![]() Reassembled from new body parts and jolted back to life by a freak electrical accident, an energized Chucky is more determined than ever to transfer his soul into the body of little Andy (Alex Vincent). Right from the start, it's apparent he embraces the mindless, goofier aspects of his creation, reviving a literally burnt-to-a-crisp doll in a Frankenstein-like opener that's roll-your-eyes cockamamie and somewhat funny all at once. ![]() ![]() Interestingly, Chucky originator Don Mancini, who has written the screenplay for every movie in the series, including the latest installment, returns as the genius behind this unconventional sequel. A viewer's mileage will largely depend on their tolerance for a blend of darkly offbeat absurdity and standard genre tropes. Instead, the sequel turns the concept of a doll possessed by a serial killer - granted, that does sound incredibly silly - into a more straightforward "slasher" flick mixed with a good amount of wacky goofiness. While I wouldn't necessarily expect a repeat of part one, which frankly would have been worse, it would have been nice for the filmmakers to maintain the same creepy thriller atmosphere. (Movie Rating: 3.5/5)Īlthough the first movie in the franchise is the furthest from a cinematic masterpiece and it didn't make a huge impact to the genre, it's sad nonetheless to see a direct follow-up make a mess of the storyline and take it in a weirdly cartoonish direction. In either case, the idea of toys which try to appear more lifelike is quite creepy and disturbing, and the filmmakers take advantage of this and provide audiences with a tale that plays into our childish nightmares. While the plot's creator Don Mancini has admitted to the Cabbage Patch Kids craze as a direct influence, I still like think the Good Guy doll possesses a striking resemblance to My Buddy or even a demented version of Teddy Ruxpin. Most interesting is the way in which the movie tapped into the strange cultural phenomena of children's toy marketing of the 1980s. Not only does Tom Holland put the dark shadows to fine use and actually generates a eerie atmosphere, but he's also skilled at keeping the camera from revealing the many tricks-of-the-trade. Other than the 'Bride of Chucky', the original installment of the franchise lingers in the memory banks of horror aficionados because of its surprisingly good and stylish direction. It is only with the evil, wicked attitude he imposes in the character that we enjoy watching Chucky strut his stuff and trust that the doll is capable of terrible malice and malevolent intent. Without his talent, the movie would lack a great deal of feasibility and at least some hint of believability. The other is without a doubt Brad Dourif as the iconic voice of Chucky. 'Child's Play' is today a less serious, straight horror flick and more ironic and facetious in its attempt to be realistic. ![]() So what the heck is it about the Good Guys doll which grabbed the attention of millions and spawned five sequels, including a comic book? One thing I always point to is the unexpected franchise, which if truth be told is nothing more than a parody of itself, somehow changing the way we watch the darn movie. ![]() Seriously, how much damage could a two-foot doll inflict upon a grown adult - it's made of plastic and batting material for Pete's sake! Granted, director Tom Holland ('Fright Night') generates some good moments of suspense and action but in the end, there is nothing really terrifying about this story of a maniacal doll. It's not as if the movie about a doll possessed by the soul of a serial killer has any true redeeming value whatsoever. As far as guilty pleasures go, 'Child's Play' has somehow crawled its way onto my list of tolerably entertaining flicks, one that I can sit down and watch every so often without much change in judgment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |