Trilogie de la terreur II

Trilogy of Terror II is a lot like the original film in that they are both decent stories and less exciting ones peppered throughout the runtime. Dan Curtis returns to direct this sequel with somewhat mixed results. For starters, Lysette Anthony, while mostly competent, seems like an odd choice to replace someone like Karen Black, who, love her or hate her, had a unique style that made her incredibly watchable on screen. Anthony's never terribly interesting or quirky enough to carry off some of the lesser stories, but she proves decently capable when she's only required to bug her eyes and scream in fear. I'm guessing that's all her audition called for, so I guess she delivers in that respect.

The first story is a mediocre, but not entirely un-engaging film noir-esque "we should murder my husband and collect his money" story with an ok twist at the end. It's the least exciting of the stories, so at least we get it out of the way.

The next story is based on a similar segment from Curtis' Dead of Night entitled Bobby about a woman who makes a pact with a demonic entity to bring back her dead son with predictably horrifying results. Curtis appears to have stuck very close to the original script (and even some of the shots are almost identical) and it probably works the best out of all the segments. The final reveal, unfortunately, comes across as more laughable than terrifying.

The final story brings back the infamous Zuni fetish doll and picks up right where the original story left off with the doll being taken to a museum to be studied as it terrorizes the night staff. It has its effective moments, but it can't quite compare to the claustrophobic terror of the original story.

Trilogy of Terror II is a merely respectable sequel that's not bad to have on in the background if you're bored.

Also made for TV, Trilogy of Terror II tries to capture some of the same creep factor of the original, but its big showstopping sequel to the infamous doll sequence is more or less a lazy remake of the original segment with much less engaging characters.

This isn't actress Lysette Anthony's fault. She plays each role she's given realistically and compellingly from cold trophy wife to grieving mother, but the stories are an uneven bunch and the best one, Bobby, is also a nearly shot for shot remake of Dan Curtis' work in another anthology called Dead of Night, but less effective this time around. The child actor playing the title character is much more hammy than the more realistic performance in the 70's version.

Production values are nice and Anthony is pleasant to watch even if she's not the powerhouse that Karen Black was. It's just unfortunate that the two best segments in the film are basically remakes of other segments from other movies.

When you compare this movie to its predecessor, which got released 11 years before this one, you'll have to conclude that this movie is not a better than its predecessor because of the reason that it's stories all are slightly weaker ones.

Again, just like its predecessor, this movie tells 3 different, unrelated stories that somehow all involve the supernatural. What they have in common is that in all 3 stories the main characters is being played by the same actress. In "Trilogy of Terror" this was Karen Black, in "Trilogy of Terror II" its Lysette Anthony. She of course is not as great as Karen Black, though its fun to see her playing 3 totally different characters in each story.

This is more an horror movie than its predecessor was. All of the stories this time feature horror elements. Again, the last story of the movie features the Zuni doll, which also was the highlight of the first movie. Perhaps this is also the reason why it's named "Trilogy of Terror II"? Fore otherwise this movie of course has little to nothing to do with the first movie that got made 11 years(!) before this one.

None of the stories are extremely well written or anything and they all got based on different short stories. The movie is longer than "Trilogy of Terror" and every story this time is about 30 minutes long instead of 20-something minutes. That doesn't really mean though that the stories are well layered or anything like that. At times they are even a bit dragging, which causes them to be a bit uneven in parts. The build up to the eventual horror often takes too long, which makes the movie itself needlessly long as well.

Of course these type of movies are never dull for the lovers of the genre. Dan Curtis is obviously a director with a love for the genre and that passion really shows on the screen at certain points.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

And with a cast that includes Lysette (Any relation to Josette?) Anthony, who is and always shall be a major babe, and Geraint Wyn (Who seems to do his best work at Knight.) why shouldn't he? I saw much that was borrowed from the Dan Curtis hit Dark Shadows in this made for TV flick ... The photography, the music certainly, and the ocean shots from the second tale. And these all work right well in this movie. The plots, as a whole, and the acting in particular, work well enough to be enjoyable. True, certain themes like the killer doll have been done to death over the years, but Curtis still knows how to put a twist to the devil of a tail.

Anyone born before 1980 can't help but remember that video cover that stared up at them from the spooky horror section shelf at the "Video Library." It was the one all the little kids loved to rent...it was also the one all the little kids loved to fast-forward through 80% of to get to the Zuni-doll story.

And about 20 years later, the Trilogy of Terror is back, and the Zuni-Doll once again steals the show....but not entirely. The first story, about giant rats in a graveyeard, is well-written and memorable. The second story, while a bit creepy at the beginning, is for the most part....stupid. But not terrible. The third story (saving the best for last) marks the return of the infamous Zuni-Warrior doll. The sad thing about it is, is that it is really a cheap rehash of the classic original. Entertaining yes, but original? Hardly.

But at least the first two stories were a little more memorable. The first two in the original TRILOGY were very well-written, but easily forgettable.

The beautiful Lysette Anthony does her best in this made-for-TV horror flick. Actually, I was impressed with her acting, considering this film was, in a way, standard USA network fare. She seemed at least somewhat enthusiastic about this gig, and filled Karen Black's shoes nicely.

All in All, TRILOGY OF TERROR 2 is good, clean fun for the whole family. That is of course, sarcasm...but, it IS good clean fun for that son of yours who makes a B-line for the Horror section whenever you visit Blockbuster Video....

6.5 out of 10.