This unbelievably bad little piece of $hit, flick pi$$ed me off even though I only paid a dollar to rent it. Trust me when I say, a dollar was too much. This film contained it all.................stupid script, crappy acting, lousy cinematography, and an asinine "surprise" ending that was more laughable than scary! The absolute only reason to watch this trash are Elizabeth Kell's amazing, incredibly beautiful breasts. Otherwise avoid this stinker at all costs. Not sure what normally passes for entertainment with some of these other reviewers, but my guess from their praises of this movie is that it must feature either Teletubbies, Smurfs and any creature repeated being bludgeoned with an over-sized mallet. Wake up guys (and gals). "Direct to DVD" should have been the tip-off (as it should have been for me). However I won't make the same mistake.


Young lovers Michael (Owen Szabo) and Julia (Elizabeth Kell) decide to take a weekend off at a remote lodge, run by the eccentric Henry (Kevin McClatchy). They think it'll be the perfect weekend, until things start to go wrong. Soon they discover that Henry isn't who he says he is, and they find themselves in a struggle to survive.

Basically "The Lodge" is just another run-of-the-mill horror flick where you have 1) a desolate location; 2) some good looking young adults; 3) a sub-par story; 4) even more sub-par acting, and 5) the feeling that you don't particularly care who survives. It's easily forgettable, and instantly regrettable.


The plot of the movie is a good one but pretty typical of a b type thriller movie. If you don't mind the ridiculous premise of a screener killer and a 15 year old killer this one is for you. I found it hard to get past the fact that 2 adults could not defend themselves against a little girl with basically no weapons at the end as stupid. This is the perfect movie for teenagers to watch for the scare factor but overall pretty bad. There was hardly any gore shown and the acting is sub par. I guess the best part about the movie is that it was only 1 hour 24 minutes of wasted time on my part and the location that it was filmed is quite nice.


Average looking woman goes to a Lodge with below-average looking boyfriend, presumably to have sex. For the next hour we see the couple have sex, talk about sex and wonder about the lone man who they're sharing the lodge with. The lone man then proceeds to do weird 'sickening' acts such as smelling the average looking woman's knickers. Were then treated to yet another 'lets tie the woman up and torment her' type of scenarios....we also have not so shocking 'could this be incest' moments when the lone man suddenly has a daughter type tagging along to help him in his deeds. The film seems to go nowhere and has no tension at all.....there is no real category for this film...it's not thrilling, it's not scary, it has no gore and the ending is just as bad as the rest of the film. This is one of those boring, long-winded films that pretends to be a shocker but fails to deliver on every count. Avoid at all costs.


White Hunter Black Heart is loosely based the true story of the making of The African Queen (1951). The screenplay is based on the book by Peter Viertel who worked with director John Huston during the making of the film.

Clint Eastwood directs himself as an actor, playing the director John Wilson (a.k.a John Huston). With me so far? The story starts in the United Kingdom, where the irascible Wilson/Huston is trying to get funding for a film set in Africa. Sidekick Pete Verrill is drafted in to work on the script and eventually the whole shebang makes it to Entebbe (Uganda). However, it rapidly becomes apparent that Wilson/Huston has little interest in making a film, and his real reason for being there is to shoot and kill the biggest elephant he can find. Suffice to say, it all ends in tears. And that's about it for the plot.

It's pretty feeble stuff. And sadly, the lack of a plot isn't made up for by fantastic performances from the cast. The main problem is Eastwood himself. Wilson is written as a complex, egotistical, inconsistent, selfish character, and Eastwood just doesn't have the depth or weight to carry it off. The performance isn't helped by the fact that in places he looks physically frail. Eastwood's performance borders on an impersonation of John Hughes - a caricature more than a characterisation. Because of this, the film takes on a cartoonish, somewhat comedic air at times (but it's far from a comedy).

Eastwood isn't helped by the script. Given the whole thing revolves around a man who wants to kill an elephant, we never really understand why. Halfway through, there is a lengthy monologue where Wilson/Huston takes a moral stand against a woman who declares that Hitler was right to try to kill the Jews. It's followed by another long scene where he ends up in a bare knuckle brawl with the hotel manager who he sees mistreating his (black) staff. Wilson/Hudson explains his behaviour with 'We fought the preliminary for the k*kes; now we'll fight the main event for the n*ggers' This valiant supporter of human rights is the same man who harbours an obsessive need to kill an elephant? It seems the inconsistency doesn't make sense to the cast either. When challenged to explain his bloodlust, Wilson/Huston's answer is: 'It's not a crime... it's bigger than that... it's a SIN'. And that's all we get. It just doesn't add up.

What does make White Hunter worth watching is the beautiful photography of the African landscape. Also good is the unexpected appearance of Timothy Spall (of Auf Wiedersehen Lads fame) as Hodkins, the eccentric Bush pilot. He's not great either, but he does his best. Finally, Marisa Berenson, in the minor role of Kay Gibson (a.k.a. Katherine Hepburn) doesn't show up very often, but when she does, she's somehow riveting . Oh, and there's a really, really cute baby elephant.

Clint Eastwood directed this film two years after he directed the excellent Bird (1988). Watch Bird instead.


this movie sucked. For one, they made the hulk to freakishly big. He's supposed to be about 7 - 8 feet tall. Not 15 feet! On the second point, Bruce Banner was exposed to Gamma Rays by way of an explosion, not by some lab experiment or any other way. And third,why couldn't they have had one of the hulk's famous arch enemies appear in the film? Like the Abomination. The idea of the "hulk dogs" was absolutely stupid. Concerning his size, how do you explain his pants stretching that much? When he's running amok in San Francisco, the movie started to resemble King Kong. The good news is that a new, revamped, Hulk movie is coming out in 2008. I'm sure it will be better than this crap.


Ahh, Mr. Ben Murphy. Before Bruce Campbell stole his crown, Murphy was the King of Cheese. Unfortunately, Murphy was serious about his lousy acting career. He really, actually thought that he had some talent. Amazing.

In this crappy serving of Murphy's Law(that the more serious a movie with Murphy in it is supposed to be, the worse and more cheesy that movie will be)Murphy plays an anthropologist(yeah, right!) who finds a sarcophagus in King Tut's tomb. In it is a peculiar mummy who was a visitor to Tut's kingdom three thousand years ago. Apparently this mysterious visitor made people sick(literally), because he had some kind of weird fungus growing on him..Or something.

One of Murphy's idiot students touches the fungus, which got accidentally irradiated by another of his idiot students. It ate the moron student's hand faster than the flesh eating virus. Meanwhile, the mummy disappeared from his coffin(he felt the need to party. Well, it had been three thousand years, after all!) and started lurching around off camera looking for some ridiculous looking crystals that the idiot student who had irradiated the sarcophagus stole from it(larcenous as well as stupid.Did Murphy hand pick these guys?). The crystals glowed whenever the mummy got near them, becoming tiny disco balls. Welcome to the seventies, everyone! All that was missing was seeing the mummy do the Hustle.

Murphy discovers that the mummy is actually the body of an alien visitor. It is trying to retrieve the stupid looking crystals so that it can phone home. Apparently the alien was in a state of suspended animation or something, which is why the zap of radiation brought it back to life. Never mind that that deserves a big fat HUH? since this movie is so groovy and with it that it doesn't really have to make sense. In the end, the mummy retrieves its tacky jewelry and is about to beam itself up(to what, we'll never know, since I doubt the mother ship actually hung around waiting for it to return for three thousand years)when a security guard tries to shoot it. Murphy plays the hero and hurls himself onto the bullet(thank you, movie!) and then is beamed up with the alien. Good riddance, Murphy, and I hope you enjoy the anal probe.


I have to say, although this film was badly executed, it still had a cool storyline and a lot of potential. It's not often you get mummy/alien hybrids, but that is what this film is. It all starts off with some stock footage of planets and then of Egypt. After this the story begins, and a mummy is brought to a university for examination. A mega dose of x-rays brings the mummy to life, and it begins its search for some crystals that were removed from the sarcophagus. But this is no ordinary mummy, oh no, this is actually an alien!

The main problems with Time Walker is the slow pace and lack of gore. The film just seems to trundle along really slowly, as the mummy stalks around looking for his crystals. There's a few cool scenes such as when the mummy attacks a woman and pushes her against a wall, and throws a man in the air. If some gore scenes had been added, it would have been a lot more entertaining. The POV shots of the mummy are quite cool and reminded me of a slasher film called The Lamp. The ending is very cheesy, as the mummy reveals himself to actually be an alien (someone wearing a ridiculous mask) and then disappears to the stars, and the fateful words "To be continued..." appear on the screen.

Overall, I can't rate this film too highly as it really was boring, but I do love the storyline and it's a shame it wasn't properly executed.


This not-very-good mummy-alien flick does feature a cornucopia of your favorite movie stars like BEN MURPHY ("Riding With Death"!), Bob Random ("Village of the Giants"!), Darwin Joston (Napolean in "Assault on Precinct 13"!), Austin Stoker (Bishop in "Assault on Precinct 13"!) as Dr. Ken Melrose, Nina Axelrod ("Motel Hell"), Shari Belafonte-Harper (who was a voice on "Rick Moranis in Gravedale High"!!!), Clint Young ("Rape Squad", "Switchblade Sisters"), and best of all, Pathmark pitchman JAMES KAREN ("Poltergiest", "Return of the Living Dead")!

The plot is this: A priceless sarcophagus has been recovered in King Tut's tomb. Of course, it's taken to a small college in California where bumbling students can manhandle it and screw up X-raying it, instead of, oh, say, a museum. One loathsome, video-game loving student steals some diamond-type-thingees from the sarcophagus, sending the mummy on a poorly planned killing spree to get them back. For some reason, no one can catch a glimpse of the slow-moving, glowing mummy as it lumbers from killing to killing on the college campus.

This movie isn't very good. Not much happenens, except for some funny scenes where teens touch some radioactive goo on the mummy and start to get fungus growing all over them. The party scene with a bunch of obnoxious students dressed as mummys is also grating, and all James Karen does is mope and yell at Ben Murphy.

Pathmark means savings!


Boy, I haven't seen this movie since I was a kid. So naturally, I almost remembered nothing of it. Except for the fact that it somehow left a strange impression on me, and a dormant urge to some day revisit it. That urge awakened recently when I found this obscure gem on an old ex-rental tape, so this was my chance to re-watch it. As to be expected, this is by no means a 'good' movie. Far from, probably. But it still remains a curious and strange gem.

A mummy gets dug up in King Tut's tomb and transferred to an American University. A student finds 5 diamonds hidden in the sarcophagus and steals them. The next day, the mummy is gone too. I'll just stop describing the story now. But if you want to know how a mummy, ancient diamonds, green dust that turns into flesh-devouring fungus, a blue-skinned alien with big black eyes and a college campus tie in all together, then you might want to consider watching TIME WALKER. But be warned, most people might generally classify this as a bad movie, and I don't even have much arguments to compete with that. The acting is just tolerable and the directing isn't top notch either. What had me chuckling most, were many inserted reaction shots of certain actors, just standing there looking for a second, not saying anything, or just giving a short stupid reply. But here's an interesting contradiction: Not much really happens in this movie, but still there's a lot going on (just remember the previous things I mentioned). Everything ties in together nicely, but it's all very predictable. The mummy prowling the campus provides a couple of nice and creepy shots, but his green-colored POV vision was a bit cheesy. Of course he kills a couple of people (not just randomly, I might add), but the kills themselves aren't much to write home about. On the other hand, the murderous mummy encounters a topless female student on one of his escapades and most of his kills are filmed in shocking slow-motion. The movie builds up towards a nice twist-conclusion too, but sadly when you know the tagline to this movie, or just take a glimpse at the front or back cover art, you already know what's going to happen. Also, the story severely lacks a climax at the end.

TIME WALKER tries really hard, remains an offbeat, weird gem, but in the end doesn't succeed in what it sets out to do. There's plenty of interesting elements, but they are rigged together in a below average sci-fi/horror flick with a conclusion that leaves a lot to be desired. Given the nostalgia feelings I treasure for this one, it is with grief I have to flunk this baby. But don't let that discourage you to check it out if you should ever stumble upon it. And then come around some day and blame me for having watched a bad movie.


I saw this over 20 years ago and still remember. It was the only movie I walked out of before the end. Horrific acting combined with a pathetic "King Tut as the mummy" plot and dialog from a poorly stocked vending machine, this stunk to high heaven.

The only actor that I recognized at the time was a TV actor from a rip-off of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. His performance seemed forced, like somebody was pointing a shotgun off-camera with a sign that said "act or else." I strongly recommend this to anyone constructing a "worst movie" list.

In all fairness to the crew who put this together, I hold no ill will. It takes a lot to make a movie and get it into the theater. For that they deserve some credit. However, it still was a terrible movie.


This movie sucks!! I can boldly state that because I had actually seen it in the movie theaters when it came out, and on MST. (yes it was actually in movie theaters for a BRIEF time) It sucked then and it sucks now. It's only redeeming value is that MST got it and riffed the hell out of it which it needed. Ben Murphy steals a mummy from Egypt which turns out to be an alien which one of his students accidentally brings back to life. This movie was filmed at Cal State University Northridge, where I studied anthropology myself, and I doubt that any of my professors would have any of these idiots as students. But for what it's worth it is a funny MST episode and a lame horror movie. Maybe there was supposed to be a sequel, thank god there wasn't. Though it probably would have made a great MST episode.


This is a perfect example of the kind of low-level, low budget, crummy movie that really should not have been made in the first place. It has the feel of a "direct-to-cable/3rd feature at the Drive-in" snooze fest that never really generates any interest or momentum. The best you can say about it is that it helped a bunch of B-to-Z level actors make their condo payments, that Sherry Belafonte-Harper was fairly cute, and that both the director of photography and the soundtrack composer worked really hard to pump up the watch-ability of this movie with a lot of extra jiving and filling.

Poor Ben Murphy slogs along as best he can here, trying to make the audience (all 4 or us) believe that he is an archaeologist. I'll give him this; even in a snooze like this movie, where all the close-ups are held too long and every scene has the drama and pacing of a drivers' ed training film, he remains amiable and likable. God only knows how hard "Time Walker" would have been to watch if he hadn't at least given the movie his agreeable screen presence. People make fun of him, and he is a light-weight, but I've always liked the guy; I hope he made a million dollars and retired happily somewhere.

The rest of the cast comes off as somewhere between "unlikeable" and "despicable", (I have no idea what they are like in real life, so please don't take this as character assassination), so you actually sort of enjoy it (instead of being horrified) when the mummy kills them. Of course, that may have been the intention of the movie, but in that case, the director could at least have made the deaths a little more memorable. I saw better staged monster attacks in the infamous "Pod People" - the victim's death-scenes here are like watching hamsters getting squished with a giant clown hammer. And Belafonte-Harper actually has some on camera charisma, but the movie doesn't seem to know what to do with her - she seems to be in, but not of, the film. It's as if she wanted the exposure, but she couldn't bear to actually be involved in the plot.

The movie ends with Murphy's character teleporting off with the mummy to an unknown fate (good riddance) and the dean's assistant screaming into the camera as left-over space slime eats his hand. I think this was meant to leave us with a feeling of mystery and wonder and horror, but it left me with a profound feeling of relief that this bag of creaky dramatic devices was finally done. Not the worst or most incompetent movie I've ever seen, but definitely pretty useless.


This movie is also a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. This makes sense.

There are some IMDb users that have said this is a *good* movie. I try, but I fail to comprehend this. See, I agree that there are *some* movies that, although bad, could actually be sort of interesting to watch if you take away Joel and the bots.

But this film isn't one of them. Perhaps it's that I watch Doctor Who and these people don't. Even a really *bad* Doctor Who episode is better than this film.

Summary: This is a really, *really* bad movie. The worst aspects of this movie are: the acting, the manner in which they attempt to create suspense and tension (but only achieve boredom and apathy), and the incidental music.

Close after in "badness" are the special effects and the plot. To my knowledge, there are *no* really good aspects to this film...

Oh wait, I got one: the "TV's Frank Home Shopping Network" at the end of the Mystie episode wouldn't have been possible if it had not been inspired by the artifact in the movie.


I just have to say that this was the worst movie I have ever seen. And to think the writer is trying to teach my video class...

The movie is a waste of valuable time. Don't even bother. If you must watch it, check out episode 405 of Mystery Science Theater 3000, even then it was hard to get through without walking away. The only payoff of the MST3K is the end credits where they say it was the worst movie ever.

The author himself claims that E.T. was a ripoff of this movie, but I think that Time Walker (Being from Another Planet) is a ripoff of E.T. and written much better.

Other than the lacking plot line, the acting is simply horrible. Not much more to say about it.


OK, let's face it... this movie stinks out loud. HOWEVER, there is one recommendation: You must check out the MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 episode that tackles this terrible film!! MST3K thrives on poking fun at the worst movies ever made, the worse they are-the funnier the show is. For those who don't know what MST3K is, it's a TV show that ran in the 90's. It had a simple idea, a mad scientist forces a guy to watch horrible, mind-numbingly bad movies to see which one will make the young man crack. In an effort to keep his sanity, the guy,Joel(and later Mike)is imprisoned on a satellite. So he builds some robots who watch along with him. The three of them completely rip on these movies.The films are shown in their entirety, sometimes along with old shorts and newsreels as well.If you haven't had the pleasure of this show, look it up and treat yourself. TIME WALKER(know as BEING FROM ANOTHER PLANET,for the MST3k episode) is one of their best.


I saw this film when it came out in the theater 23 years ago and I'm still mad about the $4.50 I paid and the precious 83 minutes of my life that I will never get back. If I remember correctly, after watching it the MST3K group said that it was worse than any other movie they had ever seen except for "The Castle of Fu Manchu" and that is was AS BAD AS that movie. If it were possible I would devote my life to creating a time machine just so I could go back in time and do whatever it took, including assassination, to ensure that this movie never got made. I'm amazed that it did not hit the 100 worst movies list, I can only assume that it's not there because not enough people have seen it and endured its awfulness. There are some bad movies that are entertaining in their badness, there are some bad movies that I have enjoyed watching just to laugh at them. This is not one of them, this is just plain bad from beginning to end.


The year is 1982. A strange mummy is discovered in the tomb of King Tut, apparently having been overlooked by Howard Carter the first time around. When the bandage-wrapped dude arrives at the California Institute of the Sciences, it is up to Ben Murphy, his stoned looking girlfriend and a team of badly dressed losers to examine him. When a dorky jerk discovers a handful of crystals inside the sarcophagus, he decides to steal them for money. Unfortunately, the mummy wakes up and goes looking for his crystals, which have been spread all over campus in the form of bracelets and necklaces. Everyone the mummy touches is consumed by a killer green fungus and dies, if they're not killed outright by the cranky mummy. The mummy stumbles his way through boiler rooms, drunken frat parties, terrorizes a naked girl in the shower and another fully dressed one in a library. Turns out the mummy is an alien, and he needs those crystals to get back to his own planet.

What a lifeless, unenthusiastic mess this film is. Everyone looks half asleep and not particularly interested in the stupid film they were making. Horror enthusiasts might appreciate the presence of horror veteran James Karen and "Motel Hell" heroine Nina Axelrod is here too, playing the soggy, vapid love interest. Other than that, there is really no reason whatsoever to see this movie. It's boring, repetitive and ugly.


Sorry, but mummy's aren't scary. Especially badly-made ones that wander around with flashlights in their chests. This is one of those films where you wonder why you don't stop watching; you know it's not going to get any better. But, after you've invested the time to start watching it, well...who wants to let that go to waste. Here's a tip for you; if you get the idea you're watching a bad movie, you probably are. Get up and walk away. You only have so many minutes in your life; don't let movies like "Time Waster" devour any of them.


Mummy's never really scared me.And this one definitely wasn't scary.I first saw this on MST3K years ago,then I saw it again the regular version.Wow!What a boring movie.Bland characters,stupid monster,bad plot.The only way I'd recommend seeing this is to see the mistied version.


Was it writer Tom Friedman's fault; or director Tom Kennedy's treatment? TIME WALKER makes the view want to take a walk. Sorry. Get this. A mummy from outer space is buried in King Tut's tomb over 2,000 years ago. He is let out of the tomb in California, and as he tries to find his way home, he leaves slim covered bodies all over a college campus and community.

Cast members are: Ben Murphy, Nina Axelrod, Kevin Brophy, Annie Barbierei and Shari Belafonte.


Like Joel says in the end: "This movie sucks!!"

This has everything: bad acting, horrible dialogue, special effects by the local high school cinema club, and much more crap. In a word, a mummy is found, accidental overexposure to radiation (how original) turns the campus into a frenzy as the mummy is not pleased! Apparently, he hates it when he loses his marbles. The 80's theme is definitely there which makes this even more deplorable. I love towards the end when the campus president's evil assistant enunciates every syllable of his lines. On the good note, a lot of despicable characters are offed in the film. Classic final scene had me laughing myself to abdominal cramps. You won't be seeing green after viewing this pathetic tripe of a movie.

Oh and watch out for the fungus. (it's a mungus!!)


"Time Walker" starts out iffy, gets worse, then when it just starts to get interesting...IT'S OVER!

Sorry if I sound a little hard on this one, but have you seen this movie? You can probably figure out what's going on in this one LOOOOONNNG before any of the characters do, but once they catch up, there's nothing left to do. Just watch in desperation as the words "To Be Continued..." come up and the end credits begin.

This is bad beyond belief, even Ben Murphy can't save it (and he's usually pretty reliable, or at least WAS). And with window dressing like Shari Belafonte and Greta Blackburn along for the ride, the drool factor is there guys, but to what end?

It all makes you wish you had a screenplay-writing program on your computer so you could just write a sequel, get a couple of dollars and make the sequel yourself! How long has it been since the original? And how much longer will it be before the sequel?

Look at me, I'm begging for a sequel. I'm broken.

Thanks a lot, "Time Walker".

No stars. Don't watch it, keep your self-respect.


I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival. This is the second feature length film from noted short film director and writer Roystan Tan and I think this may have worked better as a short film rather than being dragged out into a 90 minute film. Very little dialog here. It's a story about an 11 year old cough medicine abusing-latch key boy named Xiao Wu whose mother is on business in Bejing and he's left alone in the apartment with a suicidal tenant from Korea named Jung who is drinking and popping pills. The long stretched out scenes are about exciting as watching paint dry. Xiao Wu keeps a journal about Jung and sneaks into his room and spies on him every morning at 4:30. As a 25 minute short this may have peaked my interest and tied everything in more neatly and concisely and left me wanting for more but as a 90 minute feature it left me wanting to abuse cough syrup or kill myself. I'll be kind and give this a 4.5 out of 10.


Fifth-rate 1920s crime spree with Fabian Forte cast as real-life Prohibition-era crook John Ashley who, along with his girlfriend Laura and assorted pals, preceded even Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker in the bank robbing field. Luke Moberly directs with a wink and a smile; he must have known this threadbare outing was no "Bonnie & Clyde", though he was clearly inspired by that film in visual terms, and his picture gets off to a decent start. However, with very green and inexperienced actors in front of the camera--and poor cinematography and sloppy editing going on behind it--the picture loses steam even before the halfway mark. Bill Walker's inappropriate score and some terrible quasi-period tunes on the soundtrack make the film unbearable to hear, much less to watch. It is inconceivable that rising star Karen Black, having already earned attention for her performances in "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces" (for which she was Oscar-nominated), should appear in such a low-rent production. Black and Forte are really the only cast members with legitimate acting experience (Forte had recently portrayed 'Pretty Boy' Floyd in 1970), yet their performances are just as lousy as everyone else's (like the script, perhaps they were simply confused as to how to proceed). The early scenes give hint that maybe Moberly was onto something with his approach, but he loses his footing quickly--and the movie doesn't so much crash and burn as it does disintegrate on impact. * from ****


It's hard to believe that Karen Black appeared in this terrible, extremely low=budget travesty, when she was already established as a star. Perhaps it was filmed years earlier and released after she became popular. Filmed in Florida, it's pretty torturous to sit through, and is recommended only for Karen fans, since she does look especially attractive, in black eyeliner. Aside from this, there's little else to remark on.


"Little Laura and Big John" was not based on Bonnie and Clyde, but on the true story of the capture of the infamous Ashley Gang at the Sebastian inlet bridge in Florida. It is not particularly well done, however, it is very interesting to residents of the Treasure Coast because of its historical significance. The movie depicts the gang as they rob banks and kill on a northward path along the Gold and Treasure Coasts of Florida, running just ahead of the then sheriff of Palm Beach County, who was determined to end their violent rampages. In addition to the well known professional cast, numerous local citizens (amateurs)took extra parts as deputies, bystanders, etc. While this was great fun for the locals, the practice of utilizing so many amateurs did nothing to enhance the quality of the film. The movie is something Karen Black probably wishes she had never done. It is poorly acted, poorly directed and generally as captivating as a high school video class's production.


My entertainment of this movie was laughing at it. I think the point when it really goes over the edge was when Fabian's eye patch actually switched from his one eye to his other eye and back again. I thought this was such an obvious mistake that I rewound and watched the one scene again. He is running on a dock when this happens. Sure enough his eye patch switched eyes with no explanation.

I watched this movie because it was on late night and it was free. And I was interested in seeing Karen Black and Fabian Forte in a movie together. So it was an okay movie for that type of watching. But if you really want to see a movie about lovers being outlaws. I would stick to Bonnie and Clyde with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.


A mildly engrossing, tepid suspenser that apparently bombed in theaters and drew the ire and castigation of moviegoers - an overreaction if ever there were one. Granted, it will never be taken for a masterpiece - the comic elements of the film consistently fall flat, and the plot is a fourth-rate knockoff of Hitchcock - but it isn't a complete dud either. At least 'Hanky Panky' manages to be consistently engaging as an actioner/thriller (as far as I'm concerned) and it is fun to see Gene Wilder and Richard Widmark sharing screen credit. And it boasts a fun supporting cast: Robert Prosky, James Tolkan, Kathleen Quinlan, the wonderful Josef Sommer (of Lydie Breeze fame), and even a young Larry Pine pop up and keep things hopping. Overall, a passable movie experience - it works as a time-filler if nothing else - but some of the attempts at comedy are pretty pathetic. If the scriptwriters had spiced up the scenario with a bit of wild physical comedy and more amusing situations, they probably could have saved the picture. No, Mr. Poitier - sorry to disappoint you, but watching a helicopter pilot belch for two minutes does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify as intrinsically funny.


What were they thinking?! Is this movie a comedy or is it a drama? It looks like it's a comedy--especially in regard to how they marketed the film. The only problem is, it just isn't funny. If it's a drama, there was no tension and the underlying message appears muddled. So, regardless of the intent, it fails on both levels. As a result, it is uninteresting and dull beyond belief. No, now that I think about it, it's VERY easy to believe that this movie is unappealing. So many ex-SNL people (especially the original cast) did MANY totally unfunny movies. Neighbors, Nothing But Trouble, 1941, Dr. Detroit and Funny Farm stand out as prime examples of this curse.

Part of my disliking this movie so much may be because I just haven't enjoyed any of the Chevy Chase movies I've seen, whereas many of my extended family members think he is brilliant. However, even they hated this movie and found it annoying, so that says something.


The above comment from none other than "America's Anchorman" himself pretty much points out the folly of Deal of the Century. William Friedken has given us some winners before, but this film is not one of them. The story deals with Chevy Chase, Gregory Hines, and Sigorney Weaver scheming to sell a dangerously unreliable aircraft to a third-world nation after it fails miserably in a demonstration for the US military. Comedic moments happen here and there, but ultimately, this film is just a left-wing "message film" that actually discredits itself in two key scenes.

The movie seems to be attacking on two fronts with its message. First off, it points a finger at the industrialized nations of the world who are selling large quantities of arms to underdeveloped nations. The logic being, if these weapons were never sold, these nations would be less apt to go to war. It might be a good idea to remind anyone who agrees that throughout human history, war has always been the constant. Regardless of what weapons are used, people are always fighting about something.

Deal of the Century also wishes to indict the US military build-up of the Ronald Regan administration. For what? Keeping the country safe from Soviet expansionism? Regan's policy worked, and war never broke out between the two superpowers.

There are two scenes that demonstrate the folly of the thinking behind this film. Early on, Chevy Chase is mugged by a man with a tiny handgun. Little does the man know that Chase is actually carrying a huge machine gun in a box which he takes out and points at the mugger. Obviously, having the superior weapon thwarted the mugging, and possibly saved Chase's life! In a later scene, Gregory Hines is accosted by a maniac with a knife and tire iron at his disposal. The man begins destroying Hines's car after they collide in a mere fender bender. Hines pulls a flame thrower out of his trunk and torches the maniac's car and chases him and his bimbo girlfriend off! Once again, the man with the superior weapon won the dispute! The only thing this film proves is that the person/country with the most guns will have the biggest advantage. Without the proper means to defend one's self, a person/country is completely vulnerable! 4 of 10 stars.

Watch to Live and Die in L.A. instead!


OK, here's an all-too-familiar story. Following the end of the US-back Shah in Iran, Iraq and Iran subsequently became embroiled in a pointless war. The US, mindful of Iraqi business, supported them for the first few years, but then sold weapons to Iran to counter Iraq's growing success. Profits from these sales went to the Contras in Nicaragua, thus the Iran-Contra scandal begins. After the Iran-Iraq war ends, the US pays Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to combat the Iraqi threat. Here we are today...draw your own conclusions.

What a story! Think of the possibilities if some competent screenwriter could make a film adaptation. Alas, this movie isn't anywhere near as engaging. It's Mel Brooks material like 'High Anxiety', any cheap shot that can be taken is taken. What Kubrick had in 'Strangelove', above all else, was research. This is as well-researched into its topic as the 'Left Behind' material or a made-for-tv movie.

I don't like Chevy Chase, his method of humor is both unsophisticated and dated even for the 80s. All his expression is in his eyebrows while his voice remains the same.

Friedkin hasn't had the best track record. He doesn't keep up with the times, thus he loses his edge.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud


This left-wing comedy is so very boring that it doesn't even have the strength to properly annoy me. Its support for Communist rebels and its disdain for Reagan and everything that he stood for is just so idiotic and trite. Weaver is her usual uncharismatic self, and Chase has never been this unfunny. But there's hardly anybody who'd have been funny with this script. It amazes me that someone actually went through the last draft of the script and actually thought "yeah, this one will be good; let's spend some millions and make a helluva picture!". If you are interested in reading my phony biographies of Weaver and other Hollywood morons, contact me by e-mail.


Remember Paul Brickman?

The director and writer of "Risky Business"? The director of "Men Don't Leave"? Remember?

Well, here's one to forget.

In spite of Friedkin as director, in spite of great special FX and in spite (or maybe because of) Chevy Chase as the star, "Deal of the Century" is more of a swindle.

1983 wasn't a very good year for movies, and here's more proof if you needed it.

If this really was the "Deal of the Century", let's all try to hold out until the year 2983, shall we?

Two stars. One for the effects and another for Sigourney Weaver. She did better in "Ghostbusters".


Sit in a hard chair if you intend on staying awake through all of Deal of the Century. This movie is just plain boring. It deals with Chase, Weaver, and Hines trying to sell a bunch of pilotless planes to a dictator who looks like Saddam Hussein's chipper twin. There are a few funny lines. Overall you'll just wonder what on earth is going on but won't care enough to rewind and try to find out. Wallace Shawn is the only bright spot in this mess, but he's eliminated quickly.


I saw this yesterday on video under the highly misleading title of Murder Reincarnated.

It might actually be the most boring straight to video thriller I have ever seen.

The lead actor seems like he's positioning himself as the next Jean Claud Van Damme--he's got the physique and accent but, unfortunately for him, the role is entirely dialogue driven and he can't act at all, at least not in English.

The script is laughable, the production values non-existent and the movie is nothing but talk, talk, talk. Avoid unless you want to watch a supposedly thoughtful and uplifting exploration of the idea of reincarnation disguised as a thriller.


This film .......oh this film.....this (expletive deleted) film, has achieved a substantial mark of horror in that i rank it almost as low as the Blair Witch Project, which, IMHO, is the worst film ever made... IF i had the unfortunate karma to view this (expletive deleted) in a theater, i would've walked out of this horrendously bad film...it is the second worst film that i have ever seen, beating out the venerable Zabriskie Point by Antonioni (which i walked out on the first time i saw it) which is now the third worst film i've ever seen....but i must admit that there is some pretty horrible (expletive deleted) out there which have forced me to appreciate Zabriskie Point more now...

The production values were so LOW that the film would only have been warranted if it was a porn film produced during the sixties...

Anytime that a film simply has the camera following none-meaningful banality in motion AND absolutely NOTHING of value concerning plot or action takes place for minutes of celluloid at a time, THEN it's time to get up and walk out for no more meaning can be derived from it, no matter HOW many minutes of the film one sees...

Beth B should be (expletives deleted).

The cameraman can be spared for he at least did not use the monstrous hand-held technique used in the Blair Witch Project & Cloverfield ... the camera ALWAYS showed the principle action, what little there was to observe in the midst of the banality.....

Viggo was SUPERB as an actor dealing with (expletive deleted)...his power of projection, his gift, was wasted in this horror....

McHattie also did a SUPERB job of trying to survive, to keep his head above the water in this vain, lame, milquetoast waste of celluloid...

The ONLY valid reason for this piece of (expletive deleted) to exist is to show to film students and budding actors how to try to act when the material is SO bad....Viggo and McHattie, i always knew were undervalued actors but they are positively heroic in my mind, for continuing to move and speak what was given to them by Beth B.......

And Dominique Davolos was actually the emotional center of the film in that Beth B gave her marvelous NATURAL speech to speak, while reacting to the bullshit that Viggo and McHattie had to utter....she was the ONLY normal relation to the average experience of the film-goer...

i personally despise Christianity, but this garbage of film-making is an unfair insult to Christianity as religion...

AND THE MUSIC WAS HORRIBLE!!!....total WASTE of sound producing instruments and the efforts of those who were reproducing the notes...i thanked my Atheist gods for every second of silence from the chatter-clatter of the music....

And i can't see why ANYONE would've gone to see this piece of (expletive deleted) except the reviews told me that Viggo's wife in the film had something to do with the band X ...oh well...then it was clearly word of mouth that brought drugged fans into the theater....


We've just gone through the Bakker family scandal, so hey, why not make a tasteless vulgar comedy out of squeaky clean religion? This is the most lurid use of satire I've ever witnessed out of SALVATION! After 80 sinful minutes, it's time I've gone into the shower and wash away the evil-spirited entertainment stuck in my soul! The movie isn't even worth laughing about, not just in satirizing the Bible, but in bland, senseless, flatulent humor. Rent this one and see what I mean. In the end, nothing can save anybody from surviving this Armageddon of dirty laundry!


A man receives a package from England. Inside is a letter stating that he is the sole heir to a family fortune and title. Additionally, the letter states that enclosed in the box are two bottles of the finest family-made liquor and that he should make a toast to the family and his good fortune. Unfortunately, the brandy-like concoction is laced with the blood of Dracula and slowly the man changes to a vampire. Additionally, the blood fills him with a desire for a vendetta--a vendetta to kill the living relatives of the people who killed Dracula a century ago. In a real change of pace, 90% of the film is set in the Miami area--certainly a big change from previous films.

I really am not exaggerating in the summary--this looks like a lower quality community theater group performing a modern reworking of Dracula. While this may sound pretty bad, for a Hershell Gordon Lewis movie, this isn't that bad. In fact, I'd place it in the top half of his films for quality--though it still isn't that great. The worst thing about the movie is the rather uninspired acting. Most of it isn't terrible--none of it is particularly good. The second worst thing about the film is the direction--it shows no imagination or style whatsoever. I've seen many homemade videos on YouTube that look as good or better. But, there is something decent in the film--the story. While doing yet another Dracula film isn't something we really needed, the story shows more originality than manner of the Hammer Dracula films! It is a novel idea...and that's something!


As of 2009, Herschell Gordon Lewis is still the master of Gore. As great as the man is, he will never be accused of being the master of Horror, but on an occasion, Mr. Lewis, unfortunately, has proved to be the undisputed master of Bore. Don't believe me? Check out Herschell's normal, 2-hour Horror epic, A Taste Of blood, on second thought, just take my word for it.

That's right gang, a regular Horror movie, courtesy of good ol' H.G. No gore, this time, maybe a trickle or two of blood. Technically, Horror is the name of the game. With better acting and everything, hot diggity damn. About a businessman named John Stone, who, one day, receives an inheritance in the mail, two bottles of Brandy., which, unknown to stone, also contains Dracula blood. I guess this guy is related to Count Dracula... positively genius!! Despite the wife's advice, John drinks the bloody booze, and the rest, as they say, is history... and by "history", I mean painfully dull. Sound intriguing? No? You don't say. Honestly, I don't feel great about making such negative comments about a man who, like it or not, is a bigger icon than Wes Craven and Sam Raimi combined. So, any self-respecting fan of the genre should be willing to over-look the flaws of Lewis, and sit through the Gore, as well as the Bore, at least once... well, except How To Make A Doll, a film which proves that some of these obscurities were meant to stay lost. When you're the master of Gore, fixing what ain't broke may not be the brightest of ideas, but at least Herschell is capable of thinking outside the box from time to time (unlike George Romero). Although, more gore would have been cool too. Ultimately, If you're not hardcore-Lewis, then don't even think about it, but If you must own them all, then own them all. 3/10


First off, I'm a HUGE fan of Mr. Lewis and have enjoyed many of his films over the years (2000 Maniacs, Blood Feast, Gruesome Twosome, She Devils On Wheels, Colour Me Blood Red, etc). Admittedly, I enjoy low budget schlockfests and B-movies. I am able to somehow find the good in even the worst exploitation films.

However, while I loved and still love Lewis' 1960s gore films, "Taste of Blood" is EASILY the weakest effort in the Lewis horror library. The acting is truly laughable, the plot inane, and the trademark Lewis gore is tame and bland. Vampire Stone is a dork and in the end, goes down in a pitiful display that would make Chris Lee red with rage.

If you are a new fan to Herschell Gordon, steer clear of this film until you've seen his "classics" ("2000 Maniacs" a must see). This is a very weak entry, and one that made even this die-hard Lewis freak wince........not in a "good" way.


It's hard to believe but Herschell Gordon Lewis actually made a non-gore horror film with this boring dreck. And with an almost 2 hour playing time, it's about 40 minutes too long.

A wealthy businessman (Bill Rogers) receives two bottles of plum brandy in the mail as part of an inheritance from his ancestor's estate back in England. As he drinks the brandy over the course of a few weeks, he slowly starts to change into a (gasp!) vampire named (you guessed it) Dracula!

With none of the usual Herschell Gordon Lewis gore feasts in sight, this one is a complete snoozer that lacks even the campiness of his other films.

The alternate audio commentary with Lewis on the Something Weird DVD can be funny at times, but not enough to save this turkey. In other words, this ain't no BLOOD FEAST or WIZARD OF GORE.

1 out of 10 for sheer boredom


Taste the Blood of Dracula marks a first for H.G. Lewis. He actually made a film that doesn't revolve around his gross-out set pieces. However, this movie is slow and painfully boring. It's a celluloid glacier. In my life I have never experinced such a slow movie (and I've seen many films). I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy. A word of advice to Mr. Lewis, "Don't stray away from a winning formula!"

Not recommended. Not even for insomniacs because I'm afraid they'll never wake up.

D for effort

P.S. I'll give credit to Mr. Lewis. At least he tried to do something different. Others wouldn't even take that risk.


Anyone who has already seen a Herschell Gordon Lewis film will probably know more or less what to expect from this one; bad acting, terrible production values, a turgid script etc etc. A Taste of Blood has all of those lamentable elements except this time it's even worse than usual as the damn thing goes on for a massive two hours. I had a strong feeling that I'd be criticising this film for length before going into it and quite why Herschell decided to make this film this long really is beyond me; it's not even like the plot line is stronger than his usual fodder and all we end up with is a film that is more stretched out than usual; not a film with added 'good bits'. The plot focuses on vampires; in particular, the legendary Count Dracula and the action kicks off (eventually) when a businessman receives a mysterious package from London containing a case of brandy. Naturally, he decides to drink the brandy and naturally considering the film is about vampires, it turns him into a vampire. He and his beautiful wife then go to London to kill off the Van Helsing family.

The sequence towards the beginning in which our hero receives the mysterious parcel from London really does sum this film up. This is a simple sequence yet Herschell Gordon Lewis manages to drag it out for twenty minutes; there's no suspense concerning the opening of the parcel either and in it's place is a load of padding that sees the three characters involved babble on about rubbish that doesn't concern the plot anyway. The rest of the film is no better than this sequence and is completely amateurish also; lacking any kind of horror or suspense and the little gore we do get just looks fake as usual. It's really a travesty that Bram Stoker's classic characters have been used in this movie too and the film does not justify their inclusion. Of course you could argue that it's not fair to criticise this film for being rubbish since anyone going into a HGL film will know that already; but the fact of the matter is that A Taste of Blood is a heinously bad film and it would be impossible to write anything about it without highlighting the numerous flaws. Overall, this movie is rubbish and difficult to sit through and should only be seen by hardcore HGL fans!


"A Taste of Blood" (1970) is a relatively goreless rarity for Herschell Gordon Lewis, aka "The Wizard of Gore." At almost two hours in length and clearly designed by Lewis as some kind of epic vampire saga, it tells the story of John Stone, a smarmy Florida businessman who receives two bottles of brandy in the mail from his British ancestors. He drinks the bottles off, little realizing that they have been Mickey Finned with the blood of Dracula himself, and soon, blue-skinned and with a 100-year-old score to settle, he starts to track down the descendants of the old neck nosher's enemies. That doctored booze, I should add, comes as no real surprise in the film...not after we learn that Stone's middle name is Alucard. (This sets the viewer up to expect appearances by Dr. Nietsneknarf and Mr. Namflow, which mercifully never happen!) Anyway, with only a handful of mildly bloody killings, this film should barely appeal to Lewis' usual rabid fans. Nor should it appeal to anyone looking for a well-put-together film. In truth, the picture is very cheaply made, terribly edited, moves at a glacial pace and is never frightening. Lewis' direction is lackadaisical and his camera positionings are pedestrian; worst of all, the same few snippets of music are repeated endlessly, as if on a tape loop, to the point of distraction, and the day-for-night photography is laughable. So why the three stars? Well, the film is also decently acted (for an H.G. Lewis movie, anyway), is at times atmospheric, and the three leads (Stone, his hotty blond wife and his best friend) are somewhat interesting. The picture should have been a 1/2 hour shorter, but with a lot more polish, this Dracula update could have been something other than the bloodless life-drainer it often is. Oh...I should also mention that those blessed maniacs at Something Weird have done it again, rescuing another cinematic oddball and making another fine-looking DVD out of it. Way to go, guys!


From the mind of gore master Herschell Gordon Lewis. a ghastly tale of the revenge of Dracula. John Stone(Bill Rogers), a quirky mundane business man,receives a couple of bottles of brandy that supposedly and unknown to him contains the spirit of Dracula's blood. Stone's wife(Elizabeth Wilkinson)realizes that her husband has become cold and distant since sampling the brandy. Stone is drawn to Europe, where he continues an awkward taste for blood and is driven by urgent revenge to destroy the last remaining descendants of Count Dracula's persecutors. Pretty lame even for Lewis's standards. Others in the cast: William Kerwin, Eleanor Vaill, Gail Janis and Otto Schlessinger.


Like others on this site, I really like low budget gore movies from the 1960s and 1970s. I can usually look past the terrible sets, dialog and acting if there's a sufficient amount of blood and guts.

Sadly, I must say this movie is the weakest of the H.G. Lewis films I've seen. To repeat what other people have said, it is WAY too long for this type of movie. The acting itself is no worse than his other movies. And the plot is similarly ridiculous. But there's almost no blood or other ghastly effects at all. Some seriously twisted gore would have made this more bearable. Graphic violence made "Blood Feast", "The Wizard of Gore", and "The Gore Gore Girls" pretty entertaining viewing experiences.

Maybe he was trying a more serious approach with this film. Who knows? I love his films, but I don't recommend spending 118 minutes of your life watching this one.


This is it, folks -- the worst movie ever made.

I know, I know, there are many who argue that "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Manos: The Hands of Fate" are worse "films" than this one. Well, I'd advise those people to give "Troll 2" another viewing, this time with an open mind. As something of a self-made authority on the worst of the worst in modern cinematic torture, I feel qualified to make the bold assertion that "Troll 2" is the cream of that particular crop.

From its laugh-inducing "soundtrack" (apparently recorded using only a vintage 1980s Casio keyboard) to its unilaterally awful acting, "Troll 2" is a life-changing experience, similar to the Middle Ages' trials by fire. If you succeed at ingesting this festering piece of cinematic detritus in one sitting, you will emerge a new person, like a phoenix rising from its own ashes. The watching itself may be painful, but it is ultimately worth the pain to be able to say, with conviction, "I survived 'Troll 2,' and I'm still technically alive."

The special effects in this movie are, indeed, special -- like a one-legged blind woman with Alzheimer's. Trivia: one of the various Emmanuelles from the infamous "Emmanuelle" series of softcore porno movies designed this movie's pitiful costumes. That should give you some indication of their quality.

The acting -- my God, where do I start? Suffice it to say that, if you set any cast member on fire, I would lay down even money that he or she would have a hard time convincing onlookers that it hurt. They're really that bad. More trivia: One of Elliot's "boys" in this movie would later go on to reprise his role (Idiot in Bad Movie) in the Lou Diamond Phillips classic "Bats." Even more trivia: The father in this movie was a local dentist, and most of the extras were bona fide Utah residents, as well. Talk about low-budget.

Back to the soundtrack -- There's not a single scene in the movie where the music is appropriate to the on-screen action. I get the impression that the "composer" employed for this stinker was, in fact, a failed auditioner for Def Leppard's still-vacant keytarist position. Seriously, it's rare, even in straight-to-video dogs like this one, to hear music of this woeful caliber.

What more can I say that hasn't already been set forth in previous reviews? This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that's saying something. It's physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausting to watch this film -- I recommend doing it alone, at least the first time you see it...that way, you can concentrate on its truly majestic badness -- and on feeling your brain cells die off, one by one, until you are no longer able to speak.

Good luck to you, if you decide to watch this one. It doesn't get any worse than "Troll 2."

ADDENDUM (October 2007): This is still the worst movie of all time. Its status as such will never change. "Troll 2" is simply the perfect storm of bad writing, casting, direction, cinematography, costuming, score, makeup, effects, acting, editing, and inspiration.


My sister made me watch this. She insisted it was a contagion, a disease she was compelled to spread. After seeing it, I truly understand, relate, and recommend.

It's awful! But a transcendent awfulness...you want to pass it around like milk that might be spoiled, but everyone needs to test it anyway.

I've never laughed so much at something that isn't even trying to be remotely comedic; it's a travesty.

I'm not surprised there are drinking games built around it, but you'll be more than amused watching it sober.Yes, it's that bad! But fun - you want to see it over and over again, and force other people to watch it too. Rent it on a particularly bad day: you'll forget everything irritating in your life, and be weirdly involved in a world of badly-clad midgets; suddenly wondering if baloney sandwiches or urine could possibly be the solution... If you vote, give it a one - it truly deserves the recognition of being one of the worst movies ever.


Imagine....some really bored media students who have rented a motor-home and have loads of popcorn to be used. Then imagine a film where those are the most expensive things in it. This is that film. Troll 2 - yet has no troll. Just goblins. But hey. The first time I saw this, I wished I had been wearing a nappy or sitting on a very big sponge, it is that funny. Personally, I could not get up from rolling around on the floor, nor the people I was with, although they had it worse, as they kept falling off the bed. Unfortunately, it is funny without meaning to be, simply because it is that bad. It seems to just have people dragged in from the street in the leading roles, which could well be true. Maybe somebody was very drunk when they decided to make this film. Or when they made it. Or when they went ahead with all the stages of production. Just possibly. Anyway, it is hilarious. I got my DVD copy for £2. That says it all really I would say. Watch this film if you want to see: neon-coloured food, children in masks and dressed in sacks charging around a forest set to a dodgy 1990-theme, awful make up, worse acting, even worse dialogue, the funniest yokels ever (including Sheriff Freak - 'nuff said) and the mightiest weapon ever seen in any film ever. Go on, watch it. Best laugh of my life, could be yours too.


YIKES! I have not seen this movie recently, but I remember wanting to see it when I was very young, right when it had just came out. I believe I was 7 or 8, and I saw the movie in a blockbuster, read the back as best as I could, and said, "That sounds funny". I vaguely remember an opening scene where a man is being fed food by a girl, and he turns into a tree or dies or something, and immediately, I thought, "What the hell is this crap?". The movie progresses at an equally bad rate: A family comes to a town called Nilbog, and not a single one of them notices that Nilbog spelled backwards is Goblin, which makes no sense, because the title of the movie is, I believe, TROLL 2, not Goblin 2. Of course, the lead character, a small boy, happens to glance into a rear view mirror on his parents car, and see's that Nilbog backwards spells Goblin. Only one problem: Nilbog reflected in a rear view mirror spells qodliN, not gobliN. WHOOPS! Then there's this stupid chase scene through a forest, where Goblins keep on popping up from nowhere, and urging people to run towards them. Over all, this movie was pure junk. 1 star because I am in a good mood.


I would like to begin my review by saying that watching this movie will be like taking a hot fork and shoving it in your eye socket for some people, whereas for others it will be the funniest F'n thing you've ever seen.

Before I get into the meat of the story or as I like to call it a double decker bologna sandwichTroll 2 has nothing to do with trolls (just goblins), Troll 2 also has absolutely nothing to do with Troll 1. AHA but that's not all!!!! The guy who made the cover for Troll 2 didn't see Troll 1 or Troll 2!!!! The original cover of Troll 2 has a werewolf (Not in Troll 1 or Troll 2) chasing a little boy who doesn't even appear in either of the Troll movies! If that doesn't make you want to take your head and smash it against concrete, I don't know what does.

I will now begin with the double decker bologna sandwich part of my analysis. The film begins with Grandpa Seth talking to his grandson Joshua. Joshua is constipated throughout the film and grandpa is dead. You know the kind of dead where you say you will be gone forever and then you come back and then you say you will be gone forever and then you come back and then you give your 12 year old grandson a Molotov cocktail and then you say you will be gone forever and then you come backthat kind of dead. He tells that old story of how Peter Pan ran through the woods one day, ate green goup, and turned into a MLANT. The mother, played by Margo Prey (AKA greatest actress ever) assures Joshua that it was just a dream and goes onto explain that Grandpa's death was, "Very difficult for your father, for Holly, and for me his daughter." You may want to give that quote a second reading The daughter is also brilliant in this picture. The chemistry between her and her boyfriend Elliott is sizzling!!! Ouch very hot! So sizzling that Elliott and his friends couldn't be more gay! Holly explains, "You take them to bed with you too (referring to Elliott's guy friends that are hanging out the window) and I don't believe in group sex". What??? Holly then explains that her parents don't like Elliott (that he is a good for nothing) and that they are going on vacation for a month. Ellliott then asks, "Is it true you're going on vacation tomorrow?" "Yes!" "I'll come with you?" "OK I'll tell my father that you're coming with us tomorrow" Believe me the movie keeps goingJoshua must do it he must do it! He must pee on everyone's food before they eat corn with green paste on it. Oh my god! Or how about "You're a genius big Sister!" Watch for the mother staring directly into the camera and yelling, "Oh dear god what can we do!" So they have this family exchange and they go to Nilbog and oh my god!

This movie is a pure masterpiece. It's so bad it's fantastic! I recommend everyone to give it one viewing just so you can say you've survived it's stupidity. Make sure you watch it with friends thoughDO NOT watch this movie alone or you will lose your mind trying to figure out why anyone would make a movie this bad...I will leave you with this: Mother says "Elliott what are you doing here?" Daughter says "Elliott is part of the family now!" Mom puts her hand on Elliott's face, "Oh Elliott!"


I'm ashamed to admit I've seen this. I don't know what's worst- the "plot" or the "acting" -I've never seen a more hideous and inept cast! And how about the "special effects" and lame 80's music? Not to mention the hair, clothes, the lack of continuity... and that dance sequence! Was that really necessary?

The only positive thing I can say is that I laughed... but it's not supposed to be funny.

And, huh, "Nilbog?" Who saw THAT coming?

Horribly bad in an epic way. Torment friends, neighbors, love interests and total strangers with this, PLEASE!

I Suffered through it! I inflict it on everyone I know, like the infectious disease it is. Give it a "1" but spread it around.


Isn't it strange that almost all bad movies concern goblins of some sort? The best way to watch this movie is to get everyone you know and play the Troll 2 drinking game that a clever IMDB member submitted with his comment. You may die, but it'll be worth it. There are many hilarious scenes in Troll 2, but I won't spoil them. Most of the hilarity relies in the absolutely dismal acting and incomprehensibly awful dialogue (Including the classic 'Nilbog is goblin spelt backwards'). The special effects are also very funny, most notably the spear throwing scene. And the funniest scene of all is the supposedly erotic scene, involving a woman with a corn cob. Only bad movie fans need apply. If you liked Hobgoblins, you'll love Troll 2. 10/10


I collect crappy horror films, particularly the "creature flicks" and I have to confess that Troll 2 is my run-away all-time favorite. This movie has absolutely no redeeming qualities, none. Had the acting, story, effects, dialogue, any one of those not been as awful as they are in this film then Troll 2 simply would not be the same. It would have been forgotten long ago and not held as the utter piece of crap that it is.

First, there is absolutely no connect with the first Troll movie. This is probably a good thing since the first movie wasn't even funny in an awful way, just horribly lame. There is not a single troll in Troll 2 anyway, since they're all "goblins." The premise entails a family (Mom, Dad, Joshua, Holly) in some sort of "exchange program" which puts them in a town called Nilbog (get it?). It turns out that the town is really goblins who try to feed humans neon green slop that turns them into part-vegetables. The goblins then eat them. The family is evidently comfortable eating food like corn-on-the-cob with neon green stuff on top and cakes with "eat up" written in green "icing," except for Joshua who suspects trouble by virtue of the fact that the boy is in communion with his dead grandfather, a man who conveniently knows all about the goblins and how to conquer them.

As if this premise weren't enough, the acting is horrible. Holly has a boyfriend who comes along and drags three of his own friends who each suffer a gruesome fate (turned into a tree, drowned in popcorn, etc). These dorks couldn't score with Nilbog girls if they paid them, but since there's a weird homo erotic feel to their interactions, it probably wouldn't come to that. Holly's BAD at delivering her lines - it reminds me of second grade and how we'd read the parts of a play out loud in class. It sounds prepackaged and faked, like reading off a teleprompter. The Mom is equally awful and has really strange bug eyes. You half expect her to turn into a goblin. Apparently "row, row, row your boat" is her favorite song and she makes her family sing it. Joshua looks like he's in constant pain and every whine of his makes you grit your teeth and beg for a chainsaw (Creedence has one!). Although far from being good, the Dad here delivers the best performance, but maybe that's because he reminded me of Craig T. Nelson, who can actually act. As far as costumes, they went crazy with the green dye. It's everywhere. There are only three goblin mask molds that they use on different midget or kid actors so that the goblins look inbred. There's a closeup where we see a goblin's mouth and the fakeness of the mask is revealed. The music is a keyboard synthesizer.

The strangest thing about this movie may be the continual string of non-sequiturs. We see "Nilbog milk" but we never find out why it's there or what it's supposed to do (It presumably doesn't aid in the vegetable-morph process). We never learn about grandpa's powers, why he's unable to stop the family from eating bad food yet is able to hack a goblin with an axe through a mirror later and produce a Molotov cocktail to hurl at the Nilbog preacher. Why turn Arnold into a tree? Who was that girl randomly running through the forest and why doesn't Arnold seem surprised to see goblins? Just who is Creedence and what does her family being "from Stonehenge" have to do with anything? How does "the power of goodness" vanquish the goblins? I have to conclude that there's a satirical undercurrent to this film because it's just that random.

This film is obviously a local product from somewhere in Utah. It changes your perception of that state. According to the cover, this movie is just over an hour and a half but I swear it feels like a three hour movie. I recommend watching Troll 2 if you like funny bad movies, but it's best watched with friends and intoxicating substances. "They're eating her! And then they're going to eat me! Oh my gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd!"


I saw the Troll I and II double feature at Blockbuster and my first thought was "AWESOME!!!" I knew they'd be bad and I'd love every minute. Plus Troll II is like 7 on the bottom 100 and I wanted to see how bad it really was.

Unlike Troll I, which is funny, cute and entertaining, Troll II is total crap. The movie opens with a bad voice over telling a ridiculous story about Goblins. Goblins, mind you, not Trolls. No one really cares about any of it. The bad voice is that of Grandpa Seth, who is dead. He is pretty bad actor with a hilariously serious look constantly on his face. His expression makes up for his acting. He is telling the story in a Princess Bride fashion to Joshua, an ugly little boy who is the best actor in the movie and that is not saying much. Moving on. The rest of Joshua's family are HORRIBLE actors- the worst I've ever seen. The acting is so bad you'll want to jump into the movie and take over because you know you're Oscar worthy compared to them. Or you'll just wish they would die. There is some mention of a farmer exchange program the family is taking part in. Joshua's sister has a tiff with her undeniably gay boyfriend about his friends (aka lovers).

The family goes to Nilbog. It's deserted. The family is stupid for even going there for whatever reason. Grandpa Seth warns Josh of goblins and the green slime that turns you into goblin chow. Joshua pees on slimy food because his family is blind and about to eat it. The rest of the movie just gets crappier and crappier. There is a hideous German Goblin woman... aww, I'm not even going to go into it. This movie is so utterly stupid it doesn't even deserve a plot synopsis. The plot is bad, the dialogue is cringe worthy and the acting is so bad I wished everyone death in the first five minutes.

This movie isn't even so BAD it's GOOD, it's just bad. Don't ever watch if you can help it.


This is so horrible yet laughable at the same time. It's definitely worth watching just to goof on with friends. First off, the fact that they never mention the cheap k-mart costumed creatures as trolls (The Friggin' title of the film!!) but as Goblins should already say they were losing the concept quickly. But I guess the fact that the writer had the genius idea of naming the town Nilbog (Goblin spelled backwards) there was no turning back. OK, fine. So they're Goblins not Trolls, then why throw in a Leprachaun mythos by having them all be burned with clover scars and evil green St.Patty's day food? Which by the way when eaten turns you into a goblin. Hilarious scene where the kid prevents his family from eating this food. Hint: Urine for a surprise.

This is nothing compared to the actual thing he uses to finally defeat the goblins in the end. I'm gonna tell you, since it's so retarded. It's a friggin' Balogna sandwich!!! What the Hell!!! He eats it, because apparently the Gobbys are vegatarians and just can't stand meat? Whatever.

BY the way the sandwich is supplied by his dead grandfather who constantly pops in and out of scenes. Acting is 100% horrible. Story sucks, but funny as all hell!


Troll 2, Quickie Review (Edited from original review) This film is rated as one of the worst movies ever made on IMDb.com, and you know what? It got that rating for a damn good reason. ***SOME SPOILERS IN THIS ONE, BUT THEY WON'T HURT THIS FILM*** The movie follows a family that, for no apparent reason, is just "switching homes" with some hicks in some podunk town called "Nilbog" for a vacation. If that concept isn't weird enough, don't worry, the movie will quickly outshine that wet spot. Well, the town is infested with--you guessed it--goblins. What's that? You guessed trolls? Ha ha, sorry sucker, this movie is titled wrong--probably just to throw you off!! In fact, as the horrible little boy in the movie suffers the line, "Nil-bog isss Gob-lin... back-waa-ards!!" you begin to realize this the movie has a wealth of increasing crappiness yet to vomit your way. The goblins are immensely laughable, if not downright pathetic--they're midgets (oh, I'm sorry, not-tall people) dressed in what appear to be fire-damaged carpet with masks apparently crafted by the artful hands of Helen Keller. One of them has eyes the size of golf balls--and they never blink! On top of it, the "goblins" are vegetarians, so of course, in order to eat the visiting humans (in case you haven't guessed, the whole town is goblin-infested, like in "The Howling," but crappy), they--get ready--turn them into vegetables of some sort. The acting is gut-wrenchingly bad--the worst is the woman playing the Mom in the family, there is no atmosphere--it takes place under the terror of daylight, and well, there is but one entertaining thing in the whole movie: That classic scene where, haunted by the ghost of grandpa, the little boy pisses all over the family's dinner to prevent them from eating food that would vegetate them into Goblin-meal. No kidding. 1/10

www.ResidentHazard.com


If you have seen a movie where the director has more passion for absolutely festering chunks of horse apples, please contact me. this movie has not only become a personal obsession of mine but my friends and i reference it on a daily basis. our vocabulary has melded around Troll 2. If you haven't seen it...

...a family (the Waits') from the city trades houses with a family (the Presences') from the country for a month in the lovely town of Nilbog. The townspeople are billed as friendly but they are nothing short of strung out, overly creepy and laughable rednecks. of course everyone in the town is a horribly inept GOBLIN, despite the title of Troll. In human form they are slow, awkward and can't act. as Goblins, they are smaller, stupider and even more retarded (watch for the GOblin with bug eyes and watch how the flimsy rubber fingers of the costumes shake)if you can make it through this movie without laughing, you'll need a drink or 4. if you love it, come join me and my retards over at groups.myspace.com/nilbog


Troll 2 makes Troll 1 look like Citizen Kane. In other words it's bad. Really bad. This movie is so bad that after watching it you'll want to run out and rent Ghoulies to get the taste out of your mouth.

The opening scene has trolls chasing someone through a misty field to the tune of 80's techno music and it only gets better after that.

*********I'm ashamed to say this about such a stupid movie, but this review contains SPOILERS******************

The movie involves a family moving to a town named Nilbog (that's right it's goblin spelled backwards even though the movie is called Troll, not Goblin) and swapping houses with some hillbillies. When watching this movie it's best if you go into it prepared to not ask any questions. Why a family would move into another family's furnished, food-stocked house is better left unexplained. Also why a family would proceed to eat the other family's green icing covered dinner is also better just accepted as normal.

The green icing on the food is a repetitive theme throughout the uhhh...film. It's apparently some sort of troll dna juice that turns the digester into a troll. Although that is never really explained. Another tool the clever goblins..err trolls have come up with is Nilbog milk which also turns the person who drinks it into a troll. If it's that easy, it seems like they could turn the entire world into trolls by mass producing Nilbog milk, but maybe that's not their intention. What the trolls get from turning other people into trolls is never explained like in so many monster takeover movies. The monsters/zombies/trolls/aliens always want to turn humans into their likeness and that's universally accepted, but why? What benefit do they get from making people like them?

Anyways, I digress. The good news for the family is the young boy has an ally in the form of the ghost of his deceased grandfather. The old man has the ability to appear to the boy to provide convenient warnings regarding the trolls just because he hates them that much.

One of the strangest scenes in the movie (there are a lot of them) is when the kid receives a vision from grandpa that he must pee on the green icing covered dinner his family is about to eat to keep them from becoming trolls. Luckily he does this right before his sister unknowingly is about to eat some tainted GREEN ICING COVERED CORN ON THE COB. That's not out of the ordinary at all right?

Another wonderfully horrible scene is when two guys venture into the weird troll witch's lair and one of them is turned into a plant, which doesn't really seem to bother him too much.

This movie is so horrible that every adult should be required by law to see it at least once. Newer DVD players are actually being coded to reject this movie upon reading it. Maybe next time a family will move to a town named Llort and the adventures will start all over again. Oh yeah, and maybe next time they'll throw in some gratuitous nudity to transition the scenes. The R rating the nudity would have provided would have actually been a public service because it would have kept impressionable children from watching this mess.


This movie cracked me up! It was like that guy who ate all the celery at a cocktail party! Especially where Joshuau peed on the food! And there's not even really trolls! His mom has bad hair and his sister can't dance, yet they wonder why he'd rather hang out with his dead grandpa! I didn't get into how Elliot was getting naked with his friends and watching porno stuff with monkeys and bad music, but since your friends are not even worried about how corn and vegetables will kill you, then it makes sense that you button up your shirt when your girlfriend shows up unexpected.

I don't want to even think about reading a cook book about vegetables or have some guy try to make me eat ice cream with raisins on it.

But its good to know a baloney sandwich can save me from that.


I had steered clear from this abomination for so long to only let my guard down and allow the temptation to take hold. I see some people adore it for its sheer badness, but I didn't find it particularly amusing (save for a couple of scenes and dialogues) in that aspect. It bored me, and while technically it was rather standard with some bottom of the barrel choices in wonky make-up FX (no really cheap Halloween masks) and clumsy special effects. I was expecting something more along the lines z-grade trash. Trash it is, especially the material (bonkers plot and terribly inane script) and overbearingly inept performances (leading the way is main the kid with the screwed-up face and the hammy rejected stage-actresses Deborah Reed, and the mother is quite ding-bat too), but for me it wasn't so bad it's funny like it's mentioned it's just tiresomely bad and goes for 91 minutes too long.

Some no all of the plot details are ridiculous, but some more so than others like very needy boys hanging out with pal (who's the boyfriend of Connie Young's character) and the welcoming town's folk with their fascination for food. Green food and drinks and no one bothers to question it.

The thing that was running through my head (other than can see this get any more stupid yes) was this trying to be a comedy (I hope so) or serious horror. Well it's horrifyingly stupid. If I start thinking too much about it, I might have just started sweating out green sludge! What was the deal naming the film 'Troll 2', where it's goblins that appear I guess that's one of life's many mysterious. At least the ending (while tacky) is unexpected.


What can i say abut this cinematic masterpiece that hasn't been said before? The film is about a town of vegetarian Goblins who hate meat. So what threat are they to humans then? I hear you cry! Why, they turn you into a vegetable before they devour you.....obviously (dont you feel stupid for asking now?) I'd also like to clarify that Troll 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Troll 1' or indeed a troll or collective trolls. It features some of the most memorable scenes ever to be shot on celluloid and that my friends is a fact! How clever they are to call the town that the family are moving to 'Nilbog' and then show a shot of a sign for the town in the cars side mirror, clearly showing the word 'Goblin' This film deserves an Oscar! Also many people are saying that this is the worst film ever made! What utter rubbish, i'd sit through this film a hundred times rather than watch 'Batman & Robin' again for even five minutes. So there! (its clearly the second worst film ever made!)


Troll 2 offers everything one expects from a movie with its reputation: bad acting, bad dialogue, bad effects and best of all loads of entertainment. Thank you Claudio Fragasso.

Also, I have read a number of reviews touting this movie as the "Holy Grail of Bad Films". While I can't disagree with that, I have to say as a lover of low-budget debacles, many of the greats don't get adequate exposure. In no particular order, I offer a few other treats to fans of this movie. 1) Eyes of the Werewolf 2) Demons at the Door, 3)Necrofiles(*Warning:adult content and very distasteful) and my personal favorite: 4) Ricky-Oh: Story of Ricky. Just giving a little something back to those who have given me so much.


Troll 2 is just an aMEZIN film.

I love how the guy who plays the dad acts in this film, it's up there with De Niro in Raging Bull, he clearly thought this was his big break, and for me, it was. The Mother is just Genius. how she says "JOSHWA" and Not Joshua, that's putting your own personal stamp on a character right there. The boy, Joshua, is just brilliant, every scene he is in he steals, and i am certain that the trailers for "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" that say "CITIZEN KANE SURPASSED" were stolen from the trailer for this movie for Joshua's performance. (Although, clearly the guy who gets turned into a plant spent months getting his part perfect, i mean the delivery of the line "OH MY GOD, THEY'RE EATING HER, AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA EAT ME!" just shows that this guy has the ability to get such raw emotion through the screen and into your heart. the terror i experienced on his behalf makes the exorcist look like an episode of the muppets.

however, the best part, and the element of the movie that still, 18years on remains unsurpassed for me, is the Goblin masks. i think that the Jim Henson workshop have been embarrassed by this little film, who, with an Italian director who can't speak English, and hardly any budget, have managed to make goblins that have defined what one should look like. specifically i mean the one that the sister turns into when they are in the car. clearly the muppets stole the idea of "BEAKER" from this goblin.

Jim Henson needs to take a long look at himself as i believe he has been truly outdone here by master craftsmen.

the icing on the cake is Grandpaw Seth, whose every line reduced me to tears.

i scoff now at the Oscars, which seems to be all political.

Lets look at who won the Best Picture award in 1990..."DRIVING MISS DAISY" Troll 2 not even nominated.

Best Actor? Michael Stephenson for "JOSHWA"?? no. Daniel Day Lewis for "MY LEFT FOOT"

Best Director? Claudio Fragasso?? No, Oliver Stone.

Its all a conspiracy!! why was this film overlooked?


This movie is beyond bad. It is legendarily bad. I highly recommend watching it after an obsessed friend of mine (who actually owns a t-shirt with a picture of one of the movie's goblins he calls googly eyes, because it has weird eyes) made me watch it drunk. I'm not sure what this movie would be like sober, but I bet it wouldn't be pretty. It might make you doubt life in a way that suicidal thoughts would be induced into your head. I'm going to save you all the wonderful quotes from this movie, which you have probably already read from previous reviews. I'll just tell you this, because I think it truly summarizes how equally terrible and hilarious this movie is: There is actually a scene where you can see one of the tech crew, or someone else who's not supposed to be there running off the scene in the background (I rewound and watched it this part three times with friends because it was too unbelievable for words).


this film is so bad i find it hard to describe to other people, so I end up showing them leaving them speechless! I have seen this awful film far to many times now.

it has no relevance to the first one. NOT EVEN ANY TROLLS TO BE SEEN. JUST GOBLINS

Bad cast, acting, plot, effects just everything.

you Will have to watch this for yourself to truly believe that a film like this can be made by people over the age of two.

However saying all this it is strangely watchable for its sheer awfulness


For the B movie fans, there are films to watch, and there are "films" to watch. This movie falls in the later. Having become a b movie fan earlier this year, I made it my goal to watch a majority of the "bad" films that exist. This not included garbage made today, I'm talking about 90's and earlier. Over the course of last year, I learned of the films from some people on a forum on another website. Claim it as the best/worst film ever made. They consider it to be the best bad movie of all time, even greater then the cult favorite Plan 9 from outer space.

The basic plot of the film is that this family goes to another town for a vacation called Nilbog. The town is completely made up of religious vegetarians who love milk for some reason. It turns out that the entire town is made up of goblins hence the name Nilbog which is actually Goblin spelled backwards.

The plot itself is just so bad. The actors and actresses are bland and are overacting at many parts of the film. The whole idea of how to beat the Goblins is just goofy in itself.

The film itself has NOTHING to do with the previous film, so if you have seen the first film, and expect to see the 2nd film deal with more Trolls you would be disappointed.

The film is bad, but there are worse films out there. Trust me I have seen some of the films that are worse than this and it makes Troll 2 look like a blockbuster hit.

Overall if you enjoy b movies or bad movies, then this is your film. If you hate bad movies, then avoid it at all cost.


Wow, just wow. Does this movie actually exist, or is it part of some awful dream? Sadly or gladly, however you want to look at it, it does. The first 'Troll' is hardly a masterpiece, but unlike this film it was made by a competent director with a cast that actually had training. This "sequel" was directed by Claudio "Drake Floyd" Fragrasso who brought us such classics as 'Zombi 3' and 'Zombie 4: After Death,' and if you've seen either of those movies before seeing this one then maybe you know what to expect. I first saw this film back in the early 90s. The box artwork is really eye-catching isn't it? Even though I was just a dumb kid at the time, I could still tell the difference between a good piece of film-making and and a film so bad it hurts, but what is it about the movie that makes one hurt you ask? It's that it makes you laugh so hard that your chest is about to burst. That is the magic of 'Troll 2' my friends.

Pros: This'll be easy right? Ha! Well, the pace moves like lightening. The actors, no matter how over-the-top or shrill, at least seem to be having fun and aren't stiff. There are plenty of unintentionally (Or were they intentionally?) hilarious moments and dialogue. For example, the older sister has a duzy of a line that goes, "If my father discovered you here, he'd cut off your little nuts and eat them. He can't stand you." This is supposed to be a horror movie right? Right, but the music is like a combo of music from some really bad action movies and comedies, which adds to the fun. Plenty of moments that you'll never forget. What else? Um...the special effects are fun...to laugh at!

Cons: Everything!!!

Final thoughts: This movie very well could be the greatest cult classic of all time. Move over 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' and 'Showgirls,' a new great piece of crap is in town. And now with the cult status, recent screenings, and upcoming documentary, will we be cur...I mean blessed with 'Troll 3?'

My rating: 5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 1.5/5 (Serious rating)


First of all let me say "House Swaping"? Sounds more like an ABC reality show then something that would happen in real life. I mean what kind of cheap Bastard would plan a vacation like that. What was he thinking "It's free". Who is he "Al Bundy"? Next problem, the movie is called TROLL 2, not GOBLINS 1. Where were the Troll? There is no Trolls in Troll 2. No connection to the first movie what so ever. Next major issue, if the "goblins" were vegetarians, then why turn people into vegetables when they can grow their own! It would make more sense if they were flesh eaters. Now finally, the last and biggest problem with "troll 2". The climax, the ending of the film leaves the impression that Josh destroys all the Goblins, then the other shoe drops. He walks into the kitchen and finds Goblins eating his mother after turning her into veggie matter. What the hell is up with that. THE NOOSE


In-crappy-credible. That's the word that comes to mind. How do movies like this get made? Was there no sane person on the set (never mind, they didn't have a set) who had the guts to tell Claudio Fragasso "sorry mate, this just ain't gonna work, just give it up already before anyone gets hurt"? Wow. That's all I can say. I truly cannot summarize how awful this movie is in words. But I'll try, anyway. I have to get this film out of my system before I go insane.

Take some rednecks and ex-porn stars, throw them into some anonymous town in the middle of nowhere, slap a huge "NILBOG" sign on a pole, hire lots of dwarfs and some sh!tty costumes, and get the most over-the-top, annoying, washed-up Z-movie actress you can find to play the main antagonist, add a delusional kid who is almost as convincing as the thespian from "Pod People", and at least twice as irritating, and you have a movie. That's the Claudio Fragasso way!

So we have a kid actor with whom we're supposed to sympathize, but he's so bad I just wanted to hit him most of the time and tell him not to be such an overreacting little prick. Seriously, Joshua looks like someone is repeatedly kicking him in the groin whenever he tries to emote.

Unbelievably, Joshua isn't the worst actor in the film - even though everyone in this movie either screams or mumbles his or her casual lines , and even though Joshua's mum looks like a crack addict psychopath during most of her scenes, the real Dung Beetle award for incompetent acting has to go to Deborah Reed. She plays Creedence Leonore Gielgud in a way that makes it hard not to think that the nice men in white coats were waiting for Deborah after major shooting of the film had finished. This woman has the scariest eyes I've ever seen, they're constantly moving up and down, bulging in and out of their sockets so fast even Rodney Dangerfield would be scared. Her eyes are enough to almost distract you from her horrendous overacting, but only almost. Hearing her deliver her "little flower" speech makes you pine for the subtlety and depth of Vin Diesel. But enough about her.

Can it get any worse? Actually it can, because suddenly a myriad of the aforementioned dwarfs - sorry, I meant goblins - appear. Think of an army of walking, oinking potatoes with bargain bin Halloween masks - those are the goblins. Sound scary yet? I thought so.

Kill me now. I thought the film couldn't get any dumber, but it did - suddenly Joshua realizes that "NILBOG" is actually "GOBLIN" spelled BACKWARDS!!! Yes, I'm stunned too. This truly is the most brilliant plot twist this side of M. Night Shyallaman. And so cleverly set up, too! I can assure you I did NOT see this coming, no siree. Gee whizz, what a shocker! All sarcasm aside, this is probably the part of the film where I completely lost it. The sheer look of shock on Joshua's face upon his revelation combined with the "scary" music (which was probably stolen from some Japanese TV show from the eighties, by the way) - this is unintentional comedy at its finest. And by "finest", I mean "most painful".

So, when all is said and done, what can we make of this movie? It's low budget, so badly acted you'll want to gouge your eyes out, unintentionally hilarious, blatantly homoerotic (Elliott having trouble choosing between his "boys" and his girlfriend, Elliott's "boys" sleeping half-naked next to each other) and it gave me the impression that Claudio Fragasso has a fetish for the colour green. In conclusion this film has very deservedly earned itself a position on the Bottom 100, and I'm still blown away by the fact that there are movies this irredeemably awful out there. My review has barely scratched on the surface of how awful this film is - it's worse than "Red Zone Cuba", worse than "The Beast of Yucca Flats", worse than "Time of the Apes"... and I wouldn't hesitate to say that it's *this* close to being as bad as "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (interestingly enough, both films feature a hilarious scene in which the main characters inexplicably burst out in a chorus of "Row your boat"). My Bottom 100 marathon couldn't have ended on a higher note of badness and I'm happy to say that I survived this ordeal (Watching "Bloodrayne", "Captain America" and this in a row) without any extensive brain damage... or did I? Anyway, to any devoted fan of bad movies, this is truly appetizing... and provocative. To quote Arnold, one of Elliot's "boys": "OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!"


Okay.This is gonna be just another "this movie SUCKS ASS" comment but I just have to write it down otherwise my soul will die.

This is by FAR the worst movie I ever saw in my entire life.I saw many bad movies and terrible movies but this is just something unbelievable.I use to watch movies without any pre-judgements and I give a chance to each movie I watch.In this case it was hard because I've read all this comments here but nevermind.So I watched it.Dear God.I did.

Troll 2 is so bad.So bad that I think people who created it wanted to do such a piece of crap.Plot,acting,music,effects,wannabe spooky moments...everything just everything is bad.No,I think bad is not enough.I don't think there is a word in this universe that can describe what Troll 2 is.

Joshua the main hero is so annoying that I hoped something will happen to him.Something gruesome.The actress of Joshua's mother is beyond terrible but no one is so bad as the main villain Creedence Leonore Gielgud.That character is written and played extremely bad.

I am really sad that someone gave to this movie 10 because I think this is king of bad movies and it should be at 1st place in top 100 bottom.


I don't usually have a problem with surreal films but this one was deadly. There are some nice visual touches that justifiably lend this movie historical importance but watching it is a misery. The dialogue: "Gonna die, huh?" "Yep." The naked fat woman running around in her house for arcane reasons. The MOST boring characters I have ever encountered outside of a Slasher film. Admittedly all these things have their artistic rhyme and reason, but they're still about as fun to watch as an elderly relative cutting their toenails.


Just dull dull dull dull dull. Oh -- and pointless. What "art" there is in this movie is limited to still compositions. A great work to demonstrate the importance of a cinematographic eye rather than a compositional one. Some pretty black and white pictures of fruit ripening on the vine and some waving wheat. A silly segment where a man discusses the fact that he's about to die, gets a little something to eat and says "ok I'm going to die now" and does. Other than that -- 70-odd minutes of obscure and ineffective propaganda in favor of tractors and collectivization. If Lenin had seen this movie he would have gone into investment banking, rather than waste more time espousing communism. Please don't waste your time on this.


Although this was an early film, it is completely boring because of the proselytizing done by the supposed "communist state", which was in reality only an elitist central committee protected by the elements of the army and a secret police, much like America today. The premise is that the people who don't co-operate with the communal needs of the state, are "scum of the earth" or "crop fertilizer" and they are portrayed as being selfish and undesirable murderers in the film and thus have to be 'weeded out'. Its obvious that this is nothing but a ultra-realist piece of propaganda from Stalinist Russia, there's nothing to get excited over considering a small peasant village is getting a new tractor. Some interesting shots but over all, very boring and empty of any substance which keeps the viewer interested......For the agricultural student, its dated because the machinery used is now obsolete, some nice seeds/crops in the film though and shots of animal husbandry are included, especially a titillating scene where a peasant babushka milks a cow. Extras on the DVD's include 1930's constructivist milk ads from Russia and how to brush your teeth with toothpaste made from manure.


This, next to Volcano, is the worst Tommy Lee Jones film I've ever seen. The ghost bit didn't come off, the friends of Jones' character added nothing to the story...and the story! Just what was the story? Something about a ghost wanting her jewels back and her hubby running some creepy game on Jones. Stupid tale plus dull, plodding dialogue equals a real loser movie.


This has to be the worst Jones film of all time. What was he thinking? Guess maybe back in 1988 he didn't know he would be as big as he is today and just took any part he could get. Takes the good with the bad. I really had to try not to turn the tape off; half the time you're wondering why they put this certain scene in there. If for some reason in your life you don't get the chance to watch this, your not missing much.