I heard about this movie when watching VH1's "100 Most Metal Moments." On the segment, Gene Simmons (who played a cameo) and several other interviewees discussed how utterly awful this movie is. Unlike most people, I'm often more curious about checking out movies that have reputations for being ridiculously bad than, say, a masterpiece of cinema. The advantage of having that sort of attitude is half the time I find out that the movies are nowhere near as bad as people said, and I end up enjoying them a lot more than I initially expected. That was my experience with "Trick or Treat." Now, it's hard to make a movie about a teenage boy who receives messages from a dead heavy metal star by playing one of his vintage records backwards without people scoffing at the premise. Sure, it's certainly a strange premise, but one that's never been done before! Give the filmmakers points for originality for Pete's sake! If you're looking to buy the DVD, having no prior knowledge of the movie, don't be fooled into thinking Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons are the stars. However, though Simmons has a thankless role, Ozzy does have a funny cameo as a Reverend (that's right, a Reverend!!) who speaks out against heavy metal. For one thing, it's funny seeing Ozzy with short hair. And for another thing, you can't help but laugh at the irony. Sure, it's a cheap shot, but an effective one. The acting is pretty good. I found the performances convincing. The teen characters are horribly clichéd. So expect the usual array of jocks and nerds. And like in every one of these movies, the pretty girl is a decent person who has sympathy for the alienated main character, yet continues to go out with her jock boyfriend. Why's she going out with such a complete jerk in the first place? Because the plot needs an obstacle. No other reason. But I can't deny that one of my guilty pleasures is watching the evil jocks in these movies go down, since I was an outcast in high school. The movie kept my interest for the most part, but the third act is way too conventional and caused me to roll my eyes as there would be one predictable situation after another. But altogether the film is not at all bad and definitely worth viewing on a rainy day. (7 out of 10)

In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made.
This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.
But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.
Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.
A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?