baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (The Phantom) (11/20/90)
CHILD'S PLAY 2
A review in the public domain
by The Phantom
(baumgart@esquire.dpw.com)
This year, horror phans missed three expected installments in three
lengthy sequel-fests that had been passing themselves off as original
horror entertainment for the better part of the eighties: FRIDAY THE
13TH, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and HALLOWEEN. The Phantom had hoped
that this meant that the trend toward the profitable -- though generally
unsatisfying -- creation of sequel after horror sequel was waning.
Though nearly a third of the horror films released this year have been
sequels of one sort or another, most were more or less successful
extensions of ideas that had been explored years ago. For example,
though THE EXORCIST III is most certainly a sequel, it doesn't simply
rehash the original's story in a brazen attempt to bilk more money out
of loyal horror phans. The same is true for the other half dozen or so
horror sequels that were released this past year. In BASKET CASE 2,
Frank Henenlotter used the same characters from his shoe-string-budgeted
cult classic, but the film is otherwise quite original -- it doesn't
simply rehash the original story, differing only in the intensity of the
special effects and the size of the budget.
In that sense, these sequels were more welcome than the cheaply
made near-serials starring Michael and Jason and even Freddy (in his
later years). While the Phantom almost always enjoys an original film
more than he does a sequel, there is no doubt that some of the best
horror films have been either remakes or sequels.
Unfortunately, CHILD'S PLAY 2 isn't one of them, even though it is
very entertaining in its own right. But this really shouldn't come as
much surprise. The original CHILD'S PLAY was somewhat of a phenomenon:
between Don Mancini's clever script and Tom Holland's skillful
direction, audiences barely blinked an eye at the thought of a small,
battery-operated, freckle-faced serial killer in cute little overalls.
And though the film itself wasn't completely original -- it had obvious
origins in the TV film TRILOGY OF TERROR (in which a tiny voodoo doll
terrorized Karen Black), a number of "Twilight Zone" episodes, and
Stuart Gordon's excellent DOLLS -- it was different enough from the
countless more-or-less standardized horror films of the time to gain a
huge audience. Since then, other copy-cat films (like PUPPETMASTER)
have tried to capitalize on what turned out to be the most successful
mass-market concept in horror since Freddy debuted in A NIGHTMARE ON ELM
STREET over six years ago, but none have been as good, as original, or
as successful.
Of course, one of the biggest things that CHILD'S PLAY had going
for it was that it was simply so audacious. Horror phans had seen
unstoppable men in hockey masks; they'd seen vengeful adolescents
celebrating everything but Groundhog's Day with a killing spree; they'd
even seen the wisecracking Freddy dispatch dozens of photogenic teens in
dozens of interesting ways. But what they hadn't seen was a killer
birthday present -- a child's worst nightmare come true. And because
Tom Holland did such a wonderful job with the idea, people weren't
really concerned that a three-foot-tall, red haired doll really
shouldn't be able to pose that much of a threat to Andy (the child who
owned him), let alone all the adults he dispatched with curious ease.
Holland and Mancini did such a good job, in fact, that audiences let out
barely a giggle at the sight of Chucky launching himself like a gymnast
at some unsuspecting adult, wrapping his arms as far around that adult's
neck as they would go, and then kicking his little plastic legs so
wildly that the adult would be all but unable to keep from falling out a
window, tripping over a strategically placed piece of furniture and
cracking his head open, or falling on some sharp kitchen implement that
just so happened to be out of the knife rack.
Mancini's script for CHILD'S PLAY also had a great deal of wit, and
this, too, helped the film immeasurably. The subtext to CHILD'S PLAY --
that of a small child who knows something is true yet can't get an adult
to believe him -- is a common one in children's stories, and it's a
theme with which even those in the audience over the age of seven can
identify. It's very different from the standard "teenager runs to the
Crystal Lake police babbling about an unstoppable maniac in a hockey
mask"; the very fact that Chucky is Andy's "friend to the end," and that
that "friend" would then turn on him and threaten to kill him, gave the
film the quality of a fairy tale that had turned into a nightmare.
That intelligence can be seen in other aspects of the film as well.
Chucky generally killed people in believable ways (though as in all
horror films logic must occasionally take a back seat to action and
suspense), and the focus of much of the film was Andy rather than
Chucky, making the resemblance to a fairy tale even more pronounced.
Holland and Mancini purposefully made the first half of the film more
like an episode of the Twilight Zone than a horror film -- it's not
until well into CHILD'S PLAY that Chucky finally speaks and starts
acting like the self-possessed doll that he is. Before that point,
Chucky is no more than another "Good Guy" doll -- albeit one that goes
back into the living room and watches the Nine O'Clock News after he was
put to bed.
Seen in this context, it is easier to understand why the film was a
sleeper hit, and why even adults who would not ordinarily go out of
their way to see a horror film went to see CHILD'S PLAY, just as they
had gone to THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, and FATAL ATTRACTION before it. But
this is the fundamental problem with CHILD'S PLAY 2; although there are
a good number of wonderful and witty touches scattered throughout the
film, and although the sequel's director, John Lafia (who co-wrote the
original), is more than competent enough to do the story justice, the
film feels more like an early eighties slash-and-trash flick than
anything else. And that is why CHILD'S PLAY 2, though enjoyable, is a
bit of a disappointment.
The Phantom should explain, since the feeling he got was a subtle
one, and he wouldn't want to be misunderstood; certainly, CHILD'S PLAY 2
bares little resemblance to FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VI or MY BLOODY
VALENTINE. But the film's orientation is very different than was that
of the original. The focus of the film is no longer Andy, and the cruel
joke of a killer birthday present has already been played out. In
short, the wonderful duality of the original -- a child's knowledge vs.
adult disbelief and a "good guy" turned bad guy -- is gone.
In its place are two signature features of the slash-and-trash
flick: endless scenes of stupid people doing stupid things in the dark,
never thinking of calling the police or simply running for their lives;
and the classic denouement, featuring the last living teenage girl being
stalked by a homicidal maniac while she bumps into the carefully hidden
bodies of her dead friends. Chucky killed a few couple of people in the
original, but that was never the focus of the film. Unfortunately, in
CHILD'S PLAY 2 it is.
A related problem is that CHILD'S PLAY 2 has a relatively high
TOTAL-B quotient. Related to the SLC ("Spring-Loaded Cat") quotient, a
standard measure of horror and adventure film quality, the "Turn On The
Light, Bitch!" quotient is usually highest in horror films that are
written and directed by people whose real talents apparently lie
elsewhere. Like the SLC quotient, the TOTAL-B quotient was made an art
form by Ridley Scott in his superb ALIEN, a film in which nearly every
single scare and thrill came because someone stumbled into the monster
while searching for a troublesome cat in the dark. Scott is, of course,
an acknowledged master of the form, but in lesser hands a high level of
both quotients indicates a film on which little thought has been
expended and on upon which little time has been spent.
To its credit, however, CHILD'S PLAY 2 is really a cut above the
usual slash-and-trash trash, even though it is a cut well below its
predecessor. One reason is that Brad Dourif has a field day with Chucky
-- he played the Lakeshore Strangler in the original, as well as the
voice of the "evil" Chucky -- since in the sequel, Chucky is "evil" from
the opening scene. Dourif doesn't quite top his performance in THE
EXORCIST III, but given the constraints of his role in CHILD'S PLAY 2,
he gives Chucky a memorable (and marketable) personality.
It's also obvious that Mancini and Lafia did nearly as well with
the film as they could, given the constraints of the premise. Now that
it is no longer possible to generate suspense about whether or not
Chucky is alive (and no possibility of repeating the wonderful scene in
the original in which Andy's mother discovers that Chucky's batteries
are still in his box), the filmmakers have to rely on humor and more
traditional horror themes -- an uncomfortable compromise at best.
It's the film's humor that really saves it; for all of its
slash-and-trash trappings, there is really quite a lot of humor in
CHILD'S PLAY 2 -- much more than there was in the original -- and it
helps make up for the film's unfortunate lack of originality. Phans of
the original -- and of horror films in general -- will be especially
happy to discover that there is another scene that plays like a homage
to Stanley Kubrick's horror classic THE SHINING (phans who want details
should write to the Phantom, since he does not want to spoil these
wonderful touches in either film). And just when it seems that the film
is going to bog down in the worst cliches of the genre (that of a
homicidal killer stalking a pretty teenage girl), the film moves to a
very well-done denouement inside the Good Guys factory. Some reviewers
have commented on the unlikely layout of the factory, but to the Phantom
it seemed perfectly natural (and to be frank, if the thought of a
three-foot-tall killer doll doesn't seem unlikely, it's not clear why
the Good Guys factory should disturb reviewers so -- the very fact that
it's located in Chicago rather than Taiwan should signal the audience
that there's something supernatural about it). Sadly, it is only then
-- as the film ends -- that the filmmakers are able to recapture some of
the original's irony, and it is only then that CHILD'S PLAY 2 shows
signs that, but for a unique gimmick, it is not an entirely standard
horror film.
And the story itself (this is a first for the Phantom: 1800 words
and not a mention of what the film is *about*)? It's not bad, again
given the constraints of the premise. Chucky's head is recovered from
Andy's apartment by Good Guys technicians and for reasons not entirely
clear, restored to a new body. The president of the company wants to be
sure that the doll couldn't have malfunctioned in some way -- talk about
product liability suits! -- and this is all fine and well, except that
the doll was burnt to a crisp and literally blown apart by the end of
the original. But OK, it's just the same old, same old from the
illogical world of the horror sequel, and nothing to get too concerned
about.
Of course, Chucky magically comes back to life, and once again the
spirit of the Lakeshore Strangler has to find Andy so that he won't be
trapped in Chucky's body for all eternity (or at least until everyone
tires of Chucky sequels). Find him he does, in the process killing a
good number of people in interesting and unlikely ways. Andy's new
foster parents don't, of course, believe that Andy's doll is alive and
looking for him, and neither does his soon-to-be-heroic foster sister,
but after a while it doesn't really matter any more, since the
belief/non-belief question becomes moot: everyone who might have been
convinced that Chucky was really alive is eventually killed.
It's really this, more than anything else, that makes much of
CHILD'S PLAY 2 feel like a fairly standard horror film, though one with
a fun gimmick and a sense of style. But unlike the original, in which
Chucky tossed Dinah Manoff out the window, in the sequel it's logic that
is similarly done away with, and while the film's veneer of humor covers
most of the problems this causes, the sheer number of unlikely things
that happen in the film -- including an awful lot of the killings --
started bothering the Phantom about half-way through.
But if you don't go expecting the originality and style of CHILD'S
PLAY, and if you don't mind a plot straight out of any of hundred
slash-and-trash horror films of the mid-eighties, the Phantom thinks
you'll find CHILD'S PLAY 2 quite enjoyable. It's not very original, but
it is -- usually -- fairly clever. And it's always enjoyable. See it
with somewhat reduced expectations and with a rowdy audience, and the
Phantom thinks that you should have a fine time with the new, Jasonized
version of Chucky. Who knows? Maybe in a year or two Chucky will knock
Robert Englund off as the reigning king of the horror serial -- after
all, we horror phans need our Indy Joneses and Luke Skywalkers just like
everyone else.
: The Phantom
: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com
: {cmcl2,uunet}!esquire!baumgart