Critics’ reviews

Tremors (1990)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 76: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Tremors

76
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics welcome Tremors as a funny, brisk creature feature that revives the pleasures of 1950s monster films without overcomplicating them. Praise centres on Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward’s easy rapport, the eccentric townsfolk and the ingenuity of the action. The creature design also earns approval: the giant worms give the characters a formidable problem to solve, while the humour keeps the ensemble engaging between attacks.

The balance between comedy and horror divides the reviews more sharply than that broad approval suggests. Variety finds the film caught between laughs and scares, while The New York Times objects to its persistent winking and finds the effects silly. These reservations contrast with the majority’s praise for its unforced humour and suspense. Den of Geek offers a milder caveat, enjoying the creatures and characters but finding that the third act drags. The spread is wide, though firmly weighted towards enthusiasm.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · John Ferguson
100

The review highlights the resurrection of B-movie spirit, with strong performances from Bacon and Ward, brisk direction, and entertaining cameos, resulting in a sharp and funny monster movie.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
19 January 1990 · Michael Wilmington
85*

Tremors is a cheerful, zippy monster movie that revives 1950s creature-feature spirit with clever comic-Western touches and inventive giant worms that are fast, cunning, and repulsive. The cast and small-town ensemble are well-served by the director, making it engaging kitsch for audiences who enjoy the genre's innocence.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · TCh
85*

The critic commends the ingenious situations, skillful direction, low-key rapport between leads, and authentic B-movie dialogue, calling it what a monster movie is supposed to be like.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2015 · Kim Newman
80*

The film is a clever, unfussy pastiche of 1950s monster movies that remains entertaining and unself-conscious enough to stand the test of time. The monsters are cleverly designed and utilised creations which make formidable villains, with threads of humour making the whole feel rather endearing.

Read the full review →
Little White Lies
4 July 2022 · Anton Bitel
80*

The critic praises the film's balance of comedy and horror, and its strong focus on characterization and eccentric interactions among the townsfolk.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1989 · Variety Staff
55*

Tremors is an affectionate send-up of 1950s schlock monster pictures with better effects and some clever twists, but it ultimately cannot decide whether to be flat-out funny or a genuine scarefest. The pacing improves as it goes, maintaining a tongue-in-cheek tone amid the escalating threats.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
19 January 1990 · Vincent Canby
40*

The film is a jokey attempt to revive post-WWII B-pictures about giant creatures but spends too much time winking at the audience and never fully commits to its premise. The special effects are silly, and the reviewer recommends renting 'Alligator' instead for superior wit and humor.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
3 July 2012 · Jennie Kermode
85*

The critic praises Ron Underwood's 1990 horror-comedy as a successful creature feature that balances scares, wit and warmth with a strong ensemble cast and well-judged script. She singles out the chemistry between Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward, along with the inventive pacing of the action sequences, as key strengths that make the film engaging and appealing.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
23 November 2012 · Kyle Phaneuf
75*

The critic finds Tremors a solid, if not great, Jaws-like creature feature that holds up well due to its suspense, practical effects, and unique setting, praising the creature design and characters while noting some missed opportunities and a dragging third act.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate