Troll 2

Sara and I were on the phone the other day. For some reason we decided on watching a movie with each other, while we were both far away from each other and connected only by a small contraption.

It ended up turning out to be pretty fun. We went onto Hulu and browsed through their movies list, not really looking for anything in particular. I saw Troll 2 listed. Of course, I was familiar with Troll 2 because of this scene:



So obviously, that was what we were going to watch. I would say that it exceeded all expectations, that it set the bar for cinematic wretchedness, etc. etc. Unfortunately, the actual movie watching experience was somewhat limited by the fact that I kept trying to make sure Sara and I were somewhat close in viewing time, as well as the fact that... you know, I was talking on the phone and thus my natural inclination is to pay more attention to what's going on to the person talking into my ear. That, and Hulu being slow.

However, even with my limited attention, the movie was terribly fun to watch. I am going to accompany my take on this film with clips, which will hopefully illustrate what I'm trying to say a little bit more clearly.



So according to IMDB, the film crew spoke mostly Italian, and that the director (also Italian) insisted that the lines were read verbatim on screen. I can only presume that the result of that are scenes like the above, where it perhaps it made some sort of sense at some point (a long shot, but still) but got terribly, terribly lost in translation. First off, I'm pretty sure that something that probably reads like "Gal fondles ear of corn, says "what's the matter? Aren't you hungry?" Boy says "actually, I like popcorn" isn't probably going to be written by any native English speaker... unless if they're 8. Or something. But honestly, I can't figure out whether or not this is supposed to be humorous or sincere... I just can't. On one hand, there's no way that a sex scene featuring a seductress carrying around an ear of corn (by the way, WHAT THE F***) is meant to be completely straight. On the other hand, if this was meant to be humorous, then the makers of this film must be some sort of genius ... and assuredly, they cannot possibly be genius, can they?

The next scene comes after the kid receives a message from his dead grandpa that the food his family is about to eat is poisoned with Troll 2 disease, so he decides the only way to solve said crisis is to urinate all over the food.



Again, I am clueless as to how to react. Is this some kind of bizarre brilliance? Cause this is what I'd expect from your normal crappy B-movie "dad punishes son" scene: have the dad say something ridiculous, then go for the belt for a harsh whipping. And end scene. And that's all you really need to make the scene memorable, right? But here? It takes the ridiculousness completely to the next level. He goes for the belt, son worries about what his father is going to do to him... and then the father starts tightening his belt in order to relieve him of hunger pangs? What? He then takes his son's "hunger strike" as a challenge, and then we get some unnecessary exposition about how his family was poor or something. Again, what? It makes absolutely no sense, and yet... I just can't merely toss it off as incompetence. Something that takes an already ridiculous line and then INCREASES the absurdity can't just be some moron in Italy trying to make an American film despite not knowing English, can it?

I keep imagining that some strange genius concocted this script in a bet to intentionally write the worst script possible. And then hired a film crew that didn't speak English in order to give the illusion that the language barrier caused the film to be what it was. And then hired actors who were oblivious to the fact that they had no talent (see above... I'm trying to find more clips with the Dad because something about his earnestness makes his terrible acting all the more enjoyable, but I'm not finding much).

Then hired 9 year old girls as dance choreographers possible for the inevitable "this movie was made in the 80's" scene.



Then to top it off, decided that in the group of "boys" mentioned in the above clip, that this guy would be cast as the "skirt chaser" of the group, and find himself trying to win over the proverbial damsel in distress.



So you have the recipe for a terrible movie, but its fatal flaw is that it's surprisingly watchable. I mean, take Manos: The Hands Of Fate: it's pretty clear here that the film is incompetently made and unwatchable, given by the fact that it's made by some lawn mower salesman (or whatever). Not the case with Troll 2. Sure, the script is terrible, the acting is absolutely horrendous... but it all seems to add up to something ludicrous and bizarre rather than something that's difficult to sit through. And shouldn't that be the definition of "bad"? I mean, I would say that I "like" the Star Wars Holiday Special, but it's more in a masochistic "I'm going to sit through 15 minutes of Wookiees moaning at each other to see if I can handle." By all means, that's a bad movie/TV show/whatever.

So I don't know. I can't call it a bad movie, simply because for all the flaws there's never really a dull moment. And seriously, part of me thinks that someone like Stanley Kubrick got a case of the giggles after watching a particularly bad movie, decided to make a terrible movie himself, only to make it so effectively that no one could really tell the difference. It might have happened, you never know.

OK, so it probably didn't happen, but still.