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
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews