movieman_kev Most of the main cast of the Jaws spoof "Trees" return for this sequel that adds Horshack to the mix. This time around the main villain are Christmas trees. This film, while having its moments comes nowhere near as good as the first film. It goes off on tangents fairly often and just isn't as funny. Whereas I found myself laughing or chuckling at a good 80% of the original, I managed to laugh less here, even though it was a bit of a longer movie. It's humorous but some of the sub-plots and even some characters could've been left on the cutting room floor without harming the film in the least bit. And those flashbacks could've been done away with to as long as I'm on the subject.

BA_Harrison Flesh-eating, genetically mutated trees are running rampant in the ski resort of Hazelville; Ranger Cody (Kevin McCauley) and botanist Max Cooper (Phil Gardiner) try to alert the locals to the danger, but their progress is hampered by Bentley and Royce (Brandi Coppock and Brian Reid), two National Forestry Service agents who are part of a conspiracy to cover up the existence of the carnivorous Great White Pines.If you haven't already twigged from the above synopsis, The Root of all Evil, from writer/director Michael Pleckaitis, is a dumb, low-budget parody of Jaws, only with man eating trees instead of sharks—which sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but isn't.Although Pleckaitis does a commendable job with both the direction and editing, his scriptwriting skills are far less impressive: the characters are weak spoofs of those in Spielberg's classic movie (Cody rhymes with Brody, Cooper with Hooper, and there's even another character called Squint!), the dialogue is terrible, and the humour is dreadfully puerile. To make matters even worse, the cast are simply awful (the trees are less wooden than the actors), and the monster-tree special effects are embarrassing (achieved by z-grade CGI that would have looked bad in a mid-90s video game).If the approach taken had been much trashier, with outrageous OTT gore and nudity to help compensate for its crappier qualities, then this might have been a blast—a demented nutzoid effort destined for cult status. As it stands, however, it's an unmitigated disaster.

kaluninja Buyer beware! There are only 2 comments about this film on IMDb (before this one) and both appear on the front cover of the film! I'd have been gutted if it were my £4 forked out on this shower of excrement! This movie is TERRIBLE and certainly isn't funny! It could easily have been completed inside one day and doesn't meet the unintentionally funny requirement which makes similarly badly produced films like troll 2 far more worthwhile. The humour is deliberate and at the same time unfunny, I have no idea who this kind of film is made for! Went on for far too long and an ending never seemed likely to arrive until our audience was spared by the "to be continued..." text. Killer Christmas trees has so much potential - Why did the blind girl get cured by a bit of chlorine! Why does where's waldo bloke simply not care at all that his wife is getting hounded by rich bloke? Why do the trees kill some people but turn others into rubber figurines? This film was punishing!

Roanka This sequel to "Trees" is far better than the original. The addition of some movie professionals has helped improve the product. The plot of this movie picks up where Trees left off. Ranger Cody now has a fear of trees. When killer Christmas trees invade the town of Hazelville no one believes the ranger. Mayhem and chaos ensue. I live in the town where this was filmed, and the sight of killer Christmas trees running down Main Street is absolutely hilarious! The second film in a "treelogy," this is a great movie to watch on a cold, rainy night.