You often hear of movies that are so bad that they're good. It's hard to point to a single movie that is like this though. What some may say is "so good it's bad" may come off to others as just plain bad. However, everyone I have talked to who has seen this movie has agreed: Troll 2 is so horribly, shamelessly bad, that it is good.

The writing for film is more than awkward (take the redundant "Stonehenge Magic Stone"),and the character dialogue sounds so incredibly unnatural they might as well be robots. The reason for this is because the man who wrote the script and directed it, Claudio Fragasso, is a native speaker of Italian. He wrote the script in English when English was (barely) his second language. The acting is absolutely terrible, but who can blame them? This was most likely the first (and last) film any of these actors have been in.

The costumes and special effects have that wonderful B-movie quality to them. While there are many blaringly obvious errors, I find that the smaller ones are actually funnier. Actors shaking when time is supposed to be "frozen," or flies on their face during the climatic scenes. There are so many continuity mistakes that I sometimes found myself wondering if the director was putting them in on purpose. It was like every time the camera shot changed, the crew completely forgot how the previous shot was set up, and had the actors give their best guess on where they're supposed to be.

I think everyone needs to see at least a few horrible movies in their lifetime. Troll 2 is entertaining and hilarious, especially when watched with friends. The plot is ludicrous, but at least you never know what's going to happen next. Many scenes seem completely unnecessary, and this film simply does not bother to justify any of the things that happen in it. The end result is a horror B-movie that ends up being so horrible that you can't help but laugh. The only question I find myself asking now is do I give it a "1" because it was so bad, or a "10" because it was so good?

"Troll 2" has nothing to do with the original "Troll". In fact, this fake sequel should have been called "Goblin" as goblins are plotting on eating everyone. While this sort of story idea isn't exactly Oscar material, it could have worked as a drive-in type film. Unfortunately, despite a few decent ideas, the film was a pile of crap--and really, really bad crap to boot! The film begins with a little boy who has contact with his dead grandfather. Heck, this sort of thing made a ton of money when the movie "The Sixth Sense" came out in 1999. So, a basic element in TROLL 2 wasn't bad--but it was carried out by a group of untalented idiots. This dead guy keeps appearing to the kid--telling him that the family should NOT go on vacation and, once they do, he tells the boy NOT to let them eat any food--as it will turn them into slimy blobs or plants. It turns out that the goblins killing everyone has something to do with hating meat-eaters. So, I guess vegetarians had nothing to fear...and the goblins were probably members of PETA, though their tactics were a bit less extreme.

Who wrote this dialog?! I assume, lemurs! Some examples of this Pulitzer Prize quality writing include: --As a mother talks to her son, she says "...it was also very difficult for me, his daughter,...". Who, in the middle of a sentence identifies themselves this way when talking to their own kid. It would be like saying to one of my daughters "Let's you, my daughter, and me, your father, go to the store"! --"Who wants to eat you, little brother". What sister refers to her brother that way?! --"They're eating her...and then they are going to eat me". Who is this guy talking to and do you normally give a play by play of what is going on in your life? Such expositions are common in this "film".

It's also interesting to note that the actors(!?) often sounded like they were reading their lines and there was absolutely no spontaneity about them. Additionally, the emotional tone of much of what they said was flat. If you look at the IMDb trivia, it says that the Italian crew insisted that every line be repeated verbatim--and it sure sounds it. This wasn't acting, this was recitation! The only actor(?!) who deviated from this was the bug-eyed creepy lady with the bad teeth (Deborah Reed). Instead of simply reading her lines, she played it up to the hilt--overacting in a manner that is hard to equal. In fact, she seemed like an untalented member of a local theater group who was jumping at the chance for "the big time"! What an annoying performance! Luckily, at least so far, TROLL 2 is her only screen credit. And, if there is a loving God, then this will be the last time we need to see her! Overall, this film accomplishes a rarity for a bad film--there is just about nothing that is interesting or worth while about the movie. It's awful, but not one of the more entertaining bad films--it's just bad. And stupid. And lame. And dumb.

By the way, a documentary homage to "Trolls 2" was just released. "Best Worst Movie" attempts to make the film look like campy fun (whereas it really was just BAD),though it is enjoyable to watch--far, far more than the original film!!

Troll 2 has been cited as one of the worst movies ever or the father of bad movies and such. After finally seeing it, I have to concur. This film is dreadful, but because it is dreadful it is somewhat hilarious. The cinematography and editing are incredibly slip shod and the costumes of the trolls(or shall I say goblins) are quite horrible. The story also meanders all over the place, the script is abysmal and the direction is wretched. Then there is the poor pacing and atrocious acting, and any hopes of any thrills or scares are replaced with scatterings of unintentional laughs and often for the wrong reasons. Overall, it is a dreadful film, but it does have some unintentional entertainment value unlike some of the other bad movies I've seen. 1/10 Bethany Cox