Child's Play 3 (1991)

Child's Play 3 (1991)

"Don't fuck with the Chuck!"

     It's generally a bad idea to produce a sequel to a film so fast that it comes out less than a year after the preceding film.  But that's just what David Kirschner, the producer of the Chucky series decided to do.  Now, it was going to be harder to do this one as Don Mancini, creator and writer of the films had used up most of his ideas in the first and second films.  And he had to write this new installment very quickly.  In case you've forgotten the end of the second film (and how could you, really...  it's the best ending in the whole series), Chucky's plastic is melted down in a big vat.  A vat big enough to make many many Chucky dolls.  Don Mancini's original plan was to have many Chuckys out there, as Charles Lee Ray's soul would have gone into the plastic of quite a few dolls. However, that just wasn't financially possible.  So sad, as that would have made a much better film.  Child's Play 3 is considered by most to be either the second worst or worst of the entire series.  And if you just count the original three films, most likely it'll be considered the worst.

     The plot to this one is set eight years after the last movie.  The Play Pals toy company is finally ready to reintroduce the Good Guys dolls.  Things have been quiet for eight years, after all.  The first made doll is given to the president of the company, who is killed that night by the doll, who is, unsurprisingly, Chucky.  This scene of the film is actually pretty good.  The president is in a luxurious penthouse with lots of toys and gadgets laying around.  And Chucky uses those to freak him out and eventually kill him.  With the president's computer, he finds out where good ole Andy is these days.  Andy has been in foster care for so long going from house to house that he ends up in military academy.  He's now 16 and is played by Justin Whalin, the guy who played Jimmy Olsen in Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.  Anyway, Chucky has himself mailed to Andy in a package.  However, it's intercepted by the youngest cadet at the academy, Ronald Tyler.  He's the biggest mistake of the movie.  He's played by an actor that's about 11 years old, acts about 7 (he wanted the doll, after all), and is annoying as all hell believing Chucky is his friend and not believing Chucky's involved in the murders around him even after it talks to him.  (In a deleted scene only in the TV version, you learn he's 8 1/2.)  Andy would be getting along fine in military academy if it wasn't for Lieutenant Colonel Shelton.  A guy in his upper teens who bullies his cadets, especially Andy.  The climax of the film deals with the academy's annual war games.  Unbeknownst to the cadets, Chucky has replaced the paintball rounds with live ammo.  (I'm not sure how that works in real life.  lol)  Then there's a carnival, a big showdown, etc.  Don't ask me why a carnival was put beside a military academy or why the movie went there.  Even the writer, Don Mancini said it was a stupid idea.

    I'm not a big fan of this film.  It's got its moments of course.  There's death by trash compactor and Chucky's funny in some parts.  My favorite moment is when Chucky's about to kill the old Colonel, jumping out at him with the knife, and the guy dies right there of a friggin' heart attack!  

But mostly, the plot just isn't that great.  I mean, it's interesting having Andy in a military academy and Chucky still wanting to take over his body.  But so many people are horrible in this film, you just want to see them die.  And that's a first for the franchise, surprisingly.  Sadly the annoying kid doesn't die.  But man does everyone wish he did.  I think the film was shot in a military academy for budget issues as well.  With one place to film in, it cuts down on cost.  (Well, there's also the carnival I guess.)  The first two films were set in the city and required numerous locations.  I think here we have a board room, a penthouse, an academy, and the carnival.  That's it.  Also, the Chucky robot here is not as good, in my opinion.  Chucky's got kind of a fat face in this one, and more limited mobility in it.  Most critics back in the day said that Chucky's movements were the film's saving grace, but I just don't see it.  It's a step down from the second film.  He looks like a robot here.  A more evil cherub looking robot.  At least he's still voiced by Brad Dourif.  He's the only returning actor for the third film.

     The film would open on August 30, 1991.  That's a little under nine months after the second film.  I do give the film props for being written, produced, and post-produced in that amount of time and the film not being completely horrible.  One of the ways this was accomplished was by having a TV director, Jack Bender, direct the film.  He'd done TV shows from back in 1977.  Things like Eight is Enough, Falcon Crest, Fame, and The Paper Chase.   He still directs now.  He was a executive producer and was the lead director for Lost.  He's also directed episodes of Game of Thrones, Alias, Felicity, The Sopranos, Under the Dome, and The Last Ship.  All that despite directing this pretty lame film.  The critics didn't like this one either.  It's got a 23% on Rotten Tomatoes and I don't think Siskel and Ebert even reviewed it.  The movie also only made just under $15 million in the United States, which is a little over half what the second film did.  With the budget being estimated at being around $13 million, it just broke even.  

     Sadly, the movie is mostly known for being supposedly implicated in the murder of 2 year old James Bulger in February of 1993 in England.  Two ten year old boys stole the 2 year old from a mall when his mom wasn't looking, taking him by the hand and taking him 2 1/2 miles away.  Then they pushed him to the ground and threw a can of spray paint in his face.  They took him farther along and tortured him, stomping on him and kicking him and threw heavy things at him.  The boy was killed and they laid him across a train track hoping a train would run the body over and make it look like an accident.  The train part did happen, but the boys weren't counting on CCTV in the mall from earlier when they thought it'd look like an accident.  Days later the boys were apprehended.  They had blue paint on their clothes and blood on their shoes.  Blood that DNA matched to Bulger's.  The kids were convicted and became the youngest convicted murderers of the 20th century.

Now, what does this have to do with Child's Play 3, you ask?  Officially nothing.  But you have to realize something about UK newspapers first.  UK newspapers are like the supermarket tabloids are here.   They can print anything they want and a lot of the time it's not true.  See, the trial judge in the case stated that he thought violent videos may have been to blame and the UK papers got their scapegoat.  After all, 10 year olds don't kill, do they?  Jon Venables' father had rented Child's Play 3 not long before the murder.  There's no evidence that Jon watched the film, but that hasn't ever mattered to social crusaders.  See, there's a scene in the film where blue paint gets splashed on someone.  Apparently since blue paint was used in the crime, that meant the film had to be where the kids got the idea from.  (Yes, outside the BBC, the UK press is just as idiotic as America's.)  Even with the police inspector on the case, the Minister of State at the Home Office, and the detective from the case saying they found no evidence the film was linked to the murder, people still know the film for it to this day.  The murder of Suzanne Capper was also used by the press in an attempted link to the film.  Investigators on that case also deny it.

So there you have it.  A film only talked about today because of idiotic papers in the UK.  They sure do love their moral panics, just like us.

This film ended the Child's Play series.  It'd been worn out.  Or at least, it was supposed to be the end.  Later on in the late 90s, Don Mancini would bring the series back, but as a comedy-horror series very different from the first 3 films. 

Child's Play 2 (1990)

Child's Play 2 (1990)

      Hello friends, and welcome back to my blog.  This time I'm going to keep it going regularly like it was in its first year hopefully.  Now, the last blog I posted was on 1988's Child's Play, the first film in the Chucky series.  That was back in October.  It's now a new year and January, so if you need to refresh yourself on what I said there, feel free to do so.  With that out of the way, let's move on to 1990's Child's Play 2.

     After the success of the original film, United Artists and producer David Kirschner quickly started development on a sequel.  The creator of the idea, Don Mancini would write the script again, this time on his own without touchups by John Lafia and Tom Holland (the director of the first film).  However, there soon came a problem, which happens a lot in Hollywood.  United Artists was to be sold to Qintex, and Australian media conglomerate, and they didn't want to do horror films.  David Kirschner thus decided to shop the series around to other studios, all of them turning the Child's Play sequel down.  It was decided that the film would have to be produced independently, so Kirschner started raising money.  Universal said that they'd distribute the film, but would not put the money up to produce it.

     Don Mancini still wanted to use ideas that were cut from his script during rewrites for the first movie.  Things like the killing of the teacher that bullies Andy and the showdown in the Good Guy factory.  With a bigger budget, the factory scene could be done.  The story this time is that Play Pals, the toy company that built the Good Guy dolls, of which Chucky is one, is rebuilding the original doll that Charles Lee Ray possessed.  I mean it was shot up, burned, etc numerous times in the first movie, but they use the same plastic, so I guess his spirit was still in there.  It's two years after the first film.  While Chucky's being reconstructed, the voodoo power shoots back into the doll, killing a technician or two.  But the company president wants to show the public that there's nothing wrong with the dolls and to push them back on the public to make money again.  Andy, the child from the first film, is now 8 years old.  His mom is in the looney bin for supporting his story about his doll killing people.  The two cops that saw it all happen?  No clue what happened to them.  It's not stated.  Andy has been in social services for a while and is just now being fostered by a couple played by Jenny Agutter (An American Werewolf In London, Walkabout) and Gerrit Graham (Phantom of the Paradise, Used Cars).  The husband is worried about Andy's mental state, but the wife is sure with time and patience Andy will be fine.  Chucky tracks Andy down to his new abode and starts to cause trouble for him.  He pretends to be a regular Good Guy doll with a different name while he breaks things of the couple's, causes trouble at Andy's school for which Andy gets the blame, starts killing those that have issues with Andy to frame him, etc.  Also, Andy's not the only foster child with the couple.  There's Kyle, who despite the name is a punkish teenage girl, not a boy from a cattle farm.  (Sorry, for some reason that's automatically what I think of anyone named Kyle.)  Obviously, the deaths start, and things get worse and worse for Andy, who decides Chucky must die, before he himself is killed.

     I loved the ad campaign for this one.  The whole Jack-in-the-box fake out was great.  I still remember it from when I was five.  It kinda scared me back then, but I was afraid of everything back then.  Even the theme music to Rescue 911 for cryin' out loud, I have no idea why.  But this ad campaign, I'm not alone in being affected by.  I've heard others agree.  

     This is my favorite of the Child's Play films.  At least out of the serious first three films.  (They aren't titled Child's Play after that.)  Chucky is downright brutal in this film.  In the first film he just killed whoever he needed to or to get revenge.  In this one, he kills people just for being around when they shouldn't be, like Andy's hateful teacher.  (But most cheered her death, because she was mean.)  The doll animatronics are at their best here.  The same team did the special effects as did the first film, and it's obvious that advancements were made to the animatronics in the short amount of time between films.  Chucky is way more expressive here than in 1988.  The mouth movements are more realistic, there's more creases for facial movements, etc.  Even Chucky walking looks better, mostly because they didn't use the little person and smaller sets as much this time, if at all.  That was always jarring for me in the first film.  This film is a bit bloodier too.  Now, it's still not that gory really.  I mean, the teacher gets killed by what I think is an air pump?  And you don't really see it hit the skin.  The film gets more and more preposterous and bloody as it goes though.  I find the film to be a bit scary, but more because it shows some truth to the foster care system.  The couple that fosters Andy can't have children biologically and foster kids so that they'll be able to actually adopt a baby.  This happens in real life.  If you've fostered, it's faster and easier to adopt.  Now, Jenny Agutter's character is warm and nurturing to those she fosters.  She wants to improve their lives.  Her husband does it grudgingly.  He borderline hates Andy because he thinks he's got mental issues and Chucky does things to make that worse.  To be a foster kid anyway is probably terrifying, but to have one the parents not liking you and a doll trying to make your life a living hell must give one anxiety attacks!  

    I forgot to mention that Alex Vincent is back playing Andy.  His acting in the first film was passable, which is more than one can say of most six year old actors.  His acting here is better, yet still not quite believable in parts.  Especially his conversation with his psychiatrist near the beginning of the film.  His dialogue is more appropriate for a 12 year old than an 8 year old.  The only other actor back for this film was Brad Dourif doing the voice of Chucky.  He curses more here, and that's really the only difference between his performance in the first film.  I liked the bond between Alex and Kyle, the girl who is fostered in the same house Andy is.  At first they don't get along, but the form a bond over time.  It's cute.  Also, you can tell the actors liked each other, as has been confirmed by both actors in interviews later on.  

    The thing most people remember about this particular installment is the showdown in the toy factory at the end.  There's piles of Good Guy dolls in their packaging stacked 7 or 8 high forming almost a labyrinth for Andy, Kyle, and Chucky to race through.  The assembly line is running as well, as sadly noticed by the guy who gets pushed onto it and has his eyes popped in and replaced by doll eyes.  (Ouch!)  The ending of the first film reminded me of the end of Terminator with the Chucky doll continuing to attack after it'd been burned and shot numerous times.  Well, we go farther here.  Chucky gets reformed, his hand chopped off, stapled onto the assembly line, melted, etc. and still keeps coming numerous times after they think they've killed him.  It's a lot of fun, the third act.  Even Siskel and Ebert agree that the ending was good.  And they didn't like the film.  (Siskel and Ebert found these types of films harmful to the public good.  And Siskel hated the child in danger plot.)

      As I said, it's my favorite of the Child's Play films, if not the whole Chucky saga.  (Still haven't watched the latest one.)  The direction of this one sometimes gets chided by some fans.  They say it's directed like a TV movie.  That has some basis.  John Lafia, who did some rewrites of the first film directs this one.  Most of his work has been for TV.   He directed some Babylon 5, but mostly TV miniseries and TV movies.  Now, I don't agree that his work is as lazy as most TV work was in the 1990s.  The cinematography?  Maybe.  But the cinematographer also did Batman Returns, won an award for Ed Wood, and still does feature film cinematography to this day.  He's shown he can do good work.  I think many just prefer the first film, which is fine.  However, the first film is more Tom Holland's film.  He directed and rewrote the film to be what he wanted it to be.  (The voodoo, the police stuff.)  This is more Don Mancini's vision with input from Lafia.  Now Tom Holland has done good films, true.  But I prefer this movie.  It's meaner,  I feel more sorry for Andy in it, it's not bogged down in police stuff.    No, if you want a film with problems, you have to watch Child's Play 3.