FRIGHTFUL FAILURE FRIDAY Of all the bad movies that we've all grown to love just because of how incredibly awful they truly are, 'Troll 2' may just be the most famous next to only 'The Room'. It's almost a guarantee that most people reading this will immediately recognize that horrified look in the accompanying picture. The next thing to run through your head is "They're eating her! And then they're gonna eat me! Oh my GOOOOODDDD!" But for as scary as that may sound to people who haven't seen that clip, trust me, YouTube almost any video about 'Troll 2' scenes, and this will be on just about any one of them. With that, there's also a pretty good documentary about the film called 'Best Worst Movie', made by none other than the child star from this film (not the guy in the picture), Michael Stephenson, as he takes us through his experiences on the making of the film. It's worth it but definitely watch the actual movie first. The film features the Waits family on a home exchange vacation in the small farming community of Nilbog. The town's name is not only "goblin" spelled backwards but also makes us realize that the movie isn't about trolls at all. Among the family are the father, Michael (George Hardy), mother, Diana (Margo Prey), sister, Holly (Connie Young), and the star of the show, young Joshua (Stephenson). One night, Joshua meets his ghostly Grandfather, Seth (Robert Ormsby) who warns him of... get this... vegetarian goblins who want to turn humans into pants as a food source. I mean, I'm no expert, but I feel like with something like goblins (again, not trolls) you can maybe skip that whole vegetarian step. But I digress. The process is done by the goblins feeding humans poisoned food or drink. In the meantime, we meet Elliot Cooper (Jason Wright), Holly's boyfriend, who spends a lot of time with his buddies, Arnold (Darren Ewing - pictured above), Drew (Jason Steadman) and Brent (David McConnell). Long story short, we pretty much know from the get-go that these characters essentially have to be the victims in this film. All of it is done in the presence of the druid witch, Creedence Leonore Gielgud (Deborah Reed) who uses a Stonehenge stone to give goblins power. Will Joshua, with the help of his grandad's ghost be able to put a stop to all of the goblin plant-eating mayhem before they consume the whole town of Nilbog? And just how many different scenes of pure cheese can one person laugh at throughout a movie, anyway? For all the talk about this film not having anything to do with trolls, to be fair, the original title of this was 'Goblins', but the American distributers decided to market it as a sequel to 1986's 'Troll' (yeah, I hadn't heard of it either before 'Troll 2'). To make this even dumber, the two films have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But what really made me laugh about the film's production was the idea that director Claudio Fragasso initially wanted to make the film for his wife, Rosella Drudi, as a way for her to express her frustration about her friends becoming vegetarians. But wait, it keeps getting worse and worse. The fluently Italian crew and fluently English cast had all sorts of communication issues, and just to add to that, most of the actors were very inexperienced, comprising largely of people who answered a casting call just to be extras. 'Troll 2' definitely makes for a fun time when checking it out with a bunch of friends, and laughing along with it. But if you're going to do that, as mentioned earlier, I still highly recommend following it up with 'Best Worst Movie'. That's a documentary that pretty much lets you know what made this movie so bad, and it's almost funnier and more unbelievable than the actual film. If you're like me, love yourself a really fun, bad movie, and you haven't checked this out yet, you need to put it on your list of essential viewing. It's so delightfully over the top with its execution and so delightfully low budget with its costumes and special effects. It's a terrible film, but it's still a solid laugh all the way through. 2/5
0 Comments
MONSTER MONDAY Not to be confused with 2021's 'Godzilla vs Kong', I believe that this is the original "monster vs monster" movie, and films like 'Freddy vs Jason' and 'Alien vs Predator' owe a debt to this film for paving the way. Directed by the legendary Ishirō Honda (one could probably consider him the King of Kaiju), it actually marks the third film in each franchise, following 'Godzilla', 'Godzilla: King of the Monsters', 'King Kong' and 'Son of Kong'. It also marks the first time either of these monsters were ever seen in colour and widescreen, which today might be something like seeing a franchise do 3D, or D-Box for the first time (still waiting for that no-glasses 3D though - I'm looking at you, James Cameron!) In doing a bit of homework though, I enjoyed reading about how this project came to be. Willis O'Brien, a stop motion animator for the original 'King Kong' outlined a story in which Kong goes up against a giant Frankenstein monster. But honestly, I'd probably watch that if it ever came to light. But when the outline was handed to producer John Beck, Beck gave the project to the Toho company, which produces 'Godzilla' films, and the film became this instead. It's probably for the best, considering what this ended up being, but you gotta feel bad for O'Brien in this scenario. Either way, 'King Kong vs Godzilla' is, to this day, the single-most attended 'Godzilla' film in Japan, and that's probably saying a lot considering there are about 36 of them. Pacific Pharmaceuticals head, Mr. Tako (Ichirô Arishima) believes that the TV shows his company are producing are becoming dull and boring, and he needs some kind of publicity stunt in an attempt to boost ratings. This is when he's told about a giant monster (Kong) who resides on the remote Faro Island. Tako immediately sends two men, Osamu Sakurai (Tadao Takashima) and Kinsaburo Furue (Yû Fujiki), to the island to essentially go get the monster for him. Their journey here is actually quite entertaining as they meet the island's locals, right down to giving a kid a couple of cigarettes. This is where you get the idea that the film doesn't take itself too seriously, and knows you're here for a good time. Meanwhile, as an American nuclear sub called the Seahawk attempts to navigate a field of icebergs, they just so happen to find the one that has contained Godzilla since 1955. This is probably where I should mention that I don't pretend to understand how continuity works with these films, and I believe they are meant to be a little more like stand-alone "what-if?" stories... but I sincerely have no idea. All I know is from anything I read about 'King of the Monsters' ending, the big lizard shouldn't be trapped in an iceberg. But I digress. Godzilla is unleashed and heads toward a Japanese military base, leaving devastation in his wake. Skipping ahead, of course, Kong is eventually captured and brought back to Japan where the two monsters eventually meet and have their ultimate battle; Kong is used as a defence, and somewhat assisted by the humans. And I've gotta hand it to them, they do a pretty good job at delivering a good fight between them... okay, so maybe not a "good" fight, but they do deliver what we came here to see. With that, I should probably mention what may be obvious to some. This is the kind of movie where you know it's low-budget, using guys fighting in suits (Shoichi Hirose as King Kong and Haruo Nakajima as Godzilla) and scale models, and you can't help but have fun with it. In closing, I should mention that these kaiju films have always been one of those things I think are casually cool. I'm never usually hyped for anything like this, but if I do watch it, I'll usually have quite a bit of fun with it. But I'd be hard-pressed to find one I've had more fun with, and that includes more recent films! Cheesy and silly as the film may be, it does deliver what the title promises, and it kind of brings you back to the days of watching cartoons and playing with action figures. This is by no means a masterpiece, and could even be seen as "bad", but it's also not meant to be taken seriously and that much is evident with a lot of comedy. It may sound weird, but I might very well prefer this old hunk of cheese over 2021's film of the same concept, if only because this didn't try to be anything deep or have any meaning behind it. I came to watch these two titans clash, and dammit, that's what I got! 4/5 WEIRD-OUT WEDNESDAY Wednesdays are all about movies that mess with the mind. Among the many titles that I stumbled on for it, 'In the Mouth of Madness' seemed to stick out as a sort of cult phenomenon favourite. To be quite honest, I don't even really remember this movie being a thing, despite the fact that I'm familiar with the title. Considering who is attached to this, it's kind of a wonder it took me so long to check it out. Besides a fresh from 'Jurassic Park' Sam Neill in the starring role, this one's also directed by John Carpenter (who needs no introduction), and written by none other than Michael De Luca, who also penned one of my biggest guilty pleasures, 'Freddy's Dead'). Otherwise, he's better known as a producer. But the 'Freddy's Dead' connection grasped my curiosity just enough to make it a must-see. We open at a pretty heavy-looking psychiatric hospital where patient John Trent (Neill) is paid a visit by Dr. Wrenn (David Warner). Trent strangely seems to insist that he's not crazy, yet finds safety and comfort in the confines of his room, which he has covered in crosses. Trent then recounts the events that led him to be where he is. It begins when Trent, a freelance insurance investigator, has lunch with an insurance company owner, requesting that Trent investigate a claim by Arcane Publishing. Trent is soon attacked by an axe-wielding maniac who, before the attack, asks him if he reads famous horror author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow). We soon learn that the maniac was actually Sutter Cane's agent, who apparently underwent some kind of mental warp, killing his family, after reading one of Cane's books. Arcane Publishing's director, Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston), eventually brings Trent in and asks him to investigate the seemingly sudden disappearance of Cane in order to get the manuscript for Cane's final novel published and boost their sales. It's said that his horror books are so popular and well done that they outsell Stephen King by... I forget the exact amount, but it was a lot, and pretty unrealistic when we consider the King, himself. Anyway, tagging along with Trent is Cane's editor, Linda Styles (Julie Carmen), who claims that Cane's novels can cause all kinds of fun mental instability to some of his less stable readers - namely paranoia, memory loss and getting disoriented, to which Trent remains skeptical, believing it all to be some kind of publicity stunt. A clue ends up unveiling a map of New Hampshire, and a location known as Hobb's End; a fictional town in a real state. The pair end up heading towards this fictional town. The thing I kept bearing in mind here was that in 1994, paper maps were still being used, so God knows where these two thought they were going. Regardless, strange things do start happening on their drive, and eventually, they do find themselves in the apparent fictional town. Right around here is where the film sort of starts to go off the rails, but in that fun way we want from a movie known for its "mind-f*ckery". I won't go into too much detail here, but what follows is altogether creative and fascinating, if not a little off-putting at times. I think if I were to give the film full credit for a few things, they would start with the use of practical effects, helping get some of those visuals crawling under your skin. But there are other pretty great effects here that aren't really scary or gross so much as just plain awesome. For those who have seen it, I'll just say that the "face-tearing scene" near the end is one of the coolest things I've ever seen, and despite what people seem to want to call it, there is no blood or gore involved. That, along with a lot of other things going on here, really managed to kick my imagination up a notch, and I was thankful to not see so much of the typical. I do praise this movie for various other things too, effects aside. I really appreciated Neill's performance here, as I felt like I could really buy every emotion he was throwing at me. Beyond that, the very concept of the whole thing is, in its own way, quite terrifying. It does play on the whole aspect of "am I crazy or not?" which can be truly disturbing to some. By no means is this Carpenter's best work. The great subtleties of 'Halloween' aren't there, it doesn't really have a valuable message like 'They Live', and more than anything, it seemed like Carpenter and De Luca were on some sort of crazy drug the whole time they were making this. It has a very "what the hell did I just watch?" feel to it, but I might say that if you're looking for a good, scary, trippy mind-f*ck of a flick, this could be worth your time, if only once. 3/5 TRICK-OR-TREAT TUESDAY I sincerely need to point out the fact that within several Halloween/Autumn Facebook groups I'm in, the most commonly asked thing has to be about finding some variety of family-friendly Halloween movies. This is pretty much what lead me to this theme for Tuesday, and I figured I'd start with something pretty much everyone can agree is a fine, family-friendly and actually pretty fun Halloween movie. Although I will say from the get-go that, as it's also mentioned in my "20 Family Friendly Halloween Classics" list, this is one of those titles that, while I don't altogether dislike, I still find a bit weak. It's not even something I'd say is bad, really, it's just kind of "there" at this point in my life, and there's actually not a huge nostalgic tie for me with this one. Most who are reading this, if not all, have probably seen this, but just in case, here's a quick plot summary. On Halloween of 1693, in Salem Massachusetts, a little girl named Emily (Amanda Shepherd) is kidnapped by the Sanderson Sisters; Winifred (Bette Midler), Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Mary (Kathy Najimy). The trio of witches plot to suck the life essence out of the young Emily in order to make themselves younger. Ultimately, they succeed, while her protective big brother, Thackery Binx (Sean Murray), fails to save her and is thus cursed by the witches to be a cat for eternity, living in guilt. Soon, the sisters are discovered by the townsfolk and hanged, placing a last-minute, specific curse on the town. Said curse involves a virgin lighting the sacred "Black Candle" on one fateful All Hallows' Eve sometime down the line. Sure enough, in what was present day, 1993, the black candle is lit by the annoyingly whiney and rather obvious virgin, Max Dennison (Omri Katz), who, with his little sister, Dani (Thora Birch) and love interest, Allison (Vinessa Shaw), explore the old Sanderson cottage; now a local history museum. Long story short, the witches come back to life and ultimately wanna chase down Dani for her youthful essence, but much of the film also involves their chasing of Wini's spell book, which Max took from her during their escape (they escape, by the way). A lot of the comedy from the film comes from these three interacting with modern 90s society; so actually, a bit entertaining to watch in the woke culture of the present day. This is one of those titles where the more I watch it the duller it seems to get for me. But it should also be noted that I sincerely feel as though it's just a matter of me outgrowing something from my childhood. I'm big on nostalgia, as we all know, but for some reason, this one just didn't stick like glue. I can honestly say that this time around, I just found the whole thing very silly and not really that funny, but I can also honestly say that it feels clear that this was something made for kids. Some may question about the whole "virgin" thing here, and whether or not it's "okay" for a kid to be familiar with the term. It sort of leads me to imagine that there's a very specific age group this is aimed at, and I just so happened to fall into that age group in 1993. That said, however, I could very well be overthinking it. Even though I have sort of fallen behind in my enjoyment of this movie over the years, that's not at all me saying "hey, this is a piece of crap, avoid it". I'd just say it's not for me as much as it is for others who would insist on this being a sort of quintessential Halloween classic for a younger audience, or even just a family audience. It clearly has a big effect on a lot of people out there, and I'd never want to take that away from anyone. I'd still recommend it as a great family fun Halloween flick for anyone, but that's based on how much others love it more than myself. If nothing else, I'd give it to the performances of the three witches, who really do keep the movie kinda fun with a dark and admirably in-sync sense of humour. I dunno what else to say though. Take a look before checking out its new sequel and judge for yourself! 3/5 |