I’m not sure there has ever been a time when a remake has come out when the franchise it is remaking is still going strong. But that’s exactly what we have in 2019’s Child’s Play. Original creator Don Mancini is still working the franchise he has been at the forefront of for thirty plus years. But original studio MGM was starved for a taste of the Chucky pie after selling the franchise off following the first film. Hence, here we are.
After months of antagonizing each other on Facebook about this film, the time has come for Matt and myself to finally review 2019’s Child’s Play. Is it as bad as we have been building it to be for a year straight? Is it bad at all? What can we expect in the future? Listen to the podcast that’ll be sure to piss Don Mancini off as much as the movie itself.
Chad fights through audio troubles to review a bunch of toys like he was some YouTube kid trying to get subscribers. I hate those kids. They literally get all the toys. Give me some toys, you prick YouTube kids. Anyhoo….. Chucky vs. The Gang: Whoever Wins, I hate YouTube Kids.
Five weeks and four podcasts. That’s as long as it took for Matthew Goudreau and I to get through the entire Child’s Play series, which ends right here with a review of the brand new release Cult of Chucky. With Don Mancini once again returning to the director’s chair, is there anything even remotely interesting or new he can bring to this killer doll franchise which he hasn’t done before. Better yet, how do we feel it stacks up against the others, and what could the future of Chucky possibly hold?
Matt and I also divulge what else we have in store for the future, which is pretty exciting and intriguing. But that’s for discussion on another day. For now, enjoy what we have built this series on, and get ready for more!
Here we are. Less then a week away from our first time viewing of Cult of Chucky, The Young Folks’own Matthew Goudreau and I, after this very podcast, are now up to speed.
Six years following the tease of a kid born from Chucky’s loins, original creator Don Mancini took up the director’s chair in order to tell its story in 2004’s Seed of Chucky. But instead of taking the series in new horrific directions, Mancini turned the fifth movie of the franchise into a slapstick farce, with a coming out of the closet story added for good measure. After the fun we had with Bride last week, did Matt and I think this was a good direction?
And then, nine years later, Mancini went the other way, and brought Chucky back as a scary presence in 2013’s Curse of Chucky. Trailers promised a return to form, and a brand new direction of Child’s Play seemed like the right way to go. But is this exactly a reboot, and why is there remnants of the previous entries in here?
By downloading the podcast below, you will find out our answers to these questions and more. And don’t forget, all of these reviews are leading up to a review of the brand new Cult of Chucky, to be posted next Tuesday.
Also, Matt and I talk about what to expect from us next Friday, which is probably going to be my most introspective show since I joined these air waves.
The second part of our four part look at the Child’s Play franchise is fitting given the nature of the tonal shift between the two films being discussed. Meaning, it is very schizophrenic. The first part is a relatively short discussion of 1991’s Child’s Play 3. A rushed production, 3 is a film both Matthew and I agree isn’t really worth delving into its depths to find a greater meaning. Mostly because there really isn’t one, as the storyline is long past due. But is there some enjoyment to be had? Listen to hear if we think so.
We then move on to 1998’s Bride of Chucky, The first Child’s Play film to be made post Scream, Bride is looked by many to be the finest entry in the franchise. But will we think so?
Download below as we feel what we feel, see what we see, and make fun of a doll that protrudes Brad Dourif’s voice. And don’t forget to keep coming back as all of this leads to a review of the still never seen by us Cult of Chucky.
Trilogy of Terror and an episode of Twilight Zone notwithstanding, the concept of a child’s killer doll is something that has never really found its legs. Was it a lack of convincing stop motion technology? Was it a lack of good ideas? Was it a lack of Brad Dourif?
Well, almost thirty years and eight (!) movies later, the answer to those questions has been they weren’t Child’s Play. Chucky the doll is not inherently scary. So what the hell is it about these films that have made the series so damn successful?
All of these questions and more are answered by me and my co-host, The Young Folks’ own Matthew Goudreau. Join us for this first of four podcast episodes as we dissect the birth of a b horror movie icon, and whether Chucky deserves its longevity.
The idea behind a sequel is usually supposed to be about going bigger and better than the previous installment of the franchise, right? So what happens when the studio decides to negate that basic principle and push out a quick sequel in the name of money? How many times have you gone out and picked up the latest installment in your favorite franchise only to get home and once the credits roll you just kind of sit there thinking…”well, that really wasn’t what I thought it wold be at all”? I want to discuss these moments, look at these sequels and dissect them in order to see if they made the right choice or gone in another direction. Are these sequels worthy of their predecessors?
First up is Child’s Play 3. I want to start off by saying I am probably the biggest Chucky fan you’ll ever come across, seriously. Child’s Play 2 was the very first horror movie I ever saw and introduced my genre of choice. Needless to say, I have a soft spot for the Chuckster. However, I can still admit when one of the movies is a let down (SEED….fuck you). So, let’s dig into this movie shall we?
Synopsis:
It’s been eight years since Andy last came face to face with the knee high killer doll Chucky. His mother still in a mental institute and his reluctance to make a home with any family he is placed in by his foster care, Andy is forced into attending Kent Military Academy. Upon arrival all seems until a package is sent addressed to Andy only to be stolen by the ever so annoying Tyler. Chucky is back, and wreaking havoc in the halls of KMA, its now a cat and mouse game between Andy and Chucky to save Tyler’s soul as Chucky realizes he no longer needs to have Andy in order to become human once again.
What’s so sloppy about it, and how do we clean it up?
The Characters:
I tried to make that synopsis as cool sounding as I could because honestly this movie is pretty boring at times. I still enjoy it, but I’m pretty sure that just comes from my love for Chucky himself. While, there are some positives to this movie I want to just take a look at what the filmmakers could have done differently. Let’s begin with Andy and the rest of the characters shall we? If we are going to jump so far ahead into his life why do we still have to watch a damaged and scared character? Andy is supposed to be about sixteen years old in this film, so why not make him a stronger more confident young man? Maybe start the film and he is already at Kent, actually got himself together at last instead of retreading on his old fears right at the start. The filmmakers really missed out on an opportunity to actually make a hero out of Andy, someone to be an actual threat to Chucky (I know how stupid that sounds considering the killer is a doll) which would have added a much needed sense of threat and suspense to the film. Having Andy filling the true hero role, maybe the next character could have changed a but as well…..fucking Tyler. Fuck Tyler, I hate this kid with a passion. If you can find a more annoying child character you can slap me in the face. Probably the single biggest misstep this movie has IS Tyler. The kid looks about twelve (meant to be about seven) and obsesses about the new Good Guy doll coming out….he’s also a damn thief, he literally steals the mail meant for Andy and opens it once he finds out there’s a Good Guy doll in his hands. I can go on and on about this kid, but this article would turn into a thesis paper, in short he sucks, he should have never been written this way or even been in the film. Moving onto the love interest, Kristen, a strong female character who trains Andy…and also becomes the damsel in distress at the end of the film. Why the hell would Don Mancini (the writer of every Child’s Play film) create this solid female and completely turn it around and make her utterly useless? It’s actually insulting. There are a few other sideline characters that actually make sense within the story: the overbearing Shelton, Whitehurst, and the garbage man. None of these characters really matter because no one showed up to see them, they showed up to see Chucky.
The Story:
We already took a peek at the story this movie has so let’s talk about what the filmmakers could have/should have done with this third installment. Let’s start with the time-line, why go eight years ahead? I would have much preferred that this movie picked up RIGHT when Child’s Play 2ended. For those who are aware there is a deleted scene that is included in the TV version of CP2 that has Chucky coming back from the dead and smiling at the screen. Now, if they had used that deleted scene at the beginning of CP3 and let that kick off the story that would have been amazing. It wouldn’t have felt as forced as the story we were being given as well. Having CP3 pick up where CP2 ended would have opened the door to answering some solid questions/ideas left open at the end of the second film: 1.) What happened to Kyle? 2.) Having the company behind the Good Guy dolls attempt to cover up and disprove the fact that Chucky is actually alive seeing that he HAS to be on some of the security footage. And finally number 3.) An interesting dynamic of the company, the police, and Chucky all hunting down Kyle and Andy for the events that took place at the adoption agency and the warehouse. Those three pinpoints are what I think would have made a better story/movie than what Mancini and company were able to give us.
If we look at the idea that was eventually given on screen, how could they have been reworked in the same movie to make it better? For one thing, as said above, why not start with Andy already being at Kent academy? It would have been cool to see him already adjusted to a normal life, moving past the events that haunted him as a child and becoming an adult. Once Chucky comes back we could see Andy’s entire world fall apart around him as he once again is hunted down by the pint sized killer. This film should have also stuck with Andy, fuck Tyler, cut his character completely out and make it an Army trained Andy fighting Chucky. The filmmakers should have toned down the humor in this installment as well, make the movie dark. They should have had Chucky be more menacing…I know, I know, we all love his one liners, but we also love the dark and menacing take a lot more (thankfully they brought that back in the absolutely amazing Curse of Chucky). If they chose to use those elements above this film could have been a solid entry in the series, however the way it stands right now it is just wildly mediocre.
The Resurrection and Death of Chucky:
The re-birth of of Chucky in this movie kind of makes no sense (not that it does in the alternate ending of CP2 either). His blood mixes in a giant vat of liquid plastic that only makes ONE Chucky doll…..why would a vat that probably made about three hundred dolls on bring one back with the sound of Charles Lee Ray within it? That’s just something that has always annoyed me, if not have three hundred Chucky dolls at least have two, it would only make sense. The death of Chucky bugs me too, these films always deem it necessary to kill Chucky dead, dead, dead at the end of each entry. I really wish they wouldn’t do that, why always kill off the bread and butter of the franchise in such a way that they need to come up with some bug assed crazy way to bring him back to life in the beginning of the next movie?
All in All:
This movie really has some problems, most dealing with the inclusion of the Tyler character and some of the chosen storytelling techniques. If they chose to go along with the original ending of Child’s Play 2 they could have had an extremely interesting part 3 instead of this slightly boring and poorly written film that was pushed upon us. With some changes to the story and exclusion of the Tyler character I think the basic idea of the existing third film would have been a much better and enjoyable experience.
