MovieChat Forums > Troll 2 (1990) Discussion > Does anyone think this was actually a de...

Does anyone think this was actually a decent film?


I recently re-watched this and to be honest, I don't think it deserves the coin term "so bad, it's good". Yes, MOST of the performances are kinda laughable, the costumes are pretty lazy and the climax is just horrendous. But there are actually a few decent things about this film. Firstly, not all of the performances are terrible. George Hardy does a pretty good job playing Joshua's father and the guy playing Grampa Seth actually delivers a haunting narration during the opening scene. Plus, I really the premise of the film about food that can kill you, I don't know I just find that kinda interesting. Overall, it's a pretty bad film, but not awful.

reply

Saw it today. Thought it was pretty cheesy and one or two scenes made me laugh out loud but I honestly thought it was par for the course with other old b-movies. There are a lot worse films out there.

reply

It has a different sensibility to it, it's an Italian kids movie by a guy who wrote exploitation trash his whole career. So it throws people off. I think it's one of the best if not the best movie Claudio Fragasso is responsible for. It's very enjoyable and well put together, and it's not a trainwreck like the Room for example.

reply

"It has a different sensibility to it, it's an Italian kids movie by a guy who wrote exploitation trash his whole career. So it throws people off. I think it's one of the best if not the best movie Claudio Fragasso is responsible for. It's very enjoyable and well put together, and it's not a trainwreck like the Room for example"

I agree with Asgard. "Troll 2" feels like a kids film, rather than a R-rated gorefest. It kind of reminds me of the "Goosebumps" TV show from the 90's. The first film (with Harry Potter Jr) was intentionally written for a PG rating, but ended up being rated PG-13 instead. "Troll 2" must've tried of doing the complete opposite and going a little more graphic, however, that ALSO recieved a PG-13 rating. In my own opinion, both "Troll" and "Troll 2" are surprisingly very enjoyable B-flicks with great synth music and all the hammiest performances you could ever imagine. But "Troll 3" (or "Creepers") was *beep* no doubt about it.

reply

I hated the movie the first time I saw it. It hit at a time when they were making cheap sequels to kids' movies (Neverending Story 2, The Gate 2, etc.) and kinda fell into that mold. Saw part of it on HBO, then tried it again in its entirety on DVD and still didn't like it... but it's a movie that sticks with you because there's nothing else quite like it. It grew on me.

One gets the feeling George Hardy could be a good actor with the right director and material to work with. Constance is wonderfully over the top (it would've been a better movie if her part was bigger) and the trio of teenage boys weren't bad. The townsfolk are suitably creepy. The transformation makeup is awesome and, despite the ridiculous goblin costumes, the film really has a pleasing visual aesthetic which looks beautiful on Blu-Ray.

The story is wonderfully weird... though the film's biggest problems come down to the script. The Italian filmmakers didn't write believable American speech and the wannabe actors had problems wrapping thier mouths around this awkward dialogue. Though not for lack of trying on many parts. If they'd brought in an American writer to polish the dialogue, it could've been a better film. It's definitely got the hallmark style-over-substance feel of Italian horror, made with a cast of Americans and sold as an American kids' movie... all of which makes it a real oddity.

reply

one wonders though if it would even be good, if it was actually "good"

the reason I love it is because it's so hilariously terrible

take the main premise, it could have been the family was just going on vacation and that would have been totally fine.. but they throw in the part that they're swapping houses with another family of complete strangers, just such a ridiculous idea lol

reply

I'm with Shiddy, this is why this movie is one of my favorite films of all time because it is hilariously bad there are moments I cannot breath from laughing too hard it is so bad.

reply

No. You must need to have your head examined.

reply

I would say its a very watchable film and hardly the worst movie ever made. To me the "Worst Movie ever made". Has to be something that has zero redeemable features. Something more along the lines of "Manos the Hands of Fate". Which is far as I'm concerned is the worst movie I have ever watched. There are probably worse films than "Manos". But I haven't seen it. Anyways Something so mind numbingly boring with nothing to have fun with. While Troll 2 is a pretty bad film. It has memorable scene and dialog. I mean who can forget "you can't piss on hospitality" or "If my father discovers you here, he'd cut off your little nuts and eat them." This is same reason i think Plan 9 from Outer Space is still pretty well remembered or even fondly remembered.

reply

funny, weird, random & original. so good

reply

As whatever the *beep* it was intended to be by the director, it was a failure on pretty much every level, regardless of how well intended it was. However as some kind of parody/comedy horror, I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10. So incredibly watchable and entertaining.

reply

Yeah, it wasn't nearly as bad as people hype it up to be. Atleast it's entertaining. People who say it's the worst movie ever made etc. don't know much about bad movies. Doesn't even deserve to be in the IMDb bottom 100.

reply

Not only is it a decent film, it's a masterpiece. I recently wrote a review and gave this film 10 stars.
www.goodsearch.com
https://twitter.com/MissChristyLMG

reply