Home Video Horrors' VHS of the Month; Troll II (1990)

 

Oh my Gooooooooooooood! It's Troll II! It's March and Rotty Rentals is already breaking out the big guns with the forefather of all bad movies with the 1992 home video release of Claudio Fragasso and Rossella Drudi's visionary classic of the Waits family's vacation to the town of Nilbog- the kingdom of goblins. Truly, it's a tale of family devotion, letting go of those you love, and the horrors of vegetarianism that has been past on from generation to generation because of its kingly status amongst the stinkers of the video store. The creation and reception of Troll II can be described as a trip to the batting cages. It's a normal day, accompanied by the sounds of balls clashing against metal bats and the machines firing off. A couple cages down, Claudio Fragasso has brought his own equipment. He has a deep traditional love for baseball, but he's got his own ideas. The ball launches from the machine and he swats it underhand like it's tennis. The ball is hit with so much power that it begins to ricochet off the chain link walls and cement ground sporadically. He begins to draw a crowd as he continues to attempt to bat the ricochetting ball as it flies towards him. And incredibly, he's hitting it and the ball continues to bounce around the cage faster and faster. People start recording and talking pictures of this maniac in the batting cages. Then, the unthinkable happens, he hits the ball directly into the throwing machine. It sparks and sputters before exploding into flames. The spectators begin to cheer, that wasn't supposed to happen but they love it.  They're going to remember that for the rest of their life. And just like that, that fellow Fragasso had a legacy.

There's three undisputed truths to life. One; we are born, two; we die, and three; there are no trolls in Troll II. The Italian production was met with so much skepticism by the American film marketers that they felt that it'd be best to premiere as a sequel to Troll (1986). A film that may or may not have been set in the Harry Potter universe where magical, fairy creatures invade an apartment complex. The original name, and our monsters, is Goblins. Cruel, vegetarian goblins that inhabit the town of Nilbog (Ahhh! It's Goblin spelled backwards!) that transform their victims into plants so they could be devoured meat-free. Which in its self, is kind of an oxymoron. 

The bar is set for what an American family should be with Michael Waits (George Hardy),  his wife, Diana (Margo Prey), and kids teen, Holly (Connie McFarland) and little Joshua (Michael Stephenson). Their grandpa Seth (Robert Ormsby) is still around, not in body but in spirit and a powerful one at that. He knows something is amiss with the family's destination and only with his help can Joshua save his family from meeting a green death and becoming goblin chow. Squad goals are set with the inclusion of Holly's boyfriend Elliot (Jason Wright) and his R.V. buddies (Darren Ewing, Jason Steadman, and Drew McConnell). Though the latter make for a great body count. Orchestrating all this is the druid and goblin leader Creedence Leonore Gielgud (Deborah Reed) with all the charm and charisma of a Mighty Morphin Power Rangers villain. Dark magic and fairy creatures meet wooden acting, unintentionally hilarious moments, golden turd dialogue, and so much insane incentives to keep you glued to your screen. Hospitality being pissed on, boyfriend might be gay, and pop corn as an aphrodisiac are only a couple of stones to this Infinity Gauntlet of sweet, savory stink. 

But what happened? How did it turn out this way? Well, the production of Troll II was largely Italian. Actors recalled a language barrier and unorthodox methods of directing. For a lot of people involved, they either had no idea what they were filming or had just seen their lines for the very first time before stepping in front of the camera. Most of the locals of Nilbog, were, well, locals of the small town in Utah where they filmed. In fact, Don Packard, who played the store owner in a particular scene, was a full blown mental patient. Still fresh in his treatment at a clinic nearby, he took the role not knowing what was going on, even on camera. The actors who had the pleasure of playing a goblin were only hired because of their short stature. One actor was so small that the monster gloves wouldn't fully fit his hand so they had to sew it into the burlap sleeve of the costume. And yes, the costumes were rubber masks and hands with a burlap sack as a robe. That goblin actor can be seen in movie waving his hands around but his fingers remain limp like a gloves. Not many of the actors were experienced, George Hardy responded to the casting call for fun and Michael Stephenson was looking for the big break in his child acting career. 

Despite being one of the worst movies ever made, Troll II enjoys a plentiful cult following that would make both Ed Wood and Tommy Wiseau jealous. To this day, fans continue to congregate at annual screenings of the film in convention centers and rented out movie theaters in a tradition started by Troll II fans in Texas. Every day, new people are drawn in as people shared the film like it was an entry in the Star Wars series. Those who were kids at the time of its video store release are going to show it to their own kids one day. One's first viewing session is often seen as a rite of passage-a fantastic and scared moment that everyone wants to be present for. And much like the characters and plot of Star Wars, movie fans know the lines the characters will say when they first see their faces on screen and the situations that await them. 

But the greatest thing about Troll II, are the people involved. They're good people. In 2009, Michael Stephenson released his documentary, Best Worst Movie where he follows up with the cast in crew from the production 20 years ago. George Hardy runs a successful dental practice in his home state of Alabama (still to this day) and is a bit of a pillar to his community. Even his ex-wife had nothing mean to say about him. He, along with Stephenson and Packard, embrace their role in the film as opposed to running from it. When they walked out on stage during the Troll II convention, the standing ovation from adoring fans said it all. Fragasso, while his horror film never got the screams and gasps he thought it would, appreciates the cult status of the movie. It's making an impact that counts to him even if it is poorly made. Besides, would Troll II get the attention it would if the film was even slightly made better? Most likely not. 

Troll II received its home release by EPIC Home Video from EPIC Productions in 1992.  At the time, it appeared to be owned by Columbia Tristar Pictures. Strange how such a small production was able to be picked up by a large distribution company. This VHS tape is where people saw the movie for the first time. When word got out of how uniquely awful it was, tape heads flocked to the video store for their copy. Once they were done, they'd lend it to a friend and pass it around classmates and coworkers. It also makes several appearances in the hands of Troll II aficionados in the 2009 documentary. In fact, the EPIC Home Video release is the very same copy that Michael Stephenson got on Christmas morning 1992. He was so excited. His big monster movie that would boost his career and fame was finally out on video. Unfortunately, after twenty minutes of running the tape, this dream would be quickly dashed. Today, this tape is enough to make any OG Troll II fan salivate. 

At the end of the day, we have to thank Rossella Drudi's friends who had the gall to go vegetarian. It had annoyed her so much that she conceived an idea for a monster movie. Where instead of blood, guts, and flesh, the monsters hungered for vegetables. Maybe we could go as far as to call it "satire" when it comes to "you are what you eat." Indeed, whoever you are, we have you to thank for inspiring the best worst movie of all time which has a special place in the heart of film history. 

Home Video Horrors' VHS of the Month; Girlfriend from Hell (1989)

The video store served more of a purpose than just your tape dealer and lender. For a lot of independent production companies it was where the general public would be able to see their films that didn't get a mainstream theatrical release. When a direct to video classic was released, then the VHS was the film reel, the tape player would be the projector with your T.V. as the screen, and your home as the theater. However, these movies wouldn't be the big budget A-list features they played at the ritzy theaters. These were B-list, independent productions now known affectionally as "cult films." Movie big wigs tend to see this as pejorative and low class. But if this month's flick, Girlfriend from Hell taught me anything, it's that simplistic ideas and execution can go the distance. 

Home Video Horrors brought the Valentine's Day iconography to life with this direct to video release from 1990 written and directed by Daniel M. Peterson. Maggie (Liane Curtis), despite being the titular character, is no one’s girlfriend.  In fact, she’s passed in every subject in high school except socializing. However, she’s got a supportive (granted, horned up) group of friends ready to help her to come out of her shell with a small house party. At the same time, there’s a Heavenly chase involving the Devil herself (that’s right, it’s a she) and someone known as Chaser (Dana Ashebrook, prior to breaking out in Twin Peaks) that escalates from the cosmos and onto Earth.  The Devil takes possession of Maggie and from there, it’s a comedic horror ride where only those who resist temptation can survive. The succubus feeds on the souls through sex, quite literally sucking the soul from them. 

Almost immediately, we get some Garth Ennis-Preacher vibes with the introduction of Chaser and the Devil in the beginning. Chaser doesn’t dress in the traditional white robe you’d see an angelic being in, carries around a flask (probably because his job as God’s bounty hunter sucks), and all his powers come from technology from the Heavenly world. What’s more the afterlife seems more mundane than mystical. He and the Devil are also a bit too casual on their feud that has been spanning thousands of years. Maggie’s friends-Diane (Lezlie Deane), Carl (Anthony Barrile), David (James Daughton), Freda (Sarah Katie Coughlan), and Ted (Brad Zutaut) are thrown into the fight for their lives when they realize they are partying with Beelzebub. 

Hats off to Liane Curtis for essentially playing two characters-the thumb twiddling Maggie to the hell-raising Devil. When Lunchmeat interviewed her for their seventh issue, she discussed how she would rip fire farts in her dressing room. Whether or not she was doing this to get in character or just to pass the time remains a hilarious mystery. She could stumble over words as Maggie, but when she becomes possessed it’s time to run over nuns with a car, bring people’s meals in restaurants to life, and reduce everyone to a decaying mess of flesh and bone via sex. Her costars also do a fun job of portraying and lampooning stock characters from the 80s teen, horror movie genre that had been done so much over the last ten years. 

Dana Ashebrook compliments the irreverent villain of the She-Devil with an equally irreverent hero role as Chaser. Prior to becoming an angelic bounty hunter, he had made some choices in life that wound him up in Purgatory. He would go one to create the condom and eventually falling for the Devil. At risk of spoiling, I will only say that Maggie isn’t the titular “girlfriend from Hell,” the Devil literally is. That’s right. Beneath all the silliness, Girlfriend from Hell is a story about love, relationship perseverance, and even forgiveness. That’s what makes it such a great movie for Valentine’s Day. 

That, and it’s just plain fun to watch. Girlfriend from Hell came out around that time when America was moving on from the hair metal of the 80s to the grunge rock of the 90s. Maggie’s wardrobe is a homage and parody of the big hair bands from the Regan era. The film’s soundtrack is especially rocking in that sense. The titular song either draws you in or takes you back with the rock guitar chords. 

Girlfriend from Hell received their home video release courtesy of  International Video Entertainment (IVE). The tape also comes with previews for Happy Together with Patrick Dempsey and Helen Slater, Dean Koontz's Watchers II, and a Regan-era drug free America PSA (don't jump into a pool with no water, kids). IVE was founded in 1983 and until being purchased by Lions Gate in 2003, they were one of the largest mini-major film studios. They competed with the likes of Castle Rock Entertainment, Orion Pictures, and even TriStar Pictures. IVE, for a time, was also more widely known as Artisan Entertainment in later years before folding in 2004. The film, prior to its release, premiered at the Houston Film Festival of 1989. 

Today, the intellectual property of Girlfriend from Hell has been adapted into a musical. Not a contemporary one, but a live B-movie of the 80s on stage. It’s been described to be a mix of Faust and Carrie with a blend of Weird Science, Evil Dead, and Earth Girls are Easy. The first production was in 2011 when Sean Matthew Whiteford (Rock of Ages) wrote and kickstarted the musical for a one week run in NYC. Since then, there’s been numerous workshops, cast recordings, and shows. The website for the production has just gone up, in fact. 

That just goes to show how a silly or simple idea, like a girlfriend from hell, can go the distance. While Girlfriend from Hell doesn’t stand the test of time, it works far better as a product of its time. That is what makes it so unique. 

Home Video Horrors’ VHS of the Month: Re-Animator (1985)

Lunchmeat and Home Video Horrors’ 2021 calendar isn’t just a pretty print to put on the wall. It’s a curation of cult horror movies and those video covers that etched themselves into our minds as we made our way up and down the video store isles. Josh Schafer and company went above and beyond with the calendar selling out. As one as those calendar buyers, and recent inheritor of a Panasonic Omnivision and tape collection, I decided to seek out the curated tapes of the calendar and watch them in all their original glory. Some I’ve seen before and others will be a whole new can of blood and guts.

 

To start 2021 out, we have Stuart Gordon’s 1985 zombie flick Re-Animator by Vestron Video, or as I always liked to call it, “what if Frankenstein was your medical school roommate?” Herbert West is his name and he’s cracked the chemical equation for life after death with his formula. However, much like Frankenstein, his creations never possess their civilized human intelligence but are dim wittingly violent. This cult classic is often remembered for the gratuitous gore both in the horror and medical context and bookmarking the acting career of Jeffery Combs. Stuart Gordon and his film crew would also prove themselves to be quite a major player in 80s horror.

 

Let’s not forget that it’s called “HP Lovecraft’s” Re-Animator. Truly, we can’t forget where these stories came from. Cthulhu creator and pulp horror writer HP Lovecraft (1890-1937) wrote the original “Herbert West-Reanimator” in a serialized four-part release for the sensationalist magazine Home Brew in February to July of 1922. He was paid $5 a segment. Editor George Julian Houtain had told him not to make it too morbid and add a punch at the end of every segment. Lovecraft found it to be “inartistic” but complied. The story is told from an unnamed narrator as he and his medical school roommate at Miskatonic University-Herbert West increasingly conduct experiments with Wests’ reanimation serum. Even at one point, becoming medics in WW1 and conducting experiments on the battlefield.

 

Re-Animator is a modern retelling of the original story. Our unnamed narrator is given a name, Dan, (Bruce Abbot) and a girlfriend Megan (Barbara Crampton). Herbert West is true to his novella self, a short spectacled man-collected at first glance but full of dark compulsion to complete his work. Jeffery Combs nails the appearance with his fingers wrapped around his faithful syringe. Combs has always been the kind of actor who doesn’t need to adjust his voice to sound scary. Monotone delivery of logical bone chilling lines is his greatest strength. That’s what landed him as Brainiac in Injustice 2 and the crazed doctor in Would You Rather (2013).

 

The story is still set at Miskatonic University with a Dean Halsey (Robert Sampson). In fact, Megan is his daughter. There’s also an extremely creepy professor, Carl Hill (David Gale) looking to get his hands on West’s precious formula…and Dan’s girlfriend.  It’s times like that where it’s almost like a sitcom. “What happens when you date the dean’s daughter and your roommate is Victor Frankenstein? What crazy adventures are there to get into? Oh no, who killed the cat and turned into a zombie? Shoot! The dean is a zombie! Damn! The headless Dr. Hill is raising an army of the dead to do his evil bidding!”

Our home video release is Vestron Video from 1986. Vestron was started in 1981 by an HBO executive, Austin Owen Furst Jr. and would go defunct in 1992. It’s a play on words “Vesta” (Roman Goddess) and “Tron.” Their animated “V” graphic presented at the beginning of the tape screams 80s. They released both an R rated version for video stores and an unrated one for collectors. I have, as the calendar showcases, the R rated cut. I was able to find it online for 20 bucks. It’s a relatively easy find with the unrated version going for 10 dollars more. Being familiar with this movie and story, the unrated version is most definitely the correct way to view it.

 

Gore is an integral part of the Re-Animator story. Not just for the bodily horror of the living dead but also because it’s a medical thriller. There’s no magic involved as Herbert West makes it clear, life and death as we know it are chemical reactions-equations. With the R rated version such scenes like Dr. Hill demonstrating brain dissection to the class are cut, the zombie kills, and of course the head giving head scene (though I don’t mind not seeing that).

 

Re-Animator would go on to receive two sequels and Stuart Gordon, Jeffery Combs, Barbara Crampton, and Brian Yuzna would make another film based on an HP Lovecraft story “From Beyond.” Again, knocking it out of the part with the bodily horror and special effects.

Breaking Down the Space Horror Formula

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3430353/breaking-space-horror-formula/

I think this editorial came out by the time when Life came out this year. You know, the scary movie about an alien?...The one with Ryan Reynolds...yeah, that one. Apparently, it was criticized for being a rip off of Alien. And I don't blame them, we've seen people isolated on a space ship where an alien terrorizes them. But is what space horror is funneled down to? That same formula? Meagan Navarro poses that question.
Now, one can't just come out of left field discussing space horror. It's a genre that requires watching more then just Alien. There's definitely a sizable library of such movies and  clearly Navarro has seen her fair share of such and is able to draw her own conclusions. It seems that the plagues of Alien rip offs first spawned in the 80s. I think it's fair to say they have decreased since then, but there are still some once in a while.
You know, I don't think I read this for the lead, kicker or even the pictures. There are some pictures though, They really don't do a whole lot other than just give the reader something to look at. They don't really match up with what is being described in the article. The text itself does flow and it makes for an easy read, because it really doesn't have another function other then giving super specific examples. When it comes to a kicker, I only think that the last line satisfies the role. "With the space horror formula as claustrophobic as its setting, it begs the question; is it possible to reinvent space-set horror the way Ridley Scott did in 1979?" I think that it would be better if that were put at the beginning, but that's just me.
Again, easy read to keep the audience engaged and it's always going to provoke someone's interest when you tell them of a movie they haven't seen yet. Maybe Navarro wrote this editorial as a call for the readers to view some of the examples and be the judges themselves rather then taking her word.

30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427239/30-years-later-1987-theatrical-retrospective/

It's funny, when I think of the year 1987, nothing really comes to mind. But after reading the editorial, '30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective' by Meagan Navarro, I come to realize that there was more to this year then meets the eye. And since I'm a sucker for the sometimes dated horror films of the 80s and lists, I gave this piece a shot.
The list on first glance, is nothing special to me though. There were movies I've seen, movies I heard of, movies that I saw another movie in the same series as and some movies that I've never seen before. Nothing truly new to the average horror fan, but I'm always open to hear or read how other people feel about the movies that I may have differing feelings about.
The only research required here is a general knowledge of the movies themselves so it makes for a relatively easy read. It's clear that I didn't do my research before reading this, but fortunately Navarro did. I'm also going to be painfully honest here and say that the only reason I was drawn in or read the article in the first place is because of the pictures. 80s horror has a very unique style, you see. Something that separates it from the all the other decades. They're just more colorful; when blood is shown (which was all practical effects back then) they would always be bright scarlet, red. That or they would just cut away thanks to some censoring issues, but that was common back in the 80s. That can make for the lead. The bad news is that I really don't see an effective ending to this piece other then resorting to asking the reader about their favorite 1987 horror movie. For someone familiar as the writer with 1987, it would be an easy question. But for those who don't, sort of like myself, might not be able to answer it. This made me question who the audience was. Super hardcore horror junkies who record each movie that comes out every here or just your average Joe horror fan looking for a casual read. The reader shouldn't have to be an expert, that is the writer's job.
The flow is nice and easy, lines separating the different entries with a subhead and picture for each one. Clearly, the most flawless way to construct an editorial list. There's a pace set and every movie that is discussed is given equal increments of the reader's time. And of course, it's very hard to get lost or confused while reading it.
As for fallacies, well you're guess is as good as mine.
The reason why this particular editorial had my interest is, I repeat myself, because I like 80s horror. There was something that they were just doing right. I read this list to perhaps find movies that I haven't seen and may one day give them a watch. And I think that was this article's purpose all along. To put out popular and insecure movies from the year 1987 and get people talking about them. In fact, this whole editorial seems almost like an anniversary tribute to 1987.

We Saw Some of 'Annabelle 2', Which Focuses on Mood and Atmosphere

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427980/sxsw-saw-annabelle-2/

Funny how last week I discussed horror movies that deserved a sequel, but this week I'll be discussing a horror movie that actually doesn't deserve one, but that didn't stop them from making it. 'Annabelle' was a spin off from 'The Conjuring' (which was the bomb by the way), a movie about a haunted doll (the titular character). I bet its because people are still afraid of doll is the reason why it sells so well, but that's not what I want to talk about.
I choose this piece because, why else? The people over at Bloody Disgusting! had the chance to see some of the scenes from the upcoming movie. In the piece they recap the certain scenes on which they were able to see.
It's obvious that for me, the kicker was the title. I remember seeing the first 'Annabelle' in theaters, so naturally I have an interest in seeing the second one. I'm not expecting anything big from it, just curiosity. I could go on a bit about how much I am looking forward to it or whether or not it will be a bad movie or terrible movie, but I want to discuss why this is an editorial.
'Focuses on mood and atmosphere' is clearly what Trace Thurman had in mind as a message for the reader. Like all editorials, there needs to be an opinionated message that the writer is trying to convey. In this piece, I can only see bits and pieces. Only mentioned at the end, "I can tell you, there does seem to be a bigger emphasis on mood and atmosphere in this film." And that's really all Thurman has to say about it. Maybe the excerpts from the scenes themselves were the main center of this editorial. Maybe it was that section that was meant to do all the talking.
It almost seems like the reader has no choice but to take the writer's word for it in this scenario. After all, they're not the ones who have seen the scenes so the only reference they have to it is the descriptions they are given. That kind of kills the purpose. To have an opinion on a movie, don't you have to see it for yourself and not have a friend or someone else describe it for you?
Very, very little to say about this editorial. The only research required on this matter is a bit of knowledge on the film series and that's about it. You don't have to see the scenes that the article describes, the writer has got you covered. The lead comes from the title and the title alone. The audience is clearly horror moviegoers and people who have at least scene the prior movies. The flow or basic layout is an intro, the body of the scenes themselves and then ending with a short conclusion. The fallacy here is that they're trying to put movie scenes to paper and let that be the only porthole to reader's opinions. Again, it almost seems like you have no choice but to take Thurman's word for it. But, you can judge the upcoming movie fairly since the trailer is pasted at the end.

Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3425195/6-well-overdue-horror-sequels/

Bloody Disgusting is booming with activity since the recent happenings in the horror entertainment industry. We got new movies coming here, there and everywhere, but I decided to stick to an editorial about movies that haven't even (and probably) won't happen. I was firstly drawn in by the title, 'Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels!'
At the first line, Luiz H.C. had me with "Complaining about Hollywood's lack of creativity is a worn-out cliche at this point. The overabundance of sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots has been blamed for the downfall of western entertainment, but many critics fail to realize that the movie industry has always been this way." This had a profound effect on me. I then realized that in fact they did have sequels back in the Golden Age of movies in the 30s, 40s and 50s and also reboots from the 50s to the present. With a lead like this, the piece definitely starts out with a bang. The kind of bang that makes you place a hand over your brow to nurse the mind blow that you might be experiencing.
Now, on to the list itself. I find it interesting that Luiz selected six because when you see a 'top list' you'd normally expect something that is divisible by five, like 10, 15 or 20. It's an interesting choice in my opinion. I need to discredit myself here, seeing how I've only seen three of the six movies listed. That is my own fault since it seems that quite a lot of horror junkies have seen these movies, being that this editorial was on the feature page.
I'm also required to discuss the more boring parts of this piece; research and flow. Seeing how this is entirely based on movies, the only research I think is required is firstly watching said movies then at least having a general idea of the cast and crew and the year it came out. That's what I like about these kind of pieces, you don't have to be pouring over books and articles to find what you're looking for. The article is divided (literally, there's lines and sub heads splitting the content apart) beautifully. You'd have to be an idiot to not follow it correctly. I mean, come on, they got pictures for every section.
Most importantly Luiz gets the reader thinking, what would it be like if one of these movies got a sequel? I for one am in favor of a new Re-Animator, but good luck with that because it will never be better then the first. Another Trick R' Treat to watch on Halloween? Yeah, go for it. Another 'Dead' entry from George Romero? Fire away, but maybe try to bring back the spirits of the original three as opposed to the newer entries. The audience for this article particular is probably just the truly hardcore horror fans. There maybe some movies mentioned that perhaps the average movie goer hasn't seen (probably because some of them never even were released in theaters and went right to DVD).
Enjoyable read and the list of movies that deserve sequels is entirely open ended. The list is logical and makes sense. But I have to say that the main strength doesn't come from the list itself, but rather the intro and the kicker. Seriously, that's the best one I read.