Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

BA_Harrison Apparently, if you're looking to take your other half out of the picture, all you need to do is call up the local nut-house, who will send round a couple of orderlies with a straitjacket to cart them away, no questions asked. That's what Joan (Carrie Snodgress) does to her husband Malcolm (Peter Jason) who spends the next four years in an asylum going genuinely crazy. Of course, there's always the danger that they might break out and go looking for a spot of revenge, which is precisely what Malcolm does, disguising himself as a female nurse to do so.When Malcolm finally arrives home, his ex-wife isn't there, having gone partying with her new man Richard (David Carradine); instead, he makes do with terrorising her pretty babysitter Linda (Jacqueline Giroux), who is staying the night to look after chubby, magic-obsessed, practical joker Christopher (Chris Graver), quite possibly the most obnoxious little s**t to have ever appeared in a horror movie.What sounds like standard '80s slasher nonsense feels like anything but, the entire cast clearly not taking matters very seriously (and who can blame them given the very silly script); unfortunately, despite what I can only presume are attempts at humour, the film is never funny enough to qualify as a comedy horror, and with zero scares or gore, no nudity, plus that really irritating kid grating on the nerves throughout, Trick or Treats manages to be an utter failure on practically every level. Even the utterly stupid, highly predictable 'shock' ending blows.

markcope1981 this film is about linda an aspiring actress who goes to babysit on halloween night to babysit the kid is named chris who keeps pulling dark disturbing pranks on her a killer named malcom who is christophers real father comes over and terror happens the film is basically a clumsy mash up of fright 1971 halloween 1978 with a dash of nightmare 1981 i don't hate it but i don't love it either pros the final girl is likable even if she is dumb the acting is good halloween 1978 was good but it didn't feel like halloween this film has the halloween feel that film didn't have humorous at times cons poor lighting weak killer more comedy than horror low body count too many pranks and false scares i didn't like the end over oll you could at least see it once then buy a good movie but have this for a laugh at how chessy it is

Coventry Complete failure of a horror that actually has no "raison d'être" whatsoever because only three (I repeat THREE) people die throughout the entire film and two (again, I repeat, TWO) of these three deaths occur off-screen! I've seen Disney Pixar flicks where more characters died. By the way, that was a spoiler warning! What makes all this even worse is the fact that the basic premise actually holds quite a bit of potential and the opening sequences are even intriguingly mysterious and never seen before. A battle ax of a woman hires some men in clean white coats to take away her husband to the loony bin. Several years later – although later specified as exactly four – the man breaks out the asylum on Halloween night (in the lamest imaginable way by dressing up as an elderly woman) and returns homewards with exclusively vengeance on his mind. His evil hag of a wife, who in the meantime re-married the sleazy magician artist David Carradine, is not there on "the night he came home" (copyright John Carpenter's "Halloween") but the cute babysitter is looking after their chubby and unimaginably annoying son, who persists on playing lame pranks (and the bimbo babysitter persists on falling for them as well). It takes literally ages before anything remotely horror-related occurs. The film isn't exactly boring; it's just nothing like a horror/slasher effort. There are numerous pointless interludes to fill up the running time, like a complete narration of the Boy Who Cried Wolf fairy tale and the showing of a horror film within the film, something about Dracula reviving the Frankenstein monster, because two chicks are editing a film the babysitter slash actress starred in. It's not the least bit relevant; it's just another way to kill off a couple of minutes. I sometimes really wondered if "Trick or Treats" was intended as a comedy, because certain parts are just so incredibly over-the-top and senseless, like the live news reporting from inside the asylum after the escape, but then again other parts as well as the acting performances are so sincere and straight-faced that I think we're supposed to take this rubbish seriously. The chubby 8-year-old amateur magician is literally, hands down, THE most annoying kid ever displayed on screen and, especially with the slow pacing in this film, you just know from the beginning that we won't have the pleasure of watching him die. "Trick or Treats" is a "Halloween" knock-off without any actual slashing going on. It's a lousy and boring movie, completely bloodless and without the slightest form of suspense. The supportive roles of Steve Railsbeck and David Carradine are completely wasted and did I tell you already this piece of junk hardly features any on screen bloodshed? Epic failure, that's what they call this sort of stuff these days on the Internet.

howdy4499 This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting is horrible, the camera work is pathetic, script is laughable. Chris Graver shares the same name as that of the director. If they're related it might help explain how Chris got the part.It's a shame David Carradine ever got involved with something like this.I hope none of you ever get suckered into buying or renting this movie.