might be formulaic, but its over-the-top gore, it's black humor (this is one horror show that never takes itself too seriously), and it's general gung-ho, pull-no-punches attitude turn what could have been yet another plodding bit of cinematic flotsam into what could well be an instant horror classic on par with "Re-Animator." If you know what I'm blathering about here, if the names and the titles of these films are familiar, then see "Slither." You're going to love it.

Better than I remember

[mjb301086 · 7/10 · 2 March 2022]

I remember watching this at the cinema when it came out and I didn't love it but on a second viewing I really enjoyed this. You can really see where James Gunn got a lot of his ideas for Peacemaker from. Solid 7/10.

Night of the Creeps - anything that made it good + cg= Slither

[MakoSucks · 1/10 · 11 April 2006]

So from the people that brought us the Dawn of the Dead remake, and the scooby doo movies, comes Slither! A gory, sick, and funny romp of fun and extreme scaryness! What a load of LIES! First of all, all the gore in this one is nothing but Computer generated nonsense. It wasn't sick, or anything, it was just...there. Everything was pretty tame, and fake. The "funny" bits were mainly adding curse words to the dialogue that half sounded like annoying audience heckling. Oh also everyone is a hick in this movie. The only funny parts were the shameless attempts at horror. a small shadow, the size of one of the slugs, passes by, that you could barley notice, and a jump in the music scares you. It was nothing more than a lame attempt at a Shawn of the dead type of comedy movie, with even lamer attempts of horror.

The only thing close to a redeeming factor for this crapfest, was a useless, small clip of the Toxic Avenger. The part where the nerd sticks the mop in the jacuzzi. LLoyd Kaufman also made a cameo as an extra. No dialogue at all. just him as a drunk. Wasted elements.

SLither was nothing more than another "remake" Like Dawn of the Dead 04, except it didn't keep the name of the original. Instead of wasting your time and money on this, go watch what this movie tried to rip off of, Night of the Creeps! Or a Troma movie. Thats all this movie made me feel like, was to go watch more troma movies. Those are funny, gory, extreme, and entertaining, all opposites of Slither.

As pure B-movie fun, Slither pulls no punches.

[urthstripe321 · 9/10 · 30 March 2006]

It is absolute fun, plain and simple. It gets in, does it scares and it's laughs, and gets out quick. As what it was meant to be, it was absolutely brilliant. It does its own thing, and it does it perfectly, and the result is pure entertainment, nothing more. So, if you like movies like Shaun of the Dead, Army of Darkness, Dead Alive, Gremlins, Tremors, or anything in that vein, you will like this movie.

Or if you just wanna see Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) again on the big screen and wistfully wipe a tear or two away, you can go see this movie too.

It's creepy, it's gleefully gross, it's HILARIOUS, and I don't think I wasted a single minute watching it. Great movie.

Spoilers follow ...

[parry_na · 6/10 · 23 December 2017]

This is a whole heap of grotesque fun, if you are in the mood for it. Comedy is virtually impossible to get right for everyone. And yet this fusion of body horror and overplayed humour is very enjoyable. I say 'overplayed' - that is not strictly accurate. Only the monstrous are encouraged to 'heighten' their performances - the townsfolk are allowed to play things fairly straight.

A small town is transformed into a zombie's paradise by an unspecified meteor landing. First to be affected is Grant (Michael Rooker), brutish husband of heroine Starla (Elizabeth Banks), who undergoes a gradual, hideous but deliberately ridiculous transformation into the hive-mind, whereby all future infected people share his mindset. Conveniently, this means that when (what has become of) Grant is destroyed, all the others are too. But there is a whole horror-show to get through before that even becomes a possibility.

The numerous visual effects and their designers do an incredible job creating a convincing society descent into bloody chaos. Director and Writer James Gunn indulges his story with a growing sense of perversity - with truly appalling tragic moments accompanied by cheesy love songs which ensure we are never invited to take things seriously.

What'd I miss?

[Evil-Dead-Girl · 3/10 · 10 April 2006]

I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.

Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.

There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn*

Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.

So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.

James Gunn Origins

[imxhill · 7/10 · 22 February 2022]

Since this is James Gunn's debut as a feature film director, you can find his signatuer styles in this one. (B-Movie Vibes, Gore and Comedy) It is rather 'gross' than 'scary'. Do not expect some deep themes or characters, since this is not citizen kane or something.

But fans of creature/ body horror genre would really dig this one.

There are similarities to Gunn's later works like The Suicide Squad (2021) and Peacemaker (2022). (Alien parasite that share connected minds controls people. )

Good slugfest

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 1 January 2014]

Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks) is a hot teacher in the small town of Wheelsy. Her husband Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) is a bit of a jerk. He's out in the woods with a young lady and finds an alien in a meteor that had fallen close to town. He gets stuck by the alien and he begins to change. Meanwhile childhood friend Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) has just been promoted to Chief of Police.

Everybody is playing a country bumpkin. The slugfest is more gross than scary. This is something of a goofy horror. There is good entertainment value in that. The dialog could be sharper and funnier. Writer/director James Gunn isn't the most accomplished. But this is still a playful little gross slimy time.

Very fun: It won't blow your mind, but you'll have some laughs

[korythacher · 6/10 · 8 October 2021]

Slither was a fun horror comedy with a great cast and good production quality.

It won't blow your mind, but you'll have some laughs. There are a lot of plot holes, but they don't keep this from being a good experience. Plenty of cheesy dialogue and gore effects.

If you like horror-comedies, this is worth the watch!

Wanted to like it but couldn't

[preppy-3 · 6/10 · 8 April 2006]

A comic homage to sci-fi films of the 1950s updated with extreme violence. A small Southern town of Wheeley is infested by some disgusting alien slugs. The main slug infects Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) to the confusion of his young, blond-haired beautiful wife (Elizabeth Banks) who is secretly loved by the towns sheriff (Nathan Fillion). Soon the slugs are infecting everybody and its up to the sheriff, Grant's wife and a plucky teenager (Tania Saulnier) to save the town.

Horror comedies are hard to pull off--they can become either too gross or too funny. Only a few have pulled this off--"Evil Dead II", "Re-Animator", "Night of the Creeps" and "Dead Alive". Unfortunately this isn't as good as those. The cast does play it straight (wisely) and it's well-made with some great (if disgusting) special effects. But the humor and horror never mesh comfortably. I DID laugh out loud a few times and was impressed by the gross out effects--but the movie was always wavering uncomfortably between the two. It never found even footing. It's not terrible and the cast is good--but I still wasn't entertained. LOTS of plot holes too. I can only give this a 6.

Damn entertaining...

[ecwaenigma · 8/10 · 6 March 2006]

First off, I'm a horror nut and no matter what anybody else says, this is NOT a rip-off of "Night of the Creeps" or "The Deadly Spawn". James Gunn himself said at a recent Fangoria Weekend of Horrors in Chicago that the only film that played a part in "Slither" was David Cronenberg's "They Came from Within" (AKA - "Shivers"). There's a blatant homage to it that fans of the Cronenberg film will spot right away, and that's cool. That what James Gunn is about. You forget, this is a guy from the house that Kaufman built - Troma. Nods and inside jokes abound in "Slither". It's a horror movie for real horror movie fans. Slimy, not gory. Funny, not insipid. "Slither" is the next logical step from the guy who wrote the remake of "Dawn of the Dead". It's a little more fun, a lot less serious, and features a great cast that makes this movie what it should be - hugely entertaining. Perfect, no. But it sure is fun and makes you look forward to what he'll do next.

Horror Has a New Face

[Lady_Targaryen · 6/10 · 1 April 2007]

Grant Grant, a wealthy man from a small town, married to the beautiful Starla, becomes infected by an alien and unknown plague,after walking in the forest one night. The alien thing, makes everyone who is it's host into kind of zombie disfigured creatures. And in Grant's case, his physical changes don't take much time to show. With time passing, Grant becomes more violent, disfigured and bizarre. The murderers and missed people starts to increase. How much time will take to people notice he changed?

''Slither'' is considered to be a ''horror-comedy '', but I found that is more of a B horror movie then anything else. The movie remembers in many aspects movies like ''The Blob'' ( where there is an alien) and ''The Fly', where both characters become disfigured and a non- human thing. It is not the type of movie who makes you scared, it's more to feel disgusted of how the main character becomes grotesque and repugnant. If you are a David Cronenberg fan, I guess you will enjoy the movie pretty much.

a mixed bag, and not a full one

[L_Lion · 3/10 · 7 April 2006]

Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.

A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.

When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.

*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.

My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.

The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.

Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.

Slither is your B-grade horror/comedy movie that has everything and is hilarious

[the-movie-guy · 8/10 · 31 March 2006]

(Synopsis) The movie opens with a meteorite landing in the backwoods of the small town of Wheelsy. The bad news is that our atmosphere did not burn up everything inside the meteorite. One of Wheelsy's rich business men, Grant Grant (Michael Rooker), who is married to the young and beautiful high school biology teacher, Starla (Elizabeth Banks), finds a slow moving slimy thing behind the town bar. The slug stops moving as Grant moves closer, he becomes infected by the slug. Grant begins to change and evolve into a bloodthirsty meat-eating squid creature with a need to kill to maintain his life. Sheriff Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) and Starla must defeat this creature or the entire earth will be consumed.

(My Comment) Slither is a 1950's type B-grade horror/comedy movie scenario that has everything. A billion-year-old alien parasite from outer space with penetrating tentacles that sucks the life out of you, fast moving slugs that want to get inside your mouth, dogs and cows being eaten by human and deer zombies, an enormous mother glob, and the small town being terrorized by a monster. This is your classic B-grade movie that is a lot of fun watching. You will laugh from beginning to end. For budget reasons, it looks like they used the old standby, tomato ketchup, for blood. There are some scary moments, but most of the scenes are hilarious. If you want an enjoyable night and a good laugh, this is the movie to see. (Universal Pictures, Run time 1:36, Rated R)(8/10)

mmmm...Gore, Nathan Fillion, Comedy, and the creep factor

[marymakk · 7/10 · 31 March 2006]

As someone who has seen their share of "B" movies, I can admit this has many of the keynotes of one. But its a "B" movie with a budget and flair. I loved the fact that I could watch it and be so thoroughly creeped out and gagging one minute and rolling with uncontrollable laughter the next. The acting was quite good,(Nathan Fillion is great) even if the dialogue was sometimes a bit gratuitous with oneliners and profanity(but thats what makes a "B" movie enjoyable, IMO). The effects were good, enough healthy gore to keep you retching and still enjoying it. I was jumping out of my skin and busting my sides laughing at the same time in some parts which was an interesting change. All in all, if you really like gore- its got it. If you have a penchant for "B" movies and black humor- its got it. And if you really just need a great reason to watch Captain Mal kick Mr Svennings arse its got that too. I personally loved it, but I'm weird that way.

Slither is terrible! Do not see it!!!

[paul-chmiel · 1/10 · 6 April 2006]

Like I said, Slither was an absolute horrible movie. Besides bad acting, it also had a simplistic plot, and the worst was that it didn't know if it wanted to be a comedy or a horror movie, it hopelessly failed in both categories. One thing that I have to say though is that it was incredibly disgusting. Anyone that sees the movie should be able to verify the afore mentioned comments. The only bright spot in the movie, was the mayor, a bad mouthed individual, who did manage to make me laugh a few times, just because he was ridiculous. Parents SHOULD NOT let their children go see this movie, unless of course they're interested in seeing a very bad movie.

if you like this kind of thing, a fast moving silly horror movie with a lot of gore than the film benefits from the cinematic experience.

[Pasafist · 6/10 · 12 April 2006]

I'm struck with the thought that with the proliferation of VCR's and DVD's the cinematic experience has been lost. We complain about people talking in the theater and peoples cell phones going off. But as I was sitting there in the theater watching SLITHER I dreamed of a time when cinema was about the audience, when people laughed at movies, screamed when things were scary, and I long for that time when going to the local theater was a collective experience, and not about total silence and good behavior.

James Gunn's SLITHER is a throwback film. A horror comedy that feels like it was written in 1985 from a screenplay that was written in 1954. One night in a small West Virginia town a meteor falls to ground and an alien life-form is released from it's core. That alien infests a local man, and then through some amazingly gory special effects creates small slug like creatures that infest the local population and turns them into zombies. It's now up to the local sheriff, his childhood sweetheart, a foul-mouthed mayor, and a teenage girl to stop this menace from taking over the rest of the world.

Trust me if you've seen NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, CRITTERS, or GHOULIES you've seen SLITHER. If you like that kind of thing then this is the movie for you. It's short, sweet, and too the point. You won't be gushing about how wonderful it is or anything, but as a diversion the movie works.

The film jumps when it needs to jump. The characters while not very developed are alive enough that you care about them, and while the film need more laughs, it still winks back at you with its tongue firmly in cheek. You leave the movie not very fulfilled but satisfied.

What would have helped the movie was some more humor, a ton more gore, and well just more. The first act just goes on and on, and the finale is really lackluster and breezes by an breakneck speed. I easily could have given this movie fifteen or twenty more minutes to build to something a lot more substantial. But alas it begins and ends without really paying off. What's there works, but with all the potential it had, the final showdown was so fast I felt a little cheated. For once I just wanted a little more.

But if you like this kind of thing, a fast moving silly horror movie with a lot of gore than the film benefits from the cinematic experience. An audience that likes silly horror comedy's and gets the in jokes will make it more fun. The experience is also enhanced by the jokers who throw popcorn, and the teenage girl who screams after every jump scene. Alas that experience is probably few and far between in the modern multiplex but it would certainly help those who go see SLITHER.

I would wait for the DVD

[commukitty · 6/10 · 1 April 2006]

I'm a huge fan of horror movies and was really psyched about seeing this one. I was expecting the typical zombie romp with lots of aliens, gore and silliness, but it just failed to deliver.

The first half of the movie was really slow. I believe in some character development and all, but that's not really what was happening. I stuck through it, though, and was a little hopeful when the alien leech things I saw in the preview started running around the town.

Unfortunately, that was about the climax of everything. Saving the day just wasn't as difficult as it should've been when they were up against an army of zombies with a hive-mind, and I was disappointed. I was happy with the fact that nearly the entire population of the town died... but why couldn't I watch? The humor made it watchable, and I admit that it might appeal to people who would be more interested in the story and less in the zombies. I didn't feel ripped off, but it certainly didn't live up to my expectations. It's worth a watch, but I would wait for the DVD.