Trilogy of Terror II (1996 TV Movie) User Reviews

"You've Made Bobby Angry, Mommy!"

[tildagravette · 7/10 · 22 July 2019]

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.

So-So Sequel

[utgard14 · 5/10 · 10 January 2014]

Made-for-TV sequel to 1975's Trilogy of Terror, which was also made-for-TV. In the original movie, Karen Black starred in three separate stories. Here it's Lysette Anthony. The first story is "The Graveyard Rats." It's about a millionaire's young wife and her lover/cousin (Geraint Wyn Davies), who murder the old guy but find out all the money he had left was in Swiss bank accounts. The passcode for these accounts is on microfilm the old man had buried with him. So they have to go dig him up. But, oh no, what's this? There are giant fake rubber rats that are stealing corpses out of coffins. Good for some laughs, I guess. Anthony isn't a particularly strong actress and Davies is TERRIBLE. But it's got Geoffrey Lewis using an Irish accent so it's not all bad.

The second story is "Bobby," about a mother who uses witchcraft to bring her son (Blake Heron) back from the dead. But he comes back not quite right and soon is trying to murder his mom. This is a forgettable story that starts out one way but quickly devolves into a repetitive slasher story with the kid terrorizing the mom. A very annoying musical score accompanies the kid on his rampage. I screamed for those stupid horns to stop. Weakest story in the movie.

The final story is "He Who Kills." This is a sequel to the most popular segment from the original film, the Zuni fetish doll story. The police drop the doll from the first film off at a museum. It was badly burned so they want Dr. Simpson (Anthony) to examine it right away and tell them what it is. From here, in typical sequel fashion, we get a retread of the first film where the doll comes alive and tries to kill Anthony. Nowhere near as exciting or scary as the original but still the best of this movie. More annoying music.

Made-for-TV movies had decreased in quality quite a bit by the 1990s. This is in large part because in the '70s and '80s, the weekly TV movie was a staple of network television. By the '90s the TV movie became something reduced to crappy cable channels and the occasional network effort like the Amy Fisher crap. They were a higher quality in the old days, for the most part. I'm not saying they were equal to theatrical films but they were a lot better than most of the stuff that's been produced for cable the last 25 years or so. Anyway, this is watchable enough. It helps that Dan Curtis, the director of the original, returned to direct this. It's nothing that will leave an impression but you won't hate yourself for having watched it either.

Fun but familiar anthology

[rivertam26 · 7/10 · 15 July 2020]

This USA network sequel to the cult classic original is a a collection of remake stories aside from one concerning giant rats in a graveyard. Another is a straight up sequel slash remake of the original zuni fetish doll story taking place this time at a museum and the final story is a remake of the best bit from dead of night concerning a mother trying to ressurect her dead son. Lynette Anthony is the lead in all the stories and is good but lacks the impact of the incomparable Karen Black. It's a fun little anthology that's perfectly creepy and entertaining if just a touch forgettable.

7/10

Decent 90's TV Horror

[SnacksForAll · 26 September 1999]

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.

Trilogy of Terror II: Did it really need a sequel?

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 25 March 2019]

The gimmick to Trilogy of Terror (1975) was three stories where actress Karen Black would lead them all but playing different characters. Personally I didn't get the logic there and it was a pretty weak anthology.

An astonishing 21 years later a sequel is born and even more astonishing is the fact it has the same creator. Dan Curtis returns to bring us another "Trilogy of terror" and it's no better than the original sadly.

With no Karen Black in sight it tells three stories including giant rats, returning a deceased child from the dead and a sequel to one of the tales from the original movie featuring a killer African doll.

I'm impressed with the commitment, the fact that we have the same creators and that we see a follow up story but none of it is exactly very enjoyable stuff.

The first story is by far the best and reminded me of something Tales from the Crypt (1989) would do. The second was pretty terrible and the third was generic cat and mouse "Action" featuring the African doll from the first movie. The thing looks like the lovechild of Full Moon's Ooga-Booga and a critter!

This sequel simply didn't need to exist and I'm stunned that they didn't even get Karen Black in as a cameo role.

The Good:

Geoffrey Lewis

Same creator as the original

Some loyalty to the first movie

The Bad:

No originality

Un-engaging stuff

Dan Curtis rules!

[KennethEagleSpirit · 7/10 · 29 July 2007]

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.

Did I see the same movie? This was just a silly rip off

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 2/10 · 7 May 2007]

OK, I know that Dan Curtis directed the original Trilogy of Terror, but come on, this was just insulting the original story. Now I wanted to see this because I was curious since I liked the original so much, it is such a classic that is very under rated. So when I saw this playing on the Sci-Fi channel, I didn't hesitate to watch it. Now the first two stories weren't too bad, a little cheesy, but so was the first. I think these stories were meant to be over the top, but the third one was where it went bad. The third story was just a total rip off the the original Zooney hunting doll, the exact same stunts were used along with the exact same lines, the funny thing is, I don't think it was possible, but the woman was definitely more stupid and deserved to be... well... you know.

Well, the first story is about a woman where her husband dies and she discovers his grave is missing and encounters horrible things when she finds out there is more than what meets the eye. The second story was about a mother and her son, her son drowns, but the guilt of not being there drives her mad and she resurrects him from the dead. But unfortunately, there maybe something more she brought back with her son. Then the third story was about the Zooney Hunting Fetish Doll that has murdered two women, but the police think it's a cult type of murder and give the doll to a scientist in a museum, but little does she know the horror that comes with having this doll by her side.

The only thing I enjoyed about the last story was that I did get more than a few laughs, especially where they did her grabbing the blade of the knife from the doll when he is trying to get out of the suitcase she locked him in, and she goes for the blade once, gets cut, she acts surprised, but does she learn anything? No, she goes for it a second time! This film just didn't have the elements the first one did, Dan should have just left the stories alone, they are perfect the way they are.

2/10

The 2nd one better then the 1st most of time.

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 7/10 · 12 July 2018]

I think really sequels are underrated. And most of the time the 2nd one is the 1st. And this time is no exception. This movie is very scary. It has a great story line. I it also has great acting. If you like good horror stories you need to see this movie.

Lysette Anthony receives the Trilogy treatment

[kevinolzak · 5/10 · 6 October 2022]

1996's "Trilogy of Terror II" arrived 21 years after the iconic Karen Black original, and as it plays out can't help but feel like warmed over leftovers, directed by Dan Curtis in Toronto for cable's USA Network, a special Halloween broadcast on Oct. 30 (Curtis works with the same writers as before, William F. Nolan and Richard Matheson). Starring in all three segments is British-born beauty Lysette Anthony, coming off her role as Lucy in Mel Brooks' final feature "Dracula: Dead and Loving It," going from scheming seductress to terrified victim much like Karen Black before her. "The Graveyard Rats" might refer to the huge rodents feeding on interred corpses, but also to those who seek to profit via grave robbing, Matt Clark the infirm husband determined to keep his wayward spouse under his thumb by videotaping her lovemaking with her own cousin Ben. This is actually a turn on for Ben, paying tribute to the wheelchair scene in Richard Widmark's "Kiss of Death" by repeating the same action to Clark, then learning that his riches have been funneled overseas, all the accounts buried with him on a tiny microfilm. Thieving attendant Harley Stubbs (Geoffrey Lewis) isn't the only one to be surprised by a midnight visit to the cemetery, while the red eyed rats await another meal in a grueling climax. After this predictable but original opening, we see "Bobby," a Richard Matheson story previously done by Curtis as the finale of 1977's "Dead of Night," Lysette replacing Joan Hackett as the grieving mother summoning her drowned son back from the grave, only to find him quite different from what she expected. This was the best of the trilogy back then, but here the highlight is the finale, "He Who Kills," a genuine sequel to Karen Black's "Amelia" from the 1975 original, picking up where that left off, the corpses of Amelia and her mother found by police, with the charred Zuni fetish doll still roasting in the oven. Fearing a series of ritual killings, they take the doll to Lysette's Dr. Simpson at the museum, who begins to wonder if the little bugger is renewing itself as she scrapes off the burnt pieces. After taking a break for delivered pizza, the doctor finds the doll missing and her office door left open, no one safe while the tiny terror runs loose. It's tempting to see more in the aftermath of the first film, but the slavish way that Curtis repeats each step previously taken drains all the enjoyment away, from rushing around in circles, objects dropped to the floor, the doll caught inside a small case, fingers cut on its sharp blade, yet another bite on the neck. Dan Curtis had a habit of reliving past glories in his old age and had already used Lysette Anthony in his 1991 revival of DARK SHADOWS; this belated and unnecessary follow up merely makes one yearn to relive the chills recalled from the past.

Slightly weaker stories but still good fun all.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 3 January 2009]

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/

Not all that bad...

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 22 March 2020]

More than twenty years after the original Trilogy of Terror, Dan Curtis would return to the portmanteau with a sequel that takes not only its framework from the original, but even one of the stories from another Curtis anthology. No matter - I devoured this film.

We jump right in to the first story, The Graveyard Rats, which is based on Henry Kuttner's short story. A wealthy man (Matt Clark, Tuff Turf) learns that his wife (Lysette Anthony, Krull, the 1990's Dark Shadows) is sleeping around with her own cousin (Geraint Wyn Davies, who was Nick Knight on Forever Knight).

The rich man threatens blackmail; the young man proposes murder; the woman shoves her husband down the steps. After some duplicitous actions by all, the access to the dead man's money is lost, lovers attack one another and giant rats devour everyone. You know how it goes.

The second story is the Richard Matheson story Bobby, which also appeared to great effect in the Curtis movie Dead of Night. Anthony takes over the Karen Black role here, reappearing in all three stories, as she wishes for the return of her drowned son to horrifying result. This story is just as impactful as it was in the first iteration and has some moments of sheer terror. Well done.

Finally, another Matheson tale, He Who Kills, is quite literally the sequel to the original Trilogy of Terror crowdpleaser Amelia. Yep - that lil' Zuni warrior is back and the story pretty much follows the same format as the one you know and love. There's a fun meta moment where a security guard is reading a Dark Shadows comic that made me laugh.

Trilogy of Terror II is a decent movie, but it's the sequel to a film that's been the gold standard of made for TV horror for decades. Go in with the knowledge that it can't live up to that and have some fun.

Trilogy of Terror II

[Toronto85 · 8/10 · 10 August 2013]

Trilogy of Terror II is the obvious sequel to the 70's made for TV film which featured three scary stories. This one has the same number of stories, and each have a satisfying ending to them like the original film. The first story is "The Graveyard Rats" which tells the tale of a woman and her lover who plan to murder her old rich husband for his money. They do the deed, making it look like an accident, but realize that they must dig up his grave in order to any money. Problem is the graveyard is filled with huge rats determined to devour anything in sight. The second tale is called "Bobby". A mother uses voodoo to bring her dead son back, only to discover that by doing so she has unleashed an evil force upon herself. And the final tale (the best one) continues the killer Zulu fetish doll story from the original, this time it attacks a woman alone in a museum who was brought in by police to look at it.

I really enjoyed 'Trilogy of Terror II', I thought it was a very good sequel to a strong film made years prior. The first two stories are scary and creepy, and are actually more creative ideas than the first two tales told in the original 'Trilogy of Terror'. Continuing the Zuni fetish doll story from where we left off with Karen Black in the first film was a brilliant idea! It's basically the day after Karen Black's character killed her mother while possessed by the doll. Good stuff.

Acting all around was brilliant, starting with Lysette Anthony who was the lead in all three tales. There were also some really good stand out performances by the supporting cast particularly in the first story 'The Graveyard Rats' from Matt Clark and Geraint Wyn Davies. Sad to say this has not been released on DVD yet, but it certainly deserves a release! Check this out if you come across it.

8/10

Not the Original, But Entertaining Enough

[maisyskinner · 6/10 · 11 October 2021]

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.

Execrable

[Muvibuff77 · 1/10 · 17 June 2008]

This sequel to the beloved Trilogy of Terror is a complete misfire, a lousy and even desperate attempt to recapture the elements that made the original film work. This time we have a mediocre, occasionally inept actress named Lysette Anthony playing different roles in the three stories, instead of the brilliant Karen Black. In the first one she plays a rich trophy wife who bumps off her husband with the aid of her boyfriend. The story is lame, but will probably give you the creeps if you are at all claustrophobic. The second story involves a woman who tries to bring her son back from the dead and apparently succeeds. This story is so poorly executed, from the laughably bad acting from the actor playing the son to the horrible final shot, it's just not worth commenting on. The worst story is the last, which is ironic b/c it's a sequel to the best story from the first film. In that one, Black played a young woman who is terrorized in her apartment by an African Zuni fetish doll. In the new one, the filmmakers have thrown all plausibility to the wind to get another young woman in the same situation. (I love it when the woman and the security guard suspect a killer is in the multi-story building and the guard insists she stay in the lab with the door locked while he checks the place out, even though the door to the lab has a flimsy glass window on it). The story then serves as a strict remake of the first one, with Anthony trapping the doll in a case, cutting herself while trying to grab the knife when the doll saws away at the case, and then becoming possessed by the spirit in the doll at the end. Really, just a complete waste of time. Watch the original instead.

"I Think He's Losing His Mind!"... "I Fooled You Mommy, Didn't I?!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 26 August 2018]

After twenty years, made-for-TV horror maestro, Dan Curtis finally made his sequel, TRILOGY OF TERROR 2.

STORY 1- THE GRAVEYARD RATS: Laura (Lysette Anthony), afraid of being cut out of her zillionaire husband's (Matt Clark) will for infidelity, decides to kill the old boy. With help from her soulless lover, Ben (Geraint Wyn Davies), it's not long before hubby's in the ground. The murdering pair discover that something important was buried with the departed. Something without which, Laura and her piggish paramour are doomed to a middle class lifestyle. Of course, the remedy involves some serious digging! At night! Enter the titular, rubbery rodents of recompense. Co-stars Geoffrey Lewis as the gravedigger.

STORY 2: BOBBY- A distraught mother (Anthony) resorts to occult means in order to resurrect her dead son, Bobby (Blake Heron). Mom's efforts pay off, and her son returns. Sort of. At first, all seems well with this joyous reunion. However, as the evening progresses, Bobby begins acting strange. Ultimately, mom learns that she probably should have left things as they were (Think: THE MONKEY'S PAW with a wicked twist). This segment is a remake of the original BOBBY from Curtis' horror anthology, DEAD OF NIGHT. Personally, while both versions are good, I prefer the original.

STORY 3: HE WHO KILLS- Set immediately after the events of PART 3 of TRILOGY OF TERROR (1975), police are stumped by the bloody murders in the apartment. They find the Zuni Fetish doll, and take it to Dr. Simpson (Anthony) for her insights. She restores the doll as best as she can, and runs her tests. When Simpson returns to the lab after dinner, the doll is missing, resulting in a deadly game of "hunt the humans"! A decent follow-up to the first Zuni story, its one weakness is in showing too much of the crazed doll. Less is truly more, which is what made the first one so effective. In spite of this, as well as the direct recycling of the "suitcase scene" from the original, it's not bad.

CONCLUSION: Not a masterpiece, but worth watching, especially for horror anthology fanatics...

Glossy Crap, An Insult to the Memory of the Original

[czarnobog · 1/10 · 27 April 2006]

Anyone who has ever seen the original should avoid this movie like the plague. While the 1975 Trilogy of Terror was a truly original triple slice of terror, delivering generous dollops of scares, the sequel is thoroughly unoriginal and 99% scare-free.

It's alarming that the same director did both. TOT2 is so vapid and glossy it reads like an audition tape for Tales From The Crypt. The script gives new meaning to the word unoriginal.

The first segment is an ancient horror comic book chestnut which has been roasted one too many times. Its twist ending offers the only true moment of horror, after a long, obvious set-up.

The second segment is a Monkey's Paw twist. The screen credit alleges it is by writer god Richard Matheson. But if Matheson ever saw this movie, he must have upchucked when he heard Lysette Anthony's impassioned occult incantation, in which she invoked the great and mighty god Tetragrammation. Apparently despite making a lifelong career from the occult, the director never heard of Tetragrammaton.

Worst of all is the last segment, a simpering rehash of the original, which featured Karen Black assailed by a very creepy and authentic-looking voodoo doll. The update misfires threefold. Lysette Anthony is a capable actress going through the motions, but generates no real feeling of horror. Karen Black was unforgettable in her performance, which transcended genre expectations, particularly for a made-for-TV movie. The new doll is atrocious, appearing to be made from the same plastic formula as Mr. Potatohead. Its annoying over-the-top growls only exacerbate the idiocy. Hopefully the special EFX crew on this one moved on to something more appropriate to their skills, like a Muppets movie.

It's sad that the once-great Dan Curtis, who gave us Dark Shadows and Burnt Offerings, could be reduced to delivering this piffle.

Horrid, not horror.

Yaaah Yayayayaaaa! Yayayayayaya! Ya! Ya! Yayayayayayayayaya! (Zuni for worthy sequel)

[Coventry · 7/10 · 24 February 2008]

Twenty years after the original "Trilogy of Terror", starring the one and only horror queen Karen Black, Dan Curtis revives his concept of presenting three unrelated macabre stories with the same actress in the lead role each time. And you know what? It's actually a pretty decent movie and one major class above the majority of horror films released in the decade of the 1990's. The 70's original became legendary thanks to Richard Matheson's segment about an uncontrollable and mega-hyperactive Zuni voodoo-doll going on a murderous rampage. That segment had no real plot, but it offered non-stop excitement and thrills and its huge success is probably the main reason why the TV-movie got remembered and even spawned a (belated) sequel. Of course the sequel's final segment also revolves on the Zuni doll; in fact it's a direct continuation of the events in the first film. Police officers recover the heavily burnt doll in an apartment and bring it to a museum for restoration. During the night shift of Dr. Simpson, the doll comes back to life and promptly goes on killing whoever crosses his path. Ironically enough, this story is actually the weakest of all three. It takes quite a while before the doll gets resurrected and even when the spastic critter is on the prowl the story has nothing even remotely surprising or innovating to offer. The first two segments are rather simplistic, but at least creative and creepily atmospheric. The first story, entitled "Graveyard Rats", has a clichéd and derivative basic premise but there's an ingenious twist at the end. A couple of greedy lovers decide to kill the woman's elderly husband and inherit his fortune. The key for his secret stash of money, however, he took into the grave with him and when the frauds attempts to recover it, they stumble upon multiple morbid surprises with big red eyes and sharp teeth. This same story also benefices from some nicely eerie exterior filming locations and sinister creature designs. "Bobby", the second story, is the best one and arguably even one of the finest horror-moments of the 90's. The plot revolves on a deeply saddened mother reverting to black magic to revive her recently deceased son who fell out of his bedroom widow and drowned in the ocean. It works, but Bobby returns as an aggressive and foul-mouthed psycho with a desire to send his own mother to hell. The ambiance of "Bobby" is thoroughly creepy, as the events take place in a sinister old mansion during a dark and stormy night. The youthful maniac is effectively menacing and some of the tricks he uses to drive his mother insane are fairly original. Lysette Anthony is obviously not as charismatic as Karen Black, but she does really good work and makes the most out of her one-dimensional characters. Especially in the first story "Graveyard Rats", she also looks extremely attractive. Don't focus too much on the Zuni Doll gimmick exclusively, as this is a pretty good horror wholesome and definitely deserves a little more attention.

Not bad

[Tikkin · 5/10 · 6 December 2006]

I thought the first tale was quite good although it gets off to a slow start. Once the action happens and the woman gets attacked by the rats, it's quite fun in a cheesy way. And I love the ending! The second story in my opinion was really dull and clichéd - all we have is a woman's dead son come back to life who terrorises her around the house. We get flashes of lightening every 5 seconds, plus the boy keeps saying the words "Bobby" and "Mommy" over and over and over. How annoying! I was glad when it ended.

The last story of course concerns the famous Zuni fetish doll, and so by default is the best story of the three. To be honest it's nothing amazingly original, but it has a great sense of fun and you can't help but laugh as he scampers around in his mad rage, slashing anything he can get his hands on. I do think he needed to kill a few more people though.

Overall, this is an OK time waster, and of course recommended to fans of the first Trilogy of Terror. Incidentally, if you're a fan of Trilogy of Terror you may want to seek out a film called "Attack Of The Beast Creatures", which is about a bunch of Zuni type dolls that live in trees on an island and attack people.

Decent at best

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 6/10 · 12 October 2004]

First off, I haven't seen the first one, so I can't draw any comparisons between the two. The film is a trilogy, a collection of three horror short stories. Each lasts about half an hour. They are reasonably entertaining and scary, but on repeated viewings, the effects and the acting seems cheap and tame. The stories are all three pretty good, but they could have been more well-done. The acting isn't all good; the leading lady isn't a terribly good actor. The supporting cast are of varying talent. The first time you see the film, it might be reasonably scary, but on repeated viewings it quickly falls apart, due to the low-budget cheap special effects and less than impressive acting. Especially the effects on the final story, not to mention the overdone sound effects, often actually inspires laughter, rather than fear. Also, according to many people, the story of the doll, the last story in the trilogy, is basically a remake of the first. I'd like to see the first Trilogy of Terror film, from '75, since it seems to be far better, judging from all of the reviews. All in all, it makes for a decent watch, once, if you can see it for free. I recommend it to fans of horror movies, who can see it once, for free. Just don't expect anything great. 6/10

Trilogy of Terror II

[Scarecrow-88 · 5/10 · 29 December 2006]

Considerably tame tales of terror with Lysette Anthony portraying the female victim in each story. In the first she joins lover Geraint Wyn Davies(Of "Forever Dark" fame) in a plot to murder her husband Matt Clark and take his fortune. She finds herself instead contending with underground graveyard rats. In the second tale, she's the grieving mother who calls son Bobby back from his watery grave, after using some sort of witchcraft, only to find that he's not the same boy he once was. He, in fact, wishes to play his own game of homicidal hide-and-seek with her running for her life. The third tale, the best and yet silliest, has Lysette portraying a museum scientist studying a Zuni fetish doll which was found burnt in an oven at a vicious crime scene. It so happens that two women were found with their throats sliced open. What she doesn't realize once she takes this necklace from the doll's neck is that it is the very killer responsible for those other homicides. It seems, through a scroll also found at the crime scene, that the spirit of an African Zuni warrior harvests within the doll.

The special effects are low-grade and each story is rather hokey, but, all in all, it's decent fare. Nothing spectacular, but if you want to waste 90 minutes..

Pleasant fun for horror movie fans and casuals alike!

[markovd111 · 7/10 · 25 August 2021]

Same as the first movie, "Trilogy of Terror II" is a horror anthology made with care and love to the point it feels like it consists of "Tales from the Crypt" episodes. Same as the first movie, it isn't a masterpiece, but horror veterans will have fun while the casuals will enjoy their time too. First story is decent enough and has one of the best giant rats I ever saw in the movies. Second story is probably the best one of the three and is fun all the way to it's cheesy ending. Third one is OK and a nice continuation of the one from the first movie. All in all, I give the movie 7/10! It isn't scary or brilliant, but it will entertain. I recommend it to everyone!

Just an average mid-90s horror anthology...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 10 November 2019]

I don't think I've seen the first "Trilogy of Terror" movie, much less heard about the existence of these movies prior to finding "Trilogy of Terror II" late in 2019.

I noticed that Lysette Anthony starred in this, and that was actually more than enough to make me want to sit down and watch this 1996 horror anthology, as I've always liked her ever since seeing her in "Dark Shadows". Plus that this was a horror movie was also just a good selling point.

The overall impression of "Trilogy of Terror II" wasn't outstanding. Sure, this was watchable and entertaining, but it wasn't something that bedazzled me or made me go 'wow' in any manner.

The first story in the anthology is titled "The Graveyard Rats" was actually the most entertaining and enjoyable of the three tales. This was a classic horror tale and that is exactly what made it the best of the three. Was it predictable, for sure, but still the storyline here was just the embodiment of a good, classic horror story.

The second story is titled "Bobby" and it was adequate. It wasn't a story that was particularly outstanding in terms of concept and ideas. Nor was it a story that was was overly interesting to me, as it was just too mundane and lacked that special ingredient that "The Graveyard Rats" had to it. Sure, it was watchable and had some typical horror elements to it, but it was hardly a segment that was overly scary or disturbing.

As for the third and final segment in the anthology, the story titled "He Who Kills", wow, just wow. Where did that story come from? It stood out like a massive sore and throbbing thumb in comparison to "The Graveyard Rats" and "Bobby". And not in a good way. This story was just downright ludicrous, and it has to be seen to actually believe it. I am not going to spoil anything here, but this was a massive swing and a miss for the anthology.

All in all, these three stories make for a mere mediocre horror anthology. Sure, this is eye candy for the people that are fans of Lysette Anthony, as she is the star of all three stories, and she portrays three very different characters with very different appearances.

My rating for "Trilogy of Terror II" is a mediocre five out of ten stars. While this definitely is watchable, it isn't outstanding or particularly memorable.

As good as the first one: scary, fast paced and well acted

[JimSthers · 10/10 · 22 February 2002]

I really like this movie, Lysette Anthony does a super job in all three tales, like in the first trilogy movie the doll episode is the best and thanks to the technology of nowdays that freaking doll can now seriously run to stalk its victims. I give it a 9, rent it or buy it, you will not be disappointed

Nowhere Near As Good As the First

[jacobconnelly-47681 · 6/10 · 13 November 2021]

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.

Not very Good....

[nawab2012 · 3/10 · 12 July 2013]

Wasn't that great, especially the Third Story it was almost exactly the same as The first movie if you've ever seen it! It wasn't as good as the first movie either. It was just mediocre. Could have been better but wasn't. Is not thrilling, scary, or chilling. Just a pass. If you have not seen the first movie then give it a shot because you may like but being a fan of the first one, I thought there was nothing new added but The same story but not as well executed as the first film. So many new Ideas could have been put into this movie but I didn't see any New or Imaginative in this film. No thought went behind it in my Opinion.

BOTTOM LINE: PASS 3.5/10 Just not as Great as #1