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.