Troll 2 (2025)

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/troll-2-review/

Rating: C+

"Troll 2 is a sequel that, while competent and occasionally entertaining, struggles to find its own identity in the shadow of its predecessor.

It's a perfect example that sometimes more monsters and more destruction don't equate to a better story, and that movie magic often lies in what isn't seen rather than what's computer-generated to fill the screen.

The action scenes are indeed grandiose, and there's a deeper dive into Nordic mythology, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the rustic and palpable soul of this saga was polished until it lost its original shine, transforming an ancient legend into mere quick-consumption content."

"Trolls 2" feels somewhat like a remake of the original. There's little that's all that new on offer here. It builds in a very modest way, on the tale of Nordic trolls, from the first film. It introduces a few new ideas and twists but it fails to do anything truly original that would have made it a genuine successor to the first film.

Action is well done but the finale feels like its comes and goes, all to quickly.

In summary, no harm in making a sequel but you do need to ensure it offers something more than what went before. Regrettably, Trolls 2 fails to build on the solid formula established in the first film. A mediocre watch.

This site seems to be having issues posting reviews. Please refer to my other review for this film. Thanks.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.

"Frankenstein" is a departure from Mary Shelly's epic work. The novel is, at its core, a cautionary tale, of man's scientific hubris, defying both God and nature.

This is, in most respects a more than decent film. Acting is, for the most part outstanding, as are the creature effects but what can be honestly said, is this film bears only the remotest resemblance, to Shelly's work.

The film establishes a dysfunctional father son relationship, mirroring Victor Frankenstein's own failed relationship, with his father, in his callous and at times, cruel, treatment of his surrogate son, the creature, he conjurs into existence.

Is that a bad thing? I guess it depends on your point of view. As an ardent Shelly fan, I was actually in the process of re-reading Frankenstein, when this was released. For me, it felt a little lacking.

The relationship between the creature and Frankenstein, felt markedly less complex. The creature in the book, is a tragic, ultimately sympathetic figure but also capable of considerable guile and cruelty. These aspects of its personality, are laregly absent, in this tale. Victor Frankenstein is, for his part, is more someone who has showen an horrific error in judgement and has no idea how to remedy his error, as opposed to someone cruel and callous.

In summary, "Frankenstein" bears only a passing semblance to Shelly's remarkable work. This is a decent film, of that there can be no doubt but it needs to viewed in isolation from the novel. The underlying message is something of a departure. Certainly its not as sophisticated, in terms of the relationship it establishes between Frankenstein and his creation. Nonethesless, worth a look.