Three horror stories, including a woman's fate when she and her lover attempt to rob her husband's grave, a woman who brings her son back from the dead and a Zuni fetish doll who comes to li... Read allThree horror stories, including a woman's fate when she and her lover attempt to rob her husband's grave, a woman who brings her son back from the dead and a Zuni fetish doll who comes to life again and goes on another murderous rampage.Three horror stories, including a woman's fate when she and her lover attempt to rob her husband's grave, a woman who brings her son back from the dead and a Zuni fetish doll who comes to life again and goes on another murderous rampage.
- Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy
- 1 nomination total
Featured reviews
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.
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.
Lysette Anthony takes over for Karen Black in this trilogy of scary stories in which she is the star in each tale. The first one is about adultery, murder, and grave robbers. The second tale is about a mother who uses black magic to bring her dead son back to life. The final and best tale is about the demonic African doll from the first film stalking Anthony. While the effects may be a bit on the cheap side, this is a fun and scary outing. Lysette Anthony is a good choice for taking over the Karen Black.
Rated R; Violence and Profanity.
Rated R; Violence and Profanity.
Dan Curtis returns to Trilogy of Terror 20 years after he terrorized Karen Black with that creepy doll, but Black's absence this time is obvious and Lysette Anthony is competent but can't quite fill Black's shoes.
Once again, Curtis gives us three tales of terror - one features an adulterous wife who gets her just desserts after plotting to kill her husband, another has her playing a grieving mother who brings her child back to life via witchcraft with some deadly consequences, and the final story has her as a museum researcher who gets terrorized by the same scary doll from the original film.
None of the stories are as terrifying as the final story of the original film, but they're all well told and entertaining enough for 90 minutes.
Once again, Curtis gives us three tales of terror - one features an adulterous wife who gets her just desserts after plotting to kill her husband, another has her playing a grieving mother who brings her child back to life via witchcraft with some deadly consequences, and the final story has her as a museum researcher who gets terrorized by the same scary doll from the original film.
None of the stories are as terrifying as the final story of the original film, but they're all well told and entertaining enough for 90 minutes.
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/
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/
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaIn the film's third segment, "He Who Kills," one of the museum security guards is reading a "Dark Shadows" comic book and enthuses about how he used to rush home from school to watch it. Director Dan Curtis created the two TV series Dark Shadows (1966) and Dark Shadows (1991).
- GoofsIn the film's third segment, the bottom half of the dead body of Amelia is shown wearing a short blue robe. In the third segment of the first film, Trilogy of Terror (1975), Amelia wore a short white robe.
- ConnectionsFeatures Kiss of Death (1947)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Dan Curtis' Trilogy of Terror II
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content