MovieChat Forums > Troll 2 Discussion > considering the budget it wasnt bad at a...

considering the budget it wasnt bad at all

posted 11 years ago by El_Perro_Insano
4 replies | jump to latest

have you ever tried to make a "horror" movie with $200,000?

so, the acting was between bad and average? with this kind of budget you can only pay a couple of grands to each of the main actors. how many decent actors do you know that accept to make a movie for $2000? al pacino, de niro?

the special effects weren't great? again, with this kind of budget there's no much more you can do...and remember, thats a 1990 movie, no digital back then...

yes, the movie has flaws, but ive seen much worst in multibillion dollars movies, and at least i was able to see it all, and i didnt finish it with that felling "i ve just lost 90 minutes of my life"

this movie deserves at least something between 4 and 5.

[–] Snowdog_83 11 years ago

Acting between bad and average? Were we watching the same movie? It was absolutely ATROCIOUS! From top to bottom.

I'll give them a pass on the costumes, given the budget, but it doesn't mean we can't make fun of them. Especially that one really goofy looking one that always stood out. As bad a movie as it was, I would agree that it was not a waste of 90 minutes. It was so bad that it was entertaining. Me and my friend were just killing ourselves the whole movie.

[–] nobodies666 11 years ago

so bad its good

[–] Struckworld7767 11 years ago

Doesn't excuse the script.

I'm from Paris... TEXAS

[–] the_la_baker 10 years ago

First of all, $200,000 in 1990 is $364,575 in 2014.

Have you seen Moon(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/)?

With about 10x as much money they made a film about 200,000x better than troll2. Don't blame lack of funding. I've seen student films better than troll2 and they had budgets of zero.

This movie deserves to be burned while movie lovers the world over goosestep around the bonfire chanting hateful troll slurs.