User reviews

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.

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...

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.

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 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.

...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.

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.

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 scene–he'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.

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!!!!!

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!

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")

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!

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.

Ticks (1993) is a creature-feature horror film that, despite its B-movie charm and memorable moments, falls short of cult status. The plot revolves around a group of troubled teens attending a wilderness therapy retreat, only to encounter genetically mutated ticks that wreak havoc in the forest.

The storyline of Ticks is a mix of typical horror tropes and creature-feature elements. The concept is interesting and provides some thrills and laughs while also offering a few gruesome moments. The film's saving grace lies in its commitment to the genre.

The characters, portrayed by a cast including Peter Scolari, Seth Green and Ami Dolenz bring a certain level of charisma to the screen. However, the character development is limited, and some of the performances lean into stereotypical horror movie archetypes. The result is a cast that, while entertaining, struggles to elevate the film beyond its creature-feature roots.

Seth Green as our main man Tyler does a good job of moving the film along with a hint of romance even with Virginya Keehne's character Melissa.

The beautiful Ami Dolenz unfortunately doesn't have much to do in the film as her only purpose seems to be for eye candy for the viewer, which she unfortunately fails as, as well due to her character not being given any eye candy moments.

The practical effects used to bring the mutated ticks to life are a mix of grotesque and amusing. The film doesn't shy away from the gore, and the practical effects contribute to the B-movie aesthetic. Despite the dated nature of the effects, they add a certain nostalgic charm to the viewing experience.

Ticks' main strength lies in its ability to deliver some genuinely suspenseful and creepy moments. The tension builds effectively, and the film doesn't hold back when it comes to delivering on the horror elements. The practical effects, while dated, add a visceral quality to the creature scenes, making them memorable in their own right.

In the end, Ticks secures a 6/10 rating. It's a movie that knows its place within the horror genre, providing an entertaining but somewhat predictable experience. For fans of '90s creature features and B-movie horror, Ticks offers a nostalgic trip back to a time when practical effects and campy scares were the order of the day. I'd recommend giving it a watch for any one wanting some scares and laughs due to some little arachnids.

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!

Watching Alfonso Ribeiro try to act like a bad a** is extremely cringy at times. But, this is a down right fun little creature feature with some cool nasty practical effects.

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!

...but if MC Hammer sees that Carlton guy from Bel Air surely he wants his pants back.

150 characters force me to write more and more senseless stuff.

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 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.

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.