Lock, Stock, and Two Film Geeks » horror

Rubber

B.S. Hadland — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:41:05 +0000

Weird, original and enticing, but very misguided. 2/4

Rubber is about a sentient tire named Robert that rolls around the highways of the American Southwest, becomes infatuated with a young woman, and blows peoples’ heads off via telekinesis. Naturally, when word of this film hit the Internet early last year, people were understandably perplexed and excited; it was the right side of bizarre.

So it would surprise people that the saga of Robert the Telekinetic Tire serves as its own B-story. Rubber revolves around an exercise in the absurd; a kind of deconstruction between audience and filmmaking. Sometimes it’s funny, but more often than not it’s unnecessary and gets in the way of what could have been a very fun film.

As a result, Rubber is part quirky horror comedy, and part absurdist art film. If one were to edit together the homicidal psychic tire parts, it would make for a great short film, the one people paid the price of admission to see in the first place. Unfortunately, writer/director Quentin Dupieux seems more concerned with making an undergraduate philosophical-artistic statement than tell a story that he forsakes the best bits for its worst.

The film opens with the town sheriff (Stephen Spinella) addressing an audience- both a group of binocular-armed bystanders and us- about the reason behind any aspect of a film: Why is E.T’s skin brown? Why do the two main characters in Love Story fall in love? The answer: no reason, which is the driving force behind everything in Rubber.

As far as the scenes involving Robert, “no reason” works. The lack of origin or explication works in Rubber’s favor; we don’t need a reason for why a tire suddenly comes to life, nor do we need to know what his motives are in the first place. After all, pitting a laughable villain that defies all notions of reason and reality against the atypical constraints and conventions of your average horror film would make for proper deconstruction, and would satisfy the curiosity of those intrigued by the films trailer.

Unfortunately, the “no reason” philosophy behind Rubber is its own downfall. Rather than build a story out of his own idea of a homicidal tire, Dupieux renders Rubber a pseudo-postmodern deconstructionist statement that has little to do with its rubber protagonist. I suppose Dupieux did this for “no reason,” but “no reason” is not the same as “no point,” and if the latter is the backbone of a movie, then there is no reason for it to even exist.

Most of Rubber involves some kind of meta-commentary on filmmaking and film watching. There are people watching Robert from a distance, providing stray observations and snarky commentary, and the sheriff goes about his job as though he were on set, acting and reacting as though none of what is going on is real, and that it is all a show. Near the beginning of the film, it is appropriately odd and it works, but as the ruse continues, it takes up most of the film’s space, and it quickly wears out its welcome.

I haven’t the faintest idea what Dupieux is trying to say or do with Rubber. He is not all too concerned with telling a story- at least, not the story of Robert, the reason people attended the film in the first place. Instead, Dupieux seems to be experimenting, but in doing so, he has totally missed the point of filmmaking, storytelling, and deconstructionism. The problem with most self-proclaimed post-modernists is that they misunderstand that deconstructionism is about: deconstructing something in attempt to discover a new way to understand whatever it is you’re looking at. Dupieux, however, is just deconstructing for the sake of leaving something in pieces and calling it art. Despite what some modern artists may think think, leaving something in shambles isn’t art, it’s just a pile.

Manohla Dargis of the New York Times wrote, “By embracing irrationality as his operating principle (or at least by pretending to), Mr. Dupieux lets himself off the narrative hook.” I disagree. Relying on superficial post-modernism does not- nor should it- get you out of providing a narrative; it’s just lazy writing. What’s unfortunate about Rubber is that it had a lot of potential to be a legitimately clever, post-modern genre film, and when Rubber focuses on its initial premise, it is well worth watching.

Note: When he is not making films, Quentin Dupieux is a French DJ who goes by the name “Mr. Oizo.” I’m not sure what most would make of this, but it seems relevant nonetheless.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror

B.S. Hadland — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:23:12 +0000

With a film like this, why even try? Unrateable.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror has become something of a modern day legend over the last two years. As a recent submission into the pantheon of so-bad-its-rad films like The Room and Troll 2, Birdemic has made its way through the minds of movie geeks everywhere by way of bizarre online trailers and compilations. Earlier this year, Birdemic was released on DVD and Blu-ray to packs of curious nerds who could finally answer the question: How bad is Birdemic?

Yes, Birdemic is terrible, but is it the right kind of terrible? Bad films come in all shapes and sizes, and for as many as there are out there ((don’t)see: Sucker Punch), it takes a very particular brand of bad to be fully enjoyed in spite of- and because of- itself. Birdemic is baffling and bizarre enough to fit those criteria, and although it is not quite bad/good enough to take on The Room, it is fit enough for the MST3K silhouette in all of us.

Marketed as a “romantic thriller,” Birdemic takes place in a small, coastal town in Northern California where software salesman Rod (Alan Bagh) reunites with Nathalie (Whitney Moore), an old high school classmate and apparent model (Nathalie shoots her spreads at a non-descript Rite Aid-esque location; I’m not sure what to make of that). Just as Rod’s career and relationship with Nathalie reaches the next level, birds begin to mercilessly attack the city for no perceivable reason.

The bird effects have already become the stuff of YouTube legend, and for good reason: they are unbelievably awful. All the birds are computer generated and look like screensaver icons from the pre-i days of Apple. However, the birds’ appearance pales in comparison to the way they move. Virtually every movement is impossible; they rotate a full 360 degrees, dart across the screen like computer cursors, and some of the birds seem to be set at fixed points of the picture, so when the camera moves in any way, certain birds move along with the camera, staying in the place in relation to the camera lens. Best of all though: they explode. No, really, the birds fly into buildings and blow up, like nature’s own kamikaze pilots.

Some may believe Birdemic to be a one trick pony, that the awkward birds are all the film has going for it, but the birds only serve as the film’s hook. The characters and non-bird related subplots provide just as much laughter and befuddlement, particularly the environmental message that shows up at various points in the film. Early in the film, a few characters are discussing the benefits of buying a Prius after seeing An Inconvenient Truth. Later, the main characters come across a scientist standing in a field, and then a character known as “Tree hugger,” who both blame mankind’s treatment of the planet as the reason behind the birds’ behavior.

The acting does not help the poor dialogue, ludicrous story or the “Go Green!” plea in the film. The acting is about as wooden as wood can get, and each character delivers their lines as though they are reading them for the first time; everything sounds stiff, stilted and entirely disconnected from the events of the film. Appropriately enough, the sound periodically drops throughout the whole of the film, which adds to the characters’ disconnection from the plot, as well as the audiences’ idiosyncratic experience towards the film as a whole.

There is a scene that is slowly becoming popular, and was even shown in an episode of The Soup a few months back that sums up the films’ disassociation with itself: the “boardroom scene.” In it, Rod and his co-workers are assembled and told that they succeeded in making “a part of a billion dollars,” a term so deliberately vague that it may prove that Birdemic’s auteur James Nguyen doesn’t know what words or syntax are. This announcement is followed by two minutes of non-stop, self-congratulatory applause accompanied by a continuous pan around the room. The vacant, smiling faces of the actors and disjointed editing provide such an off-kilter stamp on the scene that it will make one ask, “Seriously though, we’re watching real movie, right?”

Watching Birdemic is similar to watching Manos: The Hands of Fate for the first time: people will not believe what they are seeing and openly question whether or not the movie is real, or some kind of post-modern, avant garde art experiment that is meant to blow peoples’ minds. I don’t give Nguyen that much credit, but it is something of an accidental marvel that a film so nonsensical and bizarre came together in the first place and found an audience who love a good roast. Birdemic is no Room, but it is too bizarre to pass up. Rent it and call some friends; you’ve got movie sign.

Lo

B.S. Hadland — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 21:15:40 +0000

Creative and ambitious, but not as engaging as it should-or could-be. 2 1/2 out of 4

The best thing about the “Watch It Now” feature on Netflix is the immediate availability of countless kinds of films. Anyone can casually surf through the Netflix catalog and find themselves watching anything from a Kurosawa film to any one of Troma’s foul-but-fun exploitation pictures. Granted, half of the fun of cinephilia is happening on some obscure film by accident, whether it be through catching it on a cable station at one in the morning or rummaging through your local video store, but anything that gets people exposed to films slightly to the side of the mainstream is a good thing.

Which brings us to Lo, an independent film that received little exposure outside of a few film festivals. Lo is one of many films that sports a tiny budget that relies on word-of-mouth, something made easy through Netflix. Lo will no doubt find an audience: it possesses a style that is as unique as it is interesting, and at its core there is something about the film that is very touching. However, there are developmental issues concerning Lo’s story and characters that make for an incomplete experience.

When April (Sarrah Lassz) is snatched from her bed by a demon in the middle of the night, her loyal, but dopey boyfriend Justin (Ward Roberts) summons the demon Lo (Jeremiah Birkett) to return her. While the two argue over her return, Lo re-creates moments in Justin and April’s relationship, adding his own cynical commentary which reveals, quite possibly, that there may have been more to April than met Justin’s eye.

Lo looks like a well produced black box theater performance, which is an unusual approach for a film, but it gives Lo a very singular presence. The whole film takes place in an empty black room, and the flashbacks take place on what looks like a small stage just off to the side; there are even stagehands handling props and loosely interacting with the restaged memories. Some may find this design amateurish, but the minimalist approach is handled with a creativity that is oddly charming, and fits the whole underworld concept quite nicely. After all, what better way to represent oblivion than the absence of anything visual? And the flashback side stage? What better way to demonstrate a condescending view of the earthly lives of mere mortals?

There is, however, something of a conflict of interest in the film: Lo seems more interested in its own playful view of Hell and its inhabitants than it is in the world of the living, which would not be so bad if the two were not co-dependent on the other. The raison d’etre (French for “reason of existence.” I felt like being a bit snooty and clever today) of the film is Justin’s desperate attempt to rescue the woman he loves, but we only see three brief moments in their relationship. Without getting to know April or getting to see much of the relationship, it is impossible to sympathize with Justin or identify with his desperation; we root for him only because we know he is the protagonist.

It doesn’t help matters that those portraying the human characters do very little to bring their characters to life. There is a moment of true sincerity involving Lassz, and although it is effective, it only lasts a moment, and the film is going to need a little more than that to convey any level of tragedy concerning love and damnation. Ward Roberts, for example, overacts his way through the film, making his already-unappealing, one-dimensional character very annoying. Since he spends the whole of the film inside his “protection circle,” Roberts over compensates for his lack of physical movement with big, exaggerated facial expressions, not unlike a less-than-exceptional theater major.

Those who inhabit the dark, however, rescue the film from becoming entirely flat and uninteresting. For one, the makeup and costume design of the demons are surprisingly good; Lo looks like an abominable cross between man and ape, and Jeez (Devin Berry) has a face like a stegosaurus and wears a Nazi uniform with the appropriate camp and sinister bravado to boot. Birkett manages to deliver a surprisingly convincing performance and steals the show; there is a genuine feeling of sincerity within his cynicism that makes one actually question Lo’s motives and purpose. Observing demons as tragic, fallen reflections of humanity may not be wholly unexpected, but Birkett does a pretty impressive job conveying that very sentiment.

Lo would have made a great off-Broadway stage play given its minimalist, DIY setting and great use of make-up, and these attributes translate very well on film. Writer/director Travis Betz is clearly as resourceful as he is creative; an imperative quality for an independent filmmaker if ever there was one. Although Betz is in touch with his demonic characters, he loses sight of his human elements of the film, which should act as foils for the less-than-human subjects. Without a basis for life, the tragedy and meaning of loss has none.

Podcast 13: Sam Raimi

James Goux — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:39:01 +0000

Drag Me to Hell, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn, and Spider-Man take the stage as we cover the work of Sam Raimi. He’s a big filmmaker with two blockbusters on deck, so we dig into what makes him great, and what might make him not. Our guest this week was our very own columnist, Fil Garrison.

As usual the podcast is available for download on iTunes and Podcast Alley. Please leave a review there if you haven’t yet, we need more listeners. And you can always listen to it right here on our web page.

[podcast]http://lockstockandtwofilmgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/LSATFG-ep13.mp3[/podcast]

Dance of the Dead

James Goux — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:56:48 +0000

This week marks the FINAL FILM DUEL in its regular sense. Yes, that’s right, Benn and I have decided to retire the format in favor of solo reviews for now. This allows us to review more of the movies we want, offer you more content per week, and does away with that pesky problem of us agreeing on everything. If we do find we disagree strongly, there’s always room for rebuttal reviews, right? This doesn’t mean you’ll never see a Film Duel review again, but we’ll save them for times when we know the movie is truly fitting of the treatment. In the mean time, please savor the column in its final death moans, as we review the ultra-low-budget film Dance of the Dead. It’s zombies at a high school prom, what could go wrong?

Dance of the Dead
Year: 2008
Directed by: Gregg Bishop
Written by: Joe Ballarni
Starring: Jared Kusnitz, Greyson Chadwick
Genre: Horror (Zombie)

Benn and James’ reviews and rebuttals follow after the jump.

James says:

Some low budget movies can be a nice surprise, excelling past the limitations of their production values to deliver story and character that can often even be better than your standard Hollywood movie. The independently funded films can even have the freedom to go places that movies made within the studio system cannot. Unfortunately, Dance of the Dead is not one of these diamonds in the rough.

Dance of the Dead, the 2008 ultra-low-budget film directed by Gregg Bishop, has a promising concept: zombies at a high school prom. I mean really, if a movie can be explained in six words, you know you’ve got a good handle on your idea. And yet, it also means you know pretty much what to expect from the movie. Zombie films have enjoyed a certain level of popularity in the last decade or so due largely to 28 Days Later… spurring a resurgence of the genre. But the reason these films have done so well is not just the zombie action, but rather the brilliantly executed story, character, and if we’re really lucky, a good underlining allegory. Even though it was apparently written before this resurgence, Dance of the Dead offers nothing new to the genre. What it gives us instead of these things is essentially a genre mash-up between a middling zombie film and a sub-par high school comedy.

The first twenty minutes of this film are almost wretchedly painful. After a short prologue to drop us into the zombie action, the movie remains zombie free for an unbearable amount of time. In the mean time, we’re treated to lengthy introductions to a dozen or so high school archetypes. Each of these characters embodies these archetypes in the most hackneyed and cliché ways possible. The sci-fi club members shout “use the force” at their friend who’s trying to ask out the cheerleader, the cheerleader is a shallow bitch, and the one mother who appears in the film has nothing to say but, “Don’t get too crunked,” a completely unfunny mistaken use of teenager’s slang. All of the jokes in the film seem to center around the most obvious stereotype they can possibly target, and in turn, all of them fall flat. These characters are all so offensively boring, that even so early on in the movie, I couldn’t help but begin hitting the “display” button to gauge my progress towards the end of the film.

While these characters had nothing unique to offer as written, they’re pulled down even further by the acting in most of the roles. The main female character, Lindsey, as played by newcomer Greyson Chadwick, can’t even keep a straight face in a scene in which she’s breaking up with her boyfriend. Wearing a stupid grin on her face, Chadwick fails even to match up the basic emotions of the scene on the most literal and unsubtle levels. The pretentious high-achiever, Mitch, who tries to steal Lindsey away from her boyfriend, also performs with all the subtlety of a wheel of cheese rolling through a den of mice. Once again, the nerds come off as equally unsubtle and the rockers emit angst like water from a hose. Even in the lead role, Jared Kusnitz’s Jimmy comes off at best as a poor version of Jesse Eisenberg, who we saw do great work in a similar role in Zombieland this year. The best performance in this film is from Justin Welborn, whose Kyle manages to be a bully and simultaneously hint that there may be more interesting things going on with his character under the surface. He’s the only one doing anything interesting with the role. The two “adults” in the film at least seem to realize that they should be shooting for the stars in terms of tongue in cheek, and so the Gravedigger and the P.E. teacher actually manage to be quite entertaining if only because they are so over the top.

Luckily, counter to what the first half hour of the film would have you believe, this film is not completely without merits. In fact, almost immediately as the zombie infestation begins, there is marked improvement. The zombies literally leaping from their graves looks simply awesome, and the aesthetic of girls in prom dresses drenched in bright red blood and wielding axes is too striking not to find some pleasure in. The effects here are actually quite incredible considering the budget of the film, and the action works pretty well all around. A scene on a front yard in which some teamwork and a baseball bat are utilized is quite fun, and music’s effect on zombies is a gimmick that almost could fit in with a movie of the caliber of Shaun of the Dead. The climax of the film delivers a pretty cool zombie fight in the middle of the dance floor as expected, and while it doesn’t quite have the body count and franticness I would’ve hoped for, it does provide a great level of dynamicism through the interplay with the “performance” going on simultaneously. I’d even hazard to guess that this film was shot closer to chronological order than most, because almost every performance improves as the movie progresses, and by the end actors who I couldn’t stand at the beginning become quite bearable, and some of the interactions and jokes begin to actually work.

The movie doesn’t look great overall, largely due to its budget, but there are scenes and moments that do impress in a visual sense. Its effects and action do in fact go above and beyond the cost of the film, unfortunately there’s still no story here that I haven’t seen a hundred times before, and the characters are about as wooden as they come. Even in the archetypal sense, there are moments, like the conclusion of the nerd/cheerleader dynamic, that seem to ring false for me. While the movie does improve in its second half, it’s not enough to make it a recommendable film, even for b-movie or zombie film fans.

Benn says:

What could go wrong? Everything.

Most zombie films, particularly those with a small budget, succeed due to the cast and crew’s resourcefulness; take a simple plot, and build on it. Add satire, tongue-in-cheek humor, character dynamics, and dystopian survivalism and you could potentially have an entertaining, if not well made, zombie film. You can also have a jumbled mess of incongruous styles. You can also have a cinematic debacle that makes you want to eat your own head. Dance of the Dead is that kind of film.

Dance of the Dead begins like any Nickelodeon high-school drama, in which we are forced to endure the ramblings of flat, stock high school characters, such as the class clown, the mean teacher, the over achiever, the nerd, and stoner musicians. You might expect that these characters would reveal some kind of depth as we get to know them, but we don’t. Due to a nearby power plant, zombies start popping out of their graves and head towards the local high school’s prom, killing the entire town in the process. The only people left to stop the zombies are those who opted to stay in during prom night.

Dance of the Dead is, essentially, Degrassi meets Goosebumps, in which the acting is terrible, the all-encompassing drama of high school trumps anything relevant going on in the real world, and the thrills and chills are delivered in the most predictable of fashions and the lowest of budgets. Not that I have anything against low budgets, but if I’m going to sit down and watch grey-faced zombies who bleed red paint, by all means, make it interesting for me to watch. Give me some extreme violence, or some funny dialogue, or a few bizarre characters… something that doesn’t resemble a high school play.

Some will say that this film isn’t trying to take itself too seriously. After all, films like Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead proved to filmgoers everywhere that a zombie film can be a comedy too. The problem is that those films had a few things Dance of the Dead did not. One of those things is talent in any element in the creation of this film. The other is that, while Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead did poke fun at the genre’s rules and plot expectations, both films took their respective storylines seriously; they managed to include moments of suspense and depth while having a blast with zombies. Dance of the Dead didn’t take many things seriously, like film direction, screen writing… the making of a film in general.

I couldn’t help but think how much the film really reflected tween dramas about high school and how flat, boring, and predictable it is. All the conflicts are blatant maguffins, the characters are mere placeholders with stylish hair, and every solution is solved quickly without anything really being done in the first place. I felt like I was watching scenes from High School Musical. In fact, I wish I was watching a zombie-infested High School Musical. Think about it: Zac Efron sings about how zombies are gross while burying his tap shoes in zombie’s skulls (and in perfect time to the music too!) while Vanessa Hudgens, taking yet another series of nude photos of herself, is ripped apart by a pack of tween zombie girls decked out shirts that read “I run with vampires”. For it’s bullshit premise, a zombie musical is campy, original, and would sure-as-shit hold my attention for an hour and a half.

By now you have probably realized that I talked little about Dance of the Dead, and just referenced a bunch of other teen-based television programs, and you’re half right. I didn’t talk much about the featured film because there’s little to talk about; it’s unwatchable crap that should remain undisturbed in the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart. However, you can’t help but think about other high school-related programs because it takes the worst elements of those programs and simply throws zombies into the mix. Could director Gregg Bishop have created some kind of spoof or satire on these phony-bologna representations of high school? Probably, but that would meant having to write dialogue and scenes that would have a point other than showing teenagers running from zombies because, dude, teenagers and zombies in one film is totally awesome. If you have an ounce of self-respect, please, avoid this film like undead.

Benn’s rebuttal:

Unlike James, I found no redeemable quality to this film. I was so overtaken by apathy and self-loathing (this film was my choice) that watching zombies jump out of their graves and infest a town instantly had no effect on me. I would have gladly paid someone to hit me on the head with a cricket paddle to avoid wasting my time with this movie.

One thing I truly object to in James’ review is it’s length. 1000+ words on Dance of the Dead James?! I”m not sure if I should be impressed or concerned. Then again, I suppose writing the phrase “Blow yourself instead” would have been too crass and brief for our last regular film duel, but it would summed up the film quite well.

James’ rebuttal:

I would totally watch that zombie musical. The scene in Shaun of the Dead where they beat zombies to the rhythm of the music is one of my favorites ever, so seeing a whole film of that is an idea that really excites me.

Podcast 10: Halloween

James Goux — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:00:56 +0000

This week on the podcast we picked out three Horror films to go with our Halloween release. We bring on guest host Fil Garrison to help us talk about Poltergeist, Dead Alive, and ZOMBIELAND! This is the first time we’ve ever talked about a movie currently in theaters on the podcast, so listen up.

[podcast]http://lockstockandtwofilmgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/LSATFG-ep10.mp3[/podcast]

Troll 2

James Goux — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:31:55 +0000

Film Duel is our written review format in which Benn and James each review a film, and then comment on each other’s reviews to give a proper balance and really fill out the commentary as well as possible. This week we take on the abomination that is the legen — wait for it- DAIRY film that goes by the name of Troll 2.

Troll 2
Year: 1990
Dir.: Claudio Fragasso
Written by: Rossella Drudi and Claudio Fragasso
Starring: Michael Stephenson, George Hardy, Margo Prey
Genre: Horror

Benn and James’ reviews and rebuttals follow after the jump.

James says:

The proper way to phrase it is, “I survived Troll 2”. Making it through this movie is quite an achievement in itself, for of all the films I’ve seen in my lifetime (which I promise you is quite a lot), this definitely ranks among the worst. In fact, it may just take the heavyweight title. This is a movie so bad that it spawned a documentary about its cult following aptly titled Best Worst Movie. Don’t be surprised if I see and review this film sometime in the future. You see, Troll 2 is that special kind of bad movie that transcends it’s lack of quality in every respect to come out the other side as something completely entertaining and enjoyable in its own right. There’s nothing quite like the hilarity that certain scenes of this film provide, and they really must be seen to be believed. Nonetheless, I will try my best to give you some idea of what this film is really like, and whether or not you should brave its perils.

It’s not that there isn’t a first Troll film, there is. We did not watch it before seeing this film, and I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have made a difference if we did. It’s very likely that this film has nothing to do with its predecessor. In fact even the word troll seems to be kind of a misnomer here. It’s incredible that this film manages to mess up even its title. The word troll is never used within the film as far as I can remember, it uses goblins instead. This may seem like a nitpick except the fact that it’s such a repeated focus of the film, even the town they visit is named Nilbog (Goblin in reverse). Also the fact that Troll is singular whereas this is about a great many goblins makes it also oddly awkward.

But enough about the name of the film, we wouldn’t want to judge a book by its cover, now would we? The plot is delivered in a very confusing manner. The film drops you into what feels like mid-sentence of a story about a guy we never really get to know eating too much of the goblin’s food and for some reason bleeding green liquid from his forehead. We then see that this is a story being told to our hero, a young kid named Joshua by his grandfather. We then learn that his grandfather is dead, and he’s been seeing him anyways. His family thinks that going on a trip will help him become more grounded in reality, so they decide to swap houses with a family in the aforementioned Nilbog town. Once they get there Joshua realizes that the goblins inhabit this town and that they are trying to get them to eat their food. Joshua must convince his family not to eat any food, that goblins exist, that his grandfather’s apparition is real, and somehow escape or defeat the goblins. And that’s pretty much it, but after watching the movie, you’d think there’s much more, because they throw in so many confusing elements. There’s witches, people that get turned into plants, and an obscene obsession with getting people to eat food. Often this food looks like disgusting green sludge but the characters never seem to notice.

It’s hard to pick a worst aspect about this movie, but I’m going to go with the acting. This acting is so horrendous there really aren’t words to describe it. The mother in the film is full of odd expressions that make no sense. The father delivers lines in the wackiest way imaginable, his dialogue is chock full of hilarity just because of the seriousness with which he tries and fails to deliver these lines with emotion. The child is your standard poor child actor, and his performance is almost harmless with comparison to the other people in the film. I could go on and list more poor performances, but what would be the point really? Unlike the B-movies that will be the subject of our third podcast, there doesn’t seem to be any sense of awareness about the bad quality of the acting. It’s simply bad and unbelievable and a little insane. I don’t know if the language barrier between the director and the actors caused this to happen, but it’s there, and it’s hilarious.

In the actors’ defense, the dialogue is just consistently ridiculous. You’d have to hear it in context, but often times it doesn’t even make any logical sense as part of the conversation. The script itself is horrendous in general as well. To try and analyze it to any extent is futile. It’s basically trying to be a cool horror film but fails miserably at every turn. It’s got ridiculous characters and ridiculous situations. You may notice a common use of the word ridiculous in this review, and if you saw the film, you’d find it rightly used repetitively. At times it tries to be sexy, it tries to be scary, and it always fails. Interestingly, it never tries to be funny, but it pretty much always is.

The cinematography is impossible to really criticize. It’s a low budget film and it looks like crap. But in some ways, if you look at what they had to work with, that is not the worst aspect of this film. It looks like a 90s film certainly, with bad hair and costuming. There are some effects that are really cheesy, and a few others that aren’t bad for the budget they had to work with. But a lot of the effects definitely contribute to the comedy of the film.

There are some scenes that will be forever etched into my memory after watching this film. This film really should be watched if for nothing other than these scenes. Foremost of these is a scene that I will try not to ruin, but just say it involves a “sexy” witch and a husk of corn. The scene has possibly the worst logical I’ve ever seen on screen, and a set of lines of dialogue that, while said to the corresponding character, don’t actually seem to be a proper answer to what the other person was asking. It’s one of the funniest bad scenes I’ve ever seen. Other highlights include a scene in which the human formed goblins try and get a kid to drink a bunch of milk while he’s running from place to place. “Milk was a bad choice,” anyone? Another scene in which the father punishes his son is particularly gleefully maladroit, and a classic scene for the actor playing the father. If you read this review and decide this film is not for you, please at least seek out these scenes on YouTube so that you get a taste of what this movie is like. There’s truly nothing like it.

To properly criticize this film is really like being a bully taking cheap shots at a schoolyard child. Or maybe it’s like a professional wrestler taking cheap shots at a school yard child. Needless to say this is a horrendously made film. But that’s what makes it so spectacular. If you enjoy watching bad movies for their unintentional comedic value, or like Mystery Science Theater 3000 at all (this is not one of the films they did, but it’s enjoyable for the same reasons), you will have a fantastic time watching this movie. Don’t watch it alone. Pick a night when you’ve got a bunch of friends over (alcohol doesn’t hurt), and really tear this thing a part. I’m telling you, despite the piss-poor quality film making, you will not regret spending a little time with this movie.

Benn says:

There is a lot that goes into making a movie. A script has to be written, revised and approved, actors have to be cast, locations must be scouted, lights, cameras, cables and set design has to be set up, etc, etc, etc… With this in mind, there is only question that comes to mind: How the hell was Troll 2 ever made in the first place?

Troll 2 follows the Waits family on a much-needed vacation after the death of Grandpa Seth in the small, nearly desolate town of Nilbog. Little Joshua Wait, however, continues to see his grandfather, who warns him too stay far away from the town of Nilbog, as the town is full of goblins that turn people into vegetables in order to eat them. Yes, you have read this correctly: goblins, not trolls, mean to turn people into giant cabbage patches for food.

Aside from the brazenly obvious fact that the word “troll” is not even mentioned during Troll 2, the film is full of so many absurd concepts, scenes and lines of dialogue that is difficult to know where to begin. For one, the ethereal warnings of Grandpa Seth are, for some reason, only limited to Joshua, though it is never explained why. Since Seth is later seen accidentally haunting the wrong grandchild in the wrong room, then speaking to the whole family near the end of the film, it can only be speculated that Joshua was his favorite. Still, why a ghost would depend on a ten-year-old boy to protect his family is beyond me.

The goblins themselves are, by far, the most unthreatening monsters in film history; it makes the Mogwai of Gremlins fame look like the creatures from Aliens. Although the goblins often take the form of hicks when in human company, the creatures themselves have immovable faces made out of rubber that look like cheap Halloween masks. They are also about three feet tall, so how or why the goblins function as a threat to the Waits family is too absurd to take seriously; anyone with a decent pair of running shoes and a hockey stick could easily survive a weekend in pursuit of these vegetarian predators.

And how does a goblin turn a human into a vegetarian product? Why, by force-feeding them green slop not so subtly mixed in with food. When trying to convince the Waits family, and other characters, to eat up, the disguised goblins are apparently going for an eerie, all encompassing kind of inescapable horror, not unlike the off-putting initiation ceremony in Freaks. Unfortunately, these scenes are less freaky and more giggle inducing and, as such, cannot be taken seriously.

Of course, most of the film’s humor comes from a sub plot featuring good old fashion horny teenage boys; the staple of any self-respecting horror film. In order to prove to girlfriend Holly Waits that he can be a devoted boyfriend and abandon his friends (this logic escapes me), teenager Elliot follows the Waits clan in a camper with his friends in tow. After a long night of dreaming of sexed-up farm girls and sleeping in the same bed (don’t even get me started), the boys are one by one turned into walking beanstalks until Elliot has no friends to go to, making him entirely dependant to Holly by default. In the most memorable scene of the film, one of the boys is seduced by the troll -excuse me– goblin matriarch and sorceress with corn on the cob. Although it does not go the pornographic route one would expect, the concept and execution of this idea reaches a new height, or low depending on one’s perspective, in camp.

There are plenty of god-awful films out there, like Troll 2, that have poor dialogue, acting and writing, all coming together to make one cinematic pile of crap. Somehow, Troll 2 managed to become one of the most entertaining, most funny cult films I’ve seen in spite of how bad it is. Every bad line of dialogue, piece of wooden acting and unconvincing special effect will make people laugh. Like Manos: The Hands of Fate and Killer Klowns from Outer Space before it, Troll 2’s lack of quality to too outrageous to be taken seriously and most viewers are bound to list it as one of their favorite comedies.

Ben’s rebuttal:

Once more, James hit the nail on the head; this film is one of, if not the worst film. Yet for some reason, Troll 2 is one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen in quite some time in spite of itself. There are intentionally-comedic films out there that prove to be not as funny as Troll 2. This film is, no doubt, cinema’s greatest accident.

James’ rebuttal:

Does Troll 2 really deserve any sort of rebuttal? I’m just going to keep simple and go with “I owned you in review length on this one, Benn.”