Reception
On release, critical reception to the film was negative. Writing for The Deseret News, Chris Hicks said that the film should have been released direct-to-video. Also criticizing Trimark's release of the film, The Austin Chronicle's Marc Savlov called it clichéd, uninteresting, and an "utter waste of perfectly good Kodak film stock". Internet-based critic James Berardinelli called it "unwatchable" and not even enjoyably bad, and Matt Bourjaily of the Chicago Tribune wrote that the film "has brought new meaning to the term 'bad'". At the Los Angeles Daily News, Robert Strauss called it "as witless and worthless a horror film as could possibly be conjured". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette critic Ron Weiskind called the film incompetent and criticized the film's acting, lack of suspense, and production values.
Michael Wilmington of the Los Angeles Times called the cast "the usual all-formula grab-bag", and The Washington Post's Richard Harrington said the human actors are all bland. Berardinelli described the characters as "a group of morons who act like they flunked kindergarten" but said Aniston "might be competent" in a better film. Weiskind instead called Aniston's character a "Beverly Hills brat" who audiences will want to die. Of Davis, Harrington wrote that he "imbues a weak character with a strong presence", saying the film is only interesting while Davis is on-screen. Harrington concludes that the film is notable only for Davis' performance. Vincent Canby of The New York Times called the leprechaun "no more than dangerously cranky" and reminiscent of Chucky from Child's Play; Hicks also described the leprechaun as similar to Chucky. Wilmington wrote that while a killer Leprechaun logically follows a trend of gimmicky antagonists, it is still a bad idea.
Of the film's humor, Wilmington wrote that Leprechaun "isn't dumb enough to be fun". Hicks described the film's humor as "ill-advised slapstick", and Canby wrote that it is "neither scary nor funny". Berardinelli called the leprechaun's one-liners "more idiotic than pithy". Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, critic Jeff Makos unfavorably compared the film's tone to that of Tremors, which he posited as an influence. Makos said Davis does his best to be funny, but the film has no funny jokes, making audience feedback probably more entertaining than the film itself. The use of Lucky Charms as humor also received commentary. Harrington wrote that Jones is "so bereft of inventive ideas that he refers to Lucky Charms cereal not once but three times", and Bourjaily criticized the Lucky Charms jokes as unfunny.
Berardinelli said director Mark Jones has no style evident in the film. Wilmington described it as a "dingy, drab, pointless little movie ... made without flair or imagination, seemingly enervated by its own bad taste and low intentions". Canby called the screenplay and direction amateurish, and Hicks wrote that Jones is bereft of ideas and should go back to his day job, describing the plot as "by-the-numbers killings with no rhyme or reason". Harrington wrote that the film "has major continuity and credibility problems". Strauss identified the theme as anti-greed but said the writing is "simultaneously prosaic and murky", causing Jones to miss his mark. Wilmington wrote that the leprechaun's cries for his gold reflect the filmmakers' cynical desire for box-office success. Sight & Sound described Leprechaun as a film which seems to have no concept of a target audience: "Jones wants this to be a lively romp for older kids in the mould of Time Bandits...but also wants to corner the lucrative horror market". The review concluded: "Unsuitable for adults or kids, this is ultimately for completists". Harrington called the make-up "quite evil-looking", though Strauss wrote that "effects are strictly so-so".
Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 35% of 17 critics gave the film a positive review with an average rating of 4.4/10. On Metacritic, the film has a score of 17 out of 100 based on 7 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike". A 2014 retrospective from Entertainment Weekly identified it as Aniston's worst role to date, and Aniston herself has expressed embarrassment over the film. In 2009, Tanya Gold of The Guardian selected it as one of her ten favorite scary films to watch on Halloween.
Disagreeing with his colleagues in 1993, Luke Y. Thompson of the New Times opined: "The perfect high-concept comedic slasher, and it's still Jennifer Aniston's best film to date".
.jpg?width=400){kind=small}
