Having seen the documentary about the subculture phenomenon surrounding this straight to VHS film first, I was somehow sad that I had not seen seen "Troll II" before it. I knew some of the punchlines (dialogue) before they were spoken, knew the motivation of the writer of the screenplay (her annoyance with a group of vegetarian friends), and the reasons which I was supposed to laugh.
I would invert the double-feature if I had it to do over.
But I loved seeing the documentary again. It was really funny, thoughtful, and heart-warming. The small-town Alabama dentist featured in the film was a pleasure to watch on screen, a person of tireless optimism and an empowering smile. From start to finish he'll have you smiling.
"BEST WORST MOVIE, directed by TROLL 2’s once-disgraced child star, Michael Paul Stephenson, unravels the stories of these unforgettable real-life characters and the colorful army of devotees who continue to revel in the film’s perfectly flawed brilliance."
The film's own website says it better than I can. I love that the child star whose career hopes were obliterated by this movie (heck, even an entire Christmas was), finds redemption in creating this film. That was a really accessible message within it. But, as good documentary films do, this one didn't start with that premise and craft cinematic support for an agenda. It unfolded naturally and brings the viewer through the metamorphoses as a participant.
If you haven't seen both films, there's another double-feature (one $10 ticket for both films) sceduled next Saturday, October 2nd at 10:15pm at the Marcus Ridge Cinema.
Be sure to bring plenty of popcorn and double-decker bologna sandwiches if you do. You'll not be sorry.
http://bestworstmovie.com/
Full disclosure, I didn't rave about Best Worst Movie when I first saw it, but I did mention the double-feature.
ReplyDeleteI liked the film much better the second time, honestly. Here's my original screening review from a few months back:
"Film Title: Best Worst Movie Entry #:
Judge: Christian Vettrus
OVERALL Rating: 3
Technical: 3 Story: 3 Impact: 3
Critique:
I tend to like movies which are about movies. These exercises in cinematic navel-gazing often tend to be enjoyable and engaging. This film nearly accomplished those goals.
It certainly did succeed in planting a seed in my mind that I need to rent Troll 2 sometime soon. I most certainly will. I can see this movie best screened as a precursor to a midnight screening of that film, say at the Times Cinema in town prior to the Friday Night Freak-fest… However, I am not sure that this film meets what my hopes are for the festival lineup.
I laughed at most of it, and nearly cried at some of it. Sometimes I wasn’t sure how to react to the people on screen. It wasn’t really a moving or inspiring film, but it did encourage complicated emotional responses. That’s something--and I did enjoy it quite a bit in parts.
But it was too long in others, and that sapped them of vitality. It meant that I didn’t continue laughing, and didn’t quite get to a place of empathy where I might have otherwise. Instead, I felt like we were staring a bit too long at certain people; or spending too long among certain crowds. Like the experience of Dr. Hardy at the horror convention, I wanted to leave early.
The Director of Troll 2, Claudio Fragrasso, was a train wreck on screen. That was quite interesting for a time, but the editing of the film was a bit odd in that I don’t know if he liked the backhanded praise from the fans of the film or not. He appeared to like it at times, but that would be followed by a scathing rebuke of the same fans. I guess it simply made me aware of the editing choices, rather than seem like the film progressed as his emotions did in reality.
He loathed his actors, calling them “dogs”, and this was bizarre. Maybe that was the point. We were supposed to feel conflicted as he was, and see him as an eccentric type without the ability to see himself.
In the same way, the ending with Dr. Hardy saying he’d like to do Troll 3 if it was made was an exclamation point to that end. He seemed to be struggling with how to react to his infamous stardom, and his disappointment at times seemed to be as “complicated” as the situation Margo Prey describes about her own life.
I liked the film. I laughed. I was led to think. However, that led me to think about how much better this film might have been if it had been edited more successfully. I might describe this film as the Worst Best Movie if it screened at the festival.
The hype this movie has had online and in the media would provide an audience for it. Plus, there are plenty of college-age folks who would attend a screening if it was promoted on campuses around metro Milwaukee. I think that most of the people who saw it would enjoy it.
Still, I question what it would add to the festival. It might fill a niche, but it shouldn’t do so at the expense of better films, and it really ought to be paired with Troll 2. Maybe you could do a Milwaukee Film special event, double-feature at the Times or Oriental instead."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete