Movies you've just watched

[sumdumgoy]

x

[ChurchOfSolipsism]

Or make Kill Bill Vol. 3 as a full-length anime film

Please, no...

As for the classic "Crazy 88" gang melee scene featured in Kill Bill Vol. 1, if it was shown in color during it's American theatrical release, it would've earned a dreaded and shocking NC-17 rating

not to be a know it all, but they did cut a couple more scenes to get the R-rating, a lot of it gore; one thing I keep hearing for some strange reason is that they simply changed the last scene to black and white. Get the Japanese DVD for a couple of bucks the next time you go to a BookOff, it's absolutely worth it.

Yes, if you want to watch certain movies that aren't available on streaming, it's best to buy it on dvd, blu-ray or 4K uhd format

After hearing about the desastrous AI "enhanced" 4K versions of Aliens and Terminator 2 and since full HD, to me, looks almost cinema quality anyway on my 500 bucks video projector, I stay clear of 4K "remasters". It's probably just bias on my part, though, I'm sure there are excellent 4K true remasters out there?

[emphatic]

The Blue Leaves scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is in black and white because that's how they used to edit bloody movies for television when Tarantino grew up watching them, so it's a nostalgic homage to that age.

[Lord British]

Christiane F. - 1981 - Uli Edel (W. Germany)



This is a movie I've known about for a few years that I finally got around to seeing. Of course I just noticed after the fact that there's finally a rip with English subtitles on YT, so you can check that out if you're interested.

Holy shit, this is the real deal folks. This one's about a 13-year girl who's actually played by a 13-year old girl who gets into heroin and slides into prostitution. I know nothing about being a heroin addict myself, but this felt like pretty goddamn authentic to me and it's played by real kids. The movie shows all the things that should be shown without being too sensational about it. It portrays kids pretty accurately too; it doesn't make them older than they are. They act aloof and do well trying to look cool, but the movie doesn't make them look too cool, unlike a movie like Larry Clark's KIDS (but to be fair to LC, KIDS had its authenticity too because 90's Manhattan is its own beast). Christiane F focuses almost completely on the drug addiction and not too much else- to a benefit. The reason she gets into it is because she sets her eyes on the boy Detlef who is slightly older, and wants to be part of his tribe so he would like her in return.

The look of the movie is amazing. Even if the movie sucked it would have the value of showing young teens running around W. Berlin circa 1981, breaking into malls at night and frequenting the diskotheks. That alone makes me appreciate it. You have David Bowie in this movie during a concert scene, and with that scene it gives a birds eye view of the crowd throughout the concert hall which is pretty awesome and rare.

This is up there w/ Threads as one of the bleakest movie you can see, but I highly recommend it, It's not dumbed-down nor anywhere as emotionally manipulative as a Requiem For a Dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXjV-Yuwj3w

[Lord British]

Verlierer (Losers) - 1986 - Bernd Schadewald (W. Germany)




Another German one. Finally saw this with English subtitles! I discovered this a while back because I read that the Sodom guitarist "Grave Violator" was among the cast. It also features "Campino", the singer of punk band Die Toten Hosen, and though he's a minor character, he actually has the best natural presence in the film (top picture, red jacket). This movie would be in the rumble genre like The Warriors, The Wanderers, The Outsiders, Rumble Fish, etc., but what sets this apart is the backdrop of the Ruhr region of West Germany, the factories, the smoke, and especially the thrash metal battle vests! You'll see the thrash band Violent Force featured very well here, I think before they put out their album. Is it a good movie? Nah, I'll just say it's a decent, low-budget indie film. It's not particularly original or well-written, but as a time capsule of the Ruhr region, it's extremely valuable.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

fast food (1989) is a wAy better movie than i would've ever expected it to be. it's the prototype fOr good burger and has jim varney in it \m/

[RGC]

GP (and others), sorry for not responding to your earlier comments. I haven't yet managed to watch all of Lynch's The Missing Pieces, as I've been distracted by some other important research.

So, about Child's Play:

All in all I'd still say in its entirety its the best horror series of all time. It doesn't have any really shitty entries, unlike, say Hellraiser or all the other series that started in the 80s or even before (like Halloween & Friday 13th).

This really got me thinking, is he right? The best horror series of all time... What about Amityville, Exorcist, Howling, or Evil Dead? Or what about more modern series like The Conjuring, REC, Ring, Final Destination? Anyway, you probably are right, but this inspired me to watch all the Child’s Play films and jot down some thoughts on each one. Just some stream-of-thought waffle that likely gets a few details wrong, coz my brain is addled to fuck.This post took me six years to edit and format on my phone.

Ade Due Damballa!

Child's Play (1988) Dir. Tom Holland

Spoiler

Iconic 80s killer doll flick. Has some genuine tension, which as I recall is largely lost in the sequel. Some great subtle comedic moments, like the regular street cop, feet up, reading the newspaper on the couch at the murder scene! . I had totally forgotten hunky, vamp-next-door Chris Sarandon stars in this. He is solid as is Catherine Hicks who does a convincing turn as desperate mum. She tells it like it is and world be damned if they think she's nuts (which they do).
"Andy was right. Chucky is alive and he bit me."
"Good night Mrs Barclay."
The first installment is tight and definitely holds up. Great puppetry too!

Child's Play 2 (1990) Dir. John Lafia

Spoiler

For reasons, the murderous Good Guy doll gets resurrected by "the company" and pursues Andy, his only shot at returning to human form, to his new foster parents' home. The human adults in these films are, almost without exception, more deplorable in their words and deeds than the chuckster himself. At least the Lakeshore Strangler Plastic edition (TM) is very clear in his intent. He wants to destroy Andy and take possession of his body; a threat even an eight year old can grasp. Sure Chucky's a serial killer, but at this point he's just trying to survive (as a human). Why shouldn't he have some fun in the process! The adults maintain the pretense of caregiving while in actuality giving less than two shits about Andy's wellbeing. The mum is the sole exception and she's absent from this installment thanks to the cops -- including the hero detective in part 1 -- refusing to vouch for her story, thus condeming mother and son to separation and a lifetime of psych-analysis. Bastards! Okay, so no one would have believed the truth anyway, but with four witnesses they could have spun events some other way to protect the family, fabricated a third party who fled the scene or something. Instead, they both get hung out to dry.

Now Andy has to contend with grade-A-hole foster parents who despite their confirmed debriefing about his "doll issue" almost wantonly (at very least negligently), torment him with a "Good Guy" doll they just happen to have in their home! Even after the foster mum (Jenny Agguter doing a dodgy US accent), promises to get rid of the doll (not Chucky, but an identical model), she somehow doesn't get around to it. Wtf. Talk about a masterclass in mental abuse. They're all just seeing how badly they can fuck this kid up. There's a reason for all this and it's so we can get onboard and enjoy Chucky's little slaughter spree, as he starts wiping out each and every abuser, promoting himself to anti-hero in the process (They did the same thing with Jason Vorhees, where his victims became increasingly deserving of decapitation or impalement!).

The final, T1-esque sequence at the most understaffed and hazardous toy factory in the fucking world (!) provokes some big smiles. It's quite a fun ride over all. Dourif, now really in his stride with the voice work, dropping F-bombs all over the shop, and the doll looking more sinister than before. Some setups recycled from part 1 weaken it a bit.

Child's Play 3: Look Who's Stalking (1992) Dir. Jack Bender

Spoiler

Guess who got resurrected again! This time via some blood-tainted molten plastic. The setting for this installment is a military school (where apparently they don't teach any actual academic lessons), seven or eight years after events at the toy factory. Charles Lee Ray reveals himself to be a bit of a dimwit here, as it only dawns on him after shipping himself all the way to the school that he could in fact have choosen any new host, since technically he now inhabits a new doll. Still, the conceit was necessary else there would be no Andy Barclay for him to terrorize. Instead of laying low for a few hours then selecting one of the older kids, or even an adult as host he chooses the youngest student in the school; a boy of an age himself not beyond playing with dolls. Chucky may want to return to youth, but he's in no way about turn to over a new leaf with this fresh start, if he can get away with it.

A miltary school is the perfect setting for introducing multiple scumbag characters. Indeed there are a few, and you can guess how things work out for them. It does manage to avoid sticking rigidly to the previous formula, as he murders at least one fully innocent person in this one. But in the main it's still the scumbags and unsympathetics that buy it. The paintball manhunt sequence and the ghosthouse climax are satisfying to a degree, but I wasn't a fan of Chucky's seeming new ability to warp and be anywhere he wants in an instant. It's like they'd introduced a further supernatural element that doesn't quite fit with the existing rules. Possibly just an editing oversight. Surely Chucky can't come back from this one!

There was an interlude here where I watched Wishmaster 1 & 2. Not exactly palate cleansers for this type of viewing, but reasonably fun.

Bride of Chucky (1998) Dir. Ronny Yu

Spoiler

This has Ronny Yu's (Freddy vs Jason) brand of humour seeping out of every pore. Chucky gets resurrected by his (Ray's) ex-girlfriend, who had successfully tracked down the evidence room where his diced remains were stashed, convinced a cop to obtain them, stitched said parts back together, and performed a quick voodoo ritual! Yep. If you've seen the poster you can guess what happens to Tiffany's soul shortly afterwards. Thus the pair of unnatural born killers hit the road Micky and Mallory style, and reinforce their undying love for each other with every kill. The bemusement and paranoia of the two humans they've hitched a ride with -- who urgent news reports caution should be treated as armed and dangerous due to the trail of corpses in their wake -- is highly entertaining. As is the notion of a "Voodoo for Dummies" manual . This one is all about the comedy. It's hit and miss in that department, but proceeds with unapologetic gusto, and the ending is hilarious (and ridiculous of course!).

Seed of Chucky (2004) Dir. Don Mancini

Spoiler

Child's Play creator and co-writing fixture, Don Mancini, rubs a finger around his gums and yells
'Action!'. First time in the chair, he means business. The actors and puppeteers look at each other nervously, then realise he's serious and get busy. That's the impression you get from seeing this insane ride/hot mess unfold. Or perhaps misunderstood work of genius? As the title hints, the story follows voodoo chile plastic progeny of Chucky and Tiffany, Glen (or Glenda), on his gender-TBD quest to discover his identity and place in the universe. To try and summarise the convoluted plot might spoil it, but at this point (without having seen the rest of the sequels), I'm betting this is the lowest point in the series, where "spoiling" might be too generous a term. The reason is that this one goes where all good ideas go to die -- to the land of the meta, where actors play themselves playing actors playing dolls wanting to inhabit actors who play them in a film within a film, or something. It has a few laughs, but mostly it comes across like an exercise in seeing how much excess -- and how many baffling left turns -- it can get away with. My partner's eyebrow arching over the top of her book as I watched a character behind a hedge observing a silhouette of Chucky jacking off to Fangoria mag, made me question some life choices. When things go meta they've usually run their course. Until the reboot.

The 'Chucky wanting to be human again' story arc finally reaches a conclusion. He's ready to embrace being a psycho killer doll. What's that, a message about self acceptance!?

Another break, this time to watch Straight Time (1978). A cracking flick, and a much needed gear switch after so much camp horror. Followed by...

Curse of Chucky (2013) Dir. Don Mancini

Spoiler

Chucky will live forever. The last film taught us to get comfortable with that idea, and hence didn't bother having him pointlessly “killed”, only to waste time contriving yet another unlikely resurrection.

This sequel takes a more sober approach and sits comfortably in the straight – and quite generic – horror camp. As far as that goes, it ticks boxes in terms of the usual muted/grey tones and for effective scares. It's competently written and, honestly, comes as a refreshing change after the goofiness of the previous two entries. Don Mancini proving he can move with the times, albeit if that means sacrificing a certain degree of his zany, parodic humour.

It's a sequel but also a prequel of sorts, looping back to join up with part one in a fairly tidy, if not totally necessary way. Brad Dourif gets some screen time in human form, which is always gladly received. But also, his real life daughter plays the story's central character, and like her father she's no acting dud.

Nica (Fiona Dourif), a young wheelchair bound woman, receives a doll-size parcel in the mail, just days before her mother “takes her own life”. The apparent suicide is plausible, and an explanation of her trauma is covered later as part of a rather tidy denouement. The daughter's sister and her family (including doll-loving age, Alice), come to stay in the big house to support Nica , but bring their own personal baggage with them, leading to a fair amount of conflict. Chucky gets to work, exploiting this conflict and doing what he does best. Killin’ every muthafucka.

The post-credit sequence made little sense to me, given the ending. Obviously, things didn't work out with Alice, but we don't know why. Feels like a desperate way to shoehorn in a certain actor from the initial entries.

They subtly revamped Chucky's appearance here, and I'm not sure it's for the better. He still carries the same menace, but there are some inconsistencies that stand out, like in one scene where his hands look disproportionately massive. Perhaps it's a case of the more detail they go for the closer scrutiny they invite.

Cult of Chucky (2017) Dir. Don Mancini

Spoiler

Ade due damballa, give me the power I beg of you!!!

Chucky learned a new spell from voodoofordummies.com and now he's fixing to raise an army.

There's a couple of reasonable gags (for these films)*, but essentially this is another straight horror thriller from Mancini. The story resumes with Nica, now under observation in a psychiatric hospital, having been convicted of murdering her family, (there's something familiar about all this). A woman who gets mistaken for Jennifer Tilly a lot, because she inhabits Jennifer Tilly's body, but whose name is Tiffany Valentine (played by Jennifer Tilly), arrives at the hospital with a special oblong package. Hang on a minute, we know that the severed head of Chucky is being held and gleefully tortured by Andy Barclay. So what can this parcel be? It's only another Good Guy doll. And it's one that comes alive and kills people. Which must mean… Oh god no! Can there be more than one Chucky?! This one has a fairly convoluted plot, which I can't be bothered to summarise. There's a rapey psychiatrist; there are several gruesome deaths (I marvel at how easily heads come off in these films); bizarrely, there's a small graveyard in the hospital garden where deceased patients are buried. Not sure if that's a thing, but anyway. And there are plenty of fan service elements, including some post credit pointlessness. The ending basically signals the end of Chucky as we know him. The writers went off the boil and somehow what motivates Charles Lee Ray got lost in the process. It's hard to see how the story could continue from here. A shout out to Fiona Dourif for doing a fairly good job with what she had to work with.

* E.g. Chuck's, “F'kin Cuckoo's Nest” comment after he talks to a schizophrenic woman in the hospital

Child's Play (2019) Dir. Lars Klevberg

Spoiler

No voodoo, no “ade due damballa”, no Good Guy doll, no Dourif (Fiona or Brad). How is this a Child's Play film?

A disgruntled factory worker at Kaslan Corp, creators of a host of smart devices, disables the safety systems of one of their 1st gen “Buddi” dolls, and sends it on its way to be packaged. After a customer returns the doll to the store unopened, a store worker and single mum (Aubrey Plaza), takes the doll home as an ironic gift for her thirteen year old son, Andy. The doll's self-learning capabilities and simon-says party tricks help Andy bond with other kids from the neighbourhood. But when the doll, who goes by “Chucky”, overhears Andy complaining about his mum’s dickish boyfriend, he decides to step in, like any good Buddi should.

In this incarnation Chucky is an AI robot with some filters disabled. He's able to classify maiming and murder as acceptable forms of behaviour after the briefest exposure to horror films (or specifically, Andy's cheerful reaction to them). The kind of thing your average parent is petrified will happen to their kid. Instead of ingenuity and sadistic playfulness, the danger Robo Chucky poses stems from a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes good actions combined with his ability to hook into and weaponise Kaslan's smart devices (which he wields control over with a glowing E.T. finger). His only objective is to eliminate any barriers to his friendship with Andy. Those perceived barriers being all humans that aren't Andy, plus Andy too if necessary.

It was inevitable they'd have to start over with a new story after how the last one ended. Given Charles finally realised his dream and re-inhabited a human, there was nowhere else to go that could keep Chucky, the doll, front and centre. Not without running the risk of becoming another Seed of Chucky, and no one wants that.

Something about these core changes go against the spirit (no pun intended) of the films though. Mancini is credited as co writer, and I can imagine him agreeing to a radical shake up to keep things fresh; or perhaps it was all his idea, who knows.

The doll has been given a stark physical overhaul too, and has zero expressive charisma as a result. It's just a glitchy machine now and sadly the film never lets you forget that, even with Mark Hamill trying his best to inject some creepiness into the performance. He's hamstrung by the doll's crappy facial animations. I found myself missing the real Chucky, the lovable rogue version, who smiled, rolled his head back and laughed maniacally after decapitating someone for funsies.

So there it is. Don't think I'll sit through that lot again. 1-3 maybe. Curse of Chucky was my favourite after parts 1 & 2, but it's such a different beast they barely belong in the same series. If another film is made I shall undoubtedly watch it, but I don't think I'll bother with the TV show unless someome convinces me it's worthwhile.

Thanks for the ride, Chuck!

Spoiler

[NYN]

This really got me thinking, is he right? The best horror series of all time... What about Amityville, Exorcist, Howling, or Evil Dead? Or what about more modern series like The Conjuring, REC, Ring, Final Destination?

I comment in peace:

What I gather from this list of named names, after the one-and-done original, they elicit grimy greed, and thus take a dive. Some originator have the dive right themselves.

Spoiler

Amityville Horror is a lame tease, a blue balls movie from the start. Exorcist III doesn't rectify The Heretic, it doesn't even have any exorcism, and the following two movies that tell the same tale: . Howling? Cool were-fx, hardly mentionable for anything more. ED2 is neat, Army of Darkness is as goofy as Raimi can be.

To keep in the same supernatural sport, there's The 0men trilogy of films, that maybe only hard-heads know about. I have seen 02, though can't remember much except the premise I Was A Teen-Age Son of Satan. After a "fitting" '06 remake there is the latest now...The Prequel: Damien Conceived Through Abomination The Movie.

And the modern ones? Nohow. So, for funs and to make no statement with any merit, yes, Chuck E. Gimmethapawer is an earnest contender to no throne.

Remarkable how some like Ash and Chuck moved on to Tv program, mind you, without suffering from their premise. Did you know there was an The Exorcist Tv show, too? Does anybody?

[RGC]

Another I was trying to remember is Lamberto Bava's Demons films, although I think a bunch of those are not even considered official sequels. Also, they are quite terrible. Likewise with Romero's Dead films, which take a nosedive after "Day". But anyway, that moves us well away from the supernatural horror camp.

I wasn't aware of the Exorcist TV show. I have a barrier generally preventing me getting involved in horror shows; some of the ones people have raved about (e.g. American Horror Story), proved to be a total mess in my eyes.

On Amityville, 2 is a guilty pleasure I'll admit. I think the performances are really strong, esp. Burt Young and James Olson. I enjoy it more than the first.

Poltergeist?

[NYN]

I didn't know about Damien Tv, too! Exorcist AND The 0men. To even hear about it, boggles the possessed mind, to say nothing of quality in question.

There's a pool of aborted names now, including Heathers and Ferris Bueller, etc. Rumors are that there was even a The Silence of the Lambs spin-off sequel named Clarice (of course!), but I won't believe it!

Poltergeist?

Same as The 0men to me. Saw the sequel in The Last Days of the Video Store, never the third one. And there's The Remake That Nobody Wanted. So, the next one is a certain thing.

[neorichieb1971]

The Gorge - 2025 - Apple plus.

I liked it, wife didn't. The idea is great, but due to limited characters they filled the movie with a bit of filler here and there. It has one of those so so endings as well. Definitely one of the better movies i've watched recently, but its not great great. Worth 2 hours of your time, 8/10. Also, I think the trailer gives too many details of the movie.

[cj iwakura]

Finally caught the original Ring on Criterion, and it definitely does its own thing.

J-Horror has this, I don't know, aesthetic that's almost impossible for western films to emulate. It's all so... stark and devoid of life.




It's like watching a nightmare unfold with total serenity and calm.




The ending definitely hits different than the US one(which is just as good), but the US one had one brilliant touch: it starts off with the video when you watch it on VHS.

[emphatic]

Did you know there was an The Exorcist Tv show, too? Does anybody?

I give it a 4/5. I don't want to spoil anything, but it's very much tethered to The Excorcist 1 and 3 in a good way. Try it.

[Vexorg]

Hundreds of Beavers: ***1/2

One of the weirdest movies I've seen in a while. Made on an shoestring budget of $150,000, it follows the story of a drunken applejack maker who is forced to become a fur trapper to survive after beavers destroy his orchard, and to win the hand of the fur trader's attractive daughter. All the animals are people in cheap mascot costumes, and the aesthetics of it all land somewhere between a 1920s Buster Keaton silent film (the whole thing is in black and white) a Homestar Runner-era Flash animation and a classic Looney Tunes short. This one is definitely a slow burn at first, but if you can get past the first 45 minutes or so it just keeps snowballing until the level of absurdity goes off the charts.

It's available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/guE0Qd8BRw0?si=0kYhyT1WkUMvrIry

[sumdumgoy]

x

[RGC]

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Spoiler

After a sudden zombie outbreak, four survivors abandon their posts and band together in a stolen helicopter, soon to discover a large, abandoned indoor mall... and decide to take it for themselves. But how long can they hold out if they can take it? And are the zombies the only threat they have to watch out for?

The second of Romero's classic zombie trilogy, Dawn needs no introduction to hardcore film buffs. What makes his original trilogy work so well is that they all start out with a simple premise we can all relate to: what would you do if there was a sudden zombie apocalypse? Each entry treats the subject like it was something new and alien to the populace; unlike the audience, the movie's world is purely ignorant of modern pop culture and the zombie movies that influenced it. It's literally their first time, every time. We watch as the characters learn how slow and weak the zombies are, how they are only killed by destroying the brain, and that their greatest strength lies in numbers. We get bits of details from other survivors, the radio, the TV... how everyone is treating the situation, and how the best (and worst) of them is brought out just when they're needed by their neighbours the most.

In said trilogy, Night is a chilly horror movie of hopeless nihilism, where not even the good guys got out alive. Day is the last stand of humanity and secular progress itself-- science vs. brute military force-- where some become monsters, some destroyed by monsters, and others find meaning and a reason to live. But Dawn is just downright adventurous and fun! Presented in a slice-of-life way, the movie is packed full of video-game energy, a type of guerrilla-style filmmaking where many shots during the lively sequences feel like something you'd picture doing with the camera yourself. (Someone behind the scenes would make a suggestion, for example, and Romero's first response was always, "Alright, let's try it!") And the four protagonists make for some pretty good B-movie characterisation and drama, too! Peter, the tall, serious, heroic one. Roger, the young, rambunctious, reckless one. Stephen, the feckless, hazardous, impulsive one. Fran, the observant, adaptable, caring one.

The movie's primary setting-- the Monroeville Mall, one of the States' very few indoor malls at the time-- provides Dawn with the most universally relatable fantasy for audiences: having a huge, multi-floor mall all to yourselves, full of goods and services to satiate any and nearly every personal whim. A department store. A gun shop. An indoor skating rink. An arcade. A shoe shop. A hairdressers. Everything you could ever want (except for Space Invaders), and it's all yours for the taking. Many modern pop culture pieces have worn to death the trope of "...but who are the real monsters?" But here, instead of it being a rival group of detestable, inhuman beasts brutalising the heroes to make us see how bad people can get in desperate times, Dawn turns the camera on its own thieving foursome of bad guys, of having "whipped 'em and got it all," yet left with a feeling of indifference, all facing death... and inevitably having their pleasure palace destroyed by the incoming fruits of their own corrupt labours. How's that for a consumerist paradise?

Of course, Savini's make-up effects are amusing and gross, but they weren't going for realism this time; if anything, going for said realism would've killed the vibe the movie is going for, which is typically classified as a horror movie, but is actually so much more than that. That's the surprise... what makes Dawn such an engrossing movie: that it's more than just a horror picture. It's the biggest B-movie ever made. Action. Drama. Comedy. Thriller. Everything but the proverbial kitchen sink. It's a trip you love to revisit.

It's said that Romero had lofty aims to make Day of the Dead into the ultimate zombie epic, but the truth is-- self-admitted Day fan that I am-- that Romero already made his zombie epic.

Our zombie epic. The zombie epic... like it or not, of all time.

Recommended!

Nice! I presume this was the theatrical release as opposed to the Cannes or Argento cut?

[sumdumgoy]

x

[cj iwakura]

GP (and others), sorry for not responding to your earlier comments. I haven't yet managed to watch all of Lynch's The Missing Pieces, as I've been distracted by some other important research.

So, about Child's Play:

All in all I'd still say in its entirety its the best horror series of all time. It doesn't have any really shitty entries, unlike, say Hellraiser or all the other series that started in the 80s or even before (like Halloween & Friday 13th).

This really got me thinking, is he right? The best horror series of all time... What about Amityville, Exorcist, Howling, or Evil Dead? Or what about more modern series like The Conjuring, REC, Ring, Final Destination? Anyway, you probably are right, but this inspired me to watch all the Child’s Play films and jot down some thoughts on each one. Just some stream-of-thought waffle that likely gets a few details wrong, coz my brain is addled to fuck.This post took me six years to edit and format on my phone.

Ade Due Damballa!

Child's Play (1988) Dir. Tom Holland

Spoiler

Iconic 80s killer doll flick. Has some genuine tension, which as I recall is largely lost in the sequel. Some great subtle comedic moments, like the regular street cop, feet up, reading the newspaper on the couch at the murder scene! . I had totally forgotten hunky, vamp-next-door Chris Sarandon stars in this. He is solid as is Catherine Hicks who does a convincing turn as desperate mum. She tells it like it is and world be damned if they think she's nuts (which they do).
"Andy was right. Chucky is alive and he bit me."
"Good night Mrs Barclay."
The first installment is tight and definitely holds up. Great puppetry too!

Child's Play 2 (1990) Dir. John Lafia

Spoiler

For reasons, the murderous Good Guy doll gets resurrected by "the company" and pursues Andy, his only shot at returning to human form, to his new foster parents' home. The human adults in these films are, almost without exception, more deplorable in their words and deeds than the chuckster himself. At least the Lakeshore Strangler Plastic edition (TM) is very clear in his intent. He wants to destroy Andy and take possession of his body; a threat even an eight year old can grasp. Sure Chucky's a serial killer, but at this point he's just trying to survive (as a human). Why shouldn't he have some fun in the process! The adults maintain the pretense of caregiving while in actuality giving less than two shits about Andy's wellbeing. The mum is the sole exception and she's absent from this installment thanks to the cops -- including the hero detective in part 1 -- refusing to vouch for her story, thus condeming mother and son to separation and a lifetime of psych-analysis. Bastards! Okay, so no one would have believed the truth anyway, but with four witnesses they could have spun events some other way to protect the family, fabricated a third party who fled the scene or something. Instead, they both get hung out to dry.

Now Andy has to contend with grade-A-hole foster parents who despite their confirmed debriefing about his "doll issue" almost wantonly (at very least negligently), torment him with a "Good Guy" doll they just happen to have in their home! Even after the foster mum (Jenny Agguter doing a dodgy US accent), promises to get rid of the doll (not Chucky, but an identical model), she somehow doesn't get around to it. Wtf. Talk about a masterclass in mental abuse. They're all just seeing how badly they can fuck this kid up. There's a reason for all this and it's so we can get onboard and enjoy Chucky's little slaughter spree, as he starts wiping out each and every abuser, promoting himself to anti-hero in the process (They did the same thing with Jason Vorhees, where his victims became increasingly deserving of decapitation or impalement!).

The final, T1-esque sequence at the most understaffed and hazardous toy factory in the fucking world (!) provokes some big smiles. It's quite a fun ride over all. Dourif, now really in his stride with the voice work, dropping F-bombs all over the shop, and the doll looking more sinister than before. Some setups recycled from part 1 weaken it a bit.

Child's Play 3: Look Who's Stalking (1992) Dir. Jack Bender

Spoiler

Guess who got resurrected again! This time via some blood-tainted molten plastic. The setting for this installment is a military school (where apparently they don't teach any actual academic lessons), seven or eight years after events at the toy factory. Charles Lee Ray reveals himself to be a bit of a dimwit here, as it only dawns on him after shipping himself all the way to the school that he could in fact have choosen any new host, since technically he now inhabits a new doll. Still, the conceit was necessary else there would be no Andy Barclay for him to terrorize. Instead of laying low for a few hours then selecting one of the older kids, or even an adult as host he chooses the youngest student in the school; a boy of an age himself not beyond playing with dolls. Chucky may want to return to youth, but he's in no way about turn to over a new leaf with this fresh start, if he can get away with it.

A miltary school is the perfect setting for introducing multiple scumbag characters. Indeed there are a few, and you can guess how things work out for them. It does manage to avoid sticking rigidly to the previous formula, as he murders at least one fully innocent person in this one. But in the main it's still the scumbags and unsympathetics that buy it. The paintball manhunt sequence and the ghosthouse climax are satisfying to a degree, but I wasn't a fan of Chucky's seeming new ability to warp and be anywhere he wants in an instant. It's like they'd introduced a further supernatural element that doesn't quite fit with the existing rules. Possibly just an editing oversight. Surely Chucky can't come back from this one!

There was an interlude here where I watched Wishmaster 1 & 2. Not exactly palate cleansers for this type of viewing, but reasonably fun.

Bride of Chucky (1998) Dir. Ronny Yu

Spoiler

This has Ronny Yu's (Freddy vs Jason) brand of humour seeping out of every pore. Chucky gets resurrected by his (Ray's) ex-girlfriend, who had successfully tracked down the evidence room where his diced remains were stashed, convinced a cop to obtain them, stitched said parts back together, and performed a quick voodoo ritual! Yep. If you've seen the poster you can guess what happens to Tiffany's soul shortly afterwards. Thus the pair of unnatural born killers hit the road Micky and Mallory style, and reinforce their undying love for each other with every kill. The bemusement and paranoia of the two humans they've hitched a ride with -- who urgent news reports caution should be treated as armed and dangerous due to the trail of corpses in their wake -- is highly entertaining. As is the notion of a "Voodoo for Dummies" manual . This one is all about the comedy. It's hit and miss in that department, but proceeds with unapologetic gusto, and the ending is hilarious (and ridiculous of course!).

Seed of Chucky (2004) Dir. Don Mancini

Spoiler

Child's Play creator and co-writing fixture, Don Mancini, rubs a finger around his gums and yells
'Action!'. First time in the chair, he means business. The actors and puppeteers look at each other nervously, then realise he's serious and get busy. That's the impression you get from seeing this insane ride/hot mess unfold. Or perhaps misunderstood work of genius? As the title hints, the story follows voodoo chile plastic progeny of Chucky and Tiffany, Glen (or Glenda), on his gender-TBD quest to discover his identity and place in the universe. To try and summarise the convoluted plot might spoil it, but at this point (without having seen the rest of the sequels), I'm betting this is the lowest point in the series, where "spoiling" might be too generous a term. The reason is that this one goes where all good ideas go to die -- to the land of the meta, where actors play themselves playing actors playing dolls wanting to inhabit actors who play them in a film within a film, or something. It has a few laughs, but mostly it comes across like an exercise in seeing how much excess -- and how many baffling left turns -- it can get away with. My partner's eyebrow arching over the top of her book as I watched a character behind a hedge observing a silhouette of Chucky jacking off to Fangoria mag, made me question some life choices. When things go meta they've usually run their course. Until the reboot.

The 'Chucky wanting to be human again' story arc finally reaches a conclusion. He's ready to embrace being a psycho killer doll. What's that, a message about self acceptance!?

Another break, this time to watch Straight Time (1978). A cracking flick, and a much needed gear switch after so much camp horror. Followed by...

Curse of Chucky (2013) Dir. Don Mancini

Spoiler

Chucky will live forever. The last film taught us to get comfortable with that idea, and hence didn't bother having him pointlessly “killed”, only to waste time contriving yet another unlikely resurrection.

This sequel takes a more sober approach and sits comfortably in the straight – and quite generic – horror camp. As far as that goes, it ticks boxes in terms of the usual muted/grey tones and for effective scares. It's competently written and, honestly, comes as a refreshing change after the goofiness of the previous two entries. Don Mancini proving he can move with the times, albeit if that means sacrificing a certain degree of his zany, parodic humour.

It's a sequel but also a prequel of sorts, looping back to join up with part one in a fairly tidy, if not totally necessary way. Brad Dourif gets some screen time in human form, which is always gladly received. But also, his real life daughter plays the story's central character, and like her father she's no acting dud.

Nica (Fiona Dourif), a young wheelchair bound woman, receives a doll-size parcel in the mail, just days before her mother “takes her own life”. The apparent suicide is plausible, and an explanation of her trauma is covered later as part of a rather tidy denouement. The daughter's sister and her family (including doll-loving age, Alice), come to stay in the big house to support Nica , but bring their own personal baggage with them, leading to a fair amount of conflict. Chucky gets to work, exploiting this conflict and doing what he does best. Killin’ every muthafucka.

The post-credit sequence made little sense to me, given the ending. Obviously, things didn't work out with Alice, but we don't know why. Feels like a desperate way to shoehorn in a certain actor from the initial entries.

They subtly revamped Chucky's appearance here, and I'm not sure it's for the better. He still carries the same menace, but there are some inconsistencies that stand out, like in one scene where his hands look disproportionately massive. Perhaps it's a case of the more detail they go for the closer scrutiny they invite.

Cult of Chucky (2017) Dir. Don Mancini

Spoiler

Ade due damballa, give me the power I beg of you!!!

Chucky learned a new spell from voodoofordummies.com and now he's fixing to raise an army.

There's a couple of reasonable gags (for these films)*, but essentially this is another straight horror thriller from Mancini. The story resumes with Nica, now under observation in a psychiatric hospital, having been convicted of murdering her family, (there's something familiar about all this). A woman who gets mistaken for Jennifer Tilly a lot, because she inhabits Jennifer Tilly's body, but whose name is Tiffany Valentine (played by Jennifer Tilly), arrives at the hospital with a special oblong package. Hang on a minute, we know that the severed head of Chucky is being held and gleefully tortured by Andy Barclay. So what can this parcel be? It's only another Good Guy doll. And it's one that comes alive and kills people. Which must mean… Oh god no! Can there be more than one Chucky?! This one has a fairly convoluted plot, which I can't be bothered to summarise. There's a rapey psychiatrist; there are several gruesome deaths (I marvel at how easily heads come off in these films); bizarrely, there's a small graveyard in the hospital garden where deceased patients are buried. Not sure if that's a thing, but anyway. And there are plenty of fan service elements, including some post credit pointlessness. The ending basically signals the end of Chucky as we know him. The writers went off the boil and somehow what motivates Charles Lee Ray got lost in the process. It's hard to see how the story could continue from here. A shout out to Fiona Dourif for doing a fairly good job with what she had to work with.

* E.g. Chuck's, “F'kin Cuckoo's Nest” comment after he talks to a schizophrenic woman in the hospital

Child's Play (2019) Dir. Lars Klevberg

Spoiler

No voodoo, no “ade due damballa”, no Good Guy doll, no Dourif (Fiona or Brad). How is this a Child's Play film?

A disgruntled factory worker at Kaslan Corp, creators of a host of smart devices, disables the safety systems of one of their 1st gen “Buddi” dolls, and sends it on its way to be packaged. After a customer returns the doll to the store unopened, a store worker and single mum (Aubrey Plaza), takes the doll home as an ironic gift for her thirteen year old son, Andy. The doll's self-learning capabilities and simon-says party tricks help Andy bond with other kids from the neighbourhood. But when the doll, who goes by “Chucky”, overhears Andy complaining about his mum’s dickish boyfriend, he decides to step in, like any good Buddi should.

In this incarnation Chucky is an AI robot with some filters disabled. He's able to classify maiming and murder as acceptable forms of behaviour after the briefest exposure to horror films (or specifically, Andy's cheerful reaction to them). The kind of thing your average parent is petrified will happen to their kid. Instead of ingenuity and sadistic playfulness, the danger Robo Chucky poses stems from a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes good actions combined with his ability to hook into and weaponise Kaslan's smart devices (which he wields control over with a glowing E.T. finger). His only objective is to eliminate any barriers to his friendship with Andy. Those perceived barriers being all humans that aren't Andy, plus Andy too if necessary.

It was inevitable they'd have to start over with a new story after how the last one ended. Given Charles finally realised his dream and re-inhabited a human, there was nowhere else to go that could keep Chucky, the doll, front and centre. Not without running the risk of becoming another Seed of Chucky, and no one wants that.

Something about these core changes go against the spirit (no pun intended) of the films though. Mancini is credited as co writer, and I can imagine him agreeing to a radical shake up to keep things fresh; or perhaps it was all his idea, who knows.

The doll has been given a stark physical overhaul too, and has zero expressive charisma as a result. It's just a glitchy machine now and sadly the film never lets you forget that, even with Mark Hamill trying his best to inject some creepiness into the performance. He's hamstrung by the doll's crappy facial animations. I found myself missing the real Chucky, the lovable rogue version, who smiled, rolled his head back and laughed maniacally after decapitating someone for funsies.

So there it is. Don't think I'll sit through that lot again. 1-3 maybe. Curse of Chucky was my favourite after parts 1 & 2, but it's such a different beast they barely belong in the same series. If another film is made I shall undoubtedly watch it, but I don't think I'll bother with the TV show unless someome convinces me it's worthwhile.

Thanks for the ride, Chuck!

Spoiler

I've heard the show is great on every level, so make of that what you will, if you have the will to keep going.

[RGC]

Nice! I presume this was the theatrical release as opposed to the Cannes or Argento cut?

Even better: a 35mm scan of the theatrical cut in its original open matte format, just to add that tasty grindhouse feel!

Oh, cool! I grew up enjoying the US theatrical release, watching that (and Day-otD) to death. Recently, I slung the Cannes cut on and found it excruciatingly dull. I think Goblin's music was used extensively in the version you linked, whereas the Cannes one relies far more on De Wolfe Music Library. That, combined with some tighter editing makes theatrical the only way to fly (boy), although I haven't had the pleasure of the Argento cut. Slightly put off when I heard that some of the satirical elements were dropped. Are you a Day-otD fan too? It's somewhat divisive, and I concede it has less to say than Dawn-otD, so is less "important" in that sense, but I just love Joe "You think I'm fucking around here!?" Pilato, man (RIP).

Spoiler

[RGC]

So there it is. Don't think I'll sit through that lot again. 1-3 maybe. Curse of Chucky was my favourite after parts 1 & 2, but it's such a different beast they barely belong in the same series. If another film is made I shall undoubtedly watch it, but I don't think I'll bother with the TV show unless someome convinces me it's worthwhile.

I've heard the show is great on every level, so make of that what you will, if you have the will to keep going.

Hmm, well maaaaybe then. But not for a while. I find TV harder to commit to, plus it's too soon after ploughing through the films (which I didn't even manage in an unbroken chain). I dare say the itch will come if Mancini doesn't orchestrate another movie though.

[sumdumgoy]

x

[RGC]

I'm in the minority on this one, but Day is my personal favourite of the original trilogy.

Likewise, but I'm way too close to it to have any objectivity. Can't even tell if it's a good film -- my nostalgia lenses are thick as bottle bases. Look forward to reading your write up!

[NYN]

The Exorcist III [a.k.a. LEGI0N]

First. Mhmm. Interesting. Is this what the kids call a supernatural procedure or what Gen Xer would term a Scooby-Doo? No brutal deeds are shown, it's all use-your-dang-imagination, kid!. Huh? No, it's a mooovie, so gimme some! Incidentally, for me it's kinda horror, with a humour flavour, showing in deconstructing church religion holy explanation of virtually every thing dressed up silly. 0h, no, that what the original is, minus the funny. Anyway, this one seems to say: Serial Killers are hot right now, so, here, have some, why don't yah. What is, of course, easy-to-spot studio-note-interference is the Out-of-Place-Priest-in-the-Box ba-boing, the real jump scare, just to incidentally call it by a false name for the title. The betrayal! It's watchable, yet so is nature. The overall atmosphere is enough to let the old main man roam and bring it: Great Scott! Brrr to these other oldsters.

[RGC]

The Exorcist III [a.k.a. LEGI0N]

First. Mhmm. Interesting. Is this what the kids call a supernatural procedure or what Gen Xer would term a Scooby-Doo? No brutal deeds are shown, it's all use-your-dang-imagination, kid!. Huh? No, it's a mooovie, so gimme some! Incidentally, for me it's kinda horror, with a humour flavour, showing in deconstructing church religion holy explanation of virtually every thing dressed up silly. 0h, no, that what the original is, minus the funny. Anyway, this one seems to say: Serial Killers are hot right now, so, here, have some, why don't yah. What is, of course, easy-to-spot studio-note-interference is the Out-of-Place-Priest-in-the-Box ba-boing, the real jump scare, just to incidentally call it by a false name for the title. The betrayal! It's watchable, yet so is nature. The overall atmosphere is enough to let the old main man roam and bring it: Great Scott! Brrr to these other oldsters.

We seem to be syncing up of late; on a whim I bought myself a physical copy of this. It's currently on the "watch me" pile. To do things properly, I decided to revisit Exorcist II: The Heretic first. Not sure that was the wisest move! Didn't part with any actual currency for that one, you'll be relieved to hear. I'll report back on III (which I only recall tiny snippets of). I'm a fan of George C Scott from Changeling, Hardcore, Hustler, etc, so I'm at least expecting this one to have "okay" status.

[Sumez]

The Exorcist III [a.k.a. LEGI0N]

First. Mhmm. Interesting. Is this what the kids call a supernatural procedure or what Gen Xer would term a Scooby-Doo? No brutal deeds are shown, it's all use-your-dang-imagination, kid!. Huh? No, it's a mooovie, so gimme some! Incidentally, for me it's kinda horror, with a humour flavour, showing in deconstructing church religion holy explanation of virtually every thing dressed up silly. 0h, no, that what the original is, minus the funny. Anyway, this one seems to say: Serial Killers are hot right now, so, here, have some, why don't yah. What is, of course, easy-to-spot studio-note-interference is the Out-of-Place-Priest-in-the-Box ba-boing, the real jump scare, just to incidentally call it by a false name for the title. The betrayal! It's watchable, yet so is nature. The overall atmosphere is enough to let the old main man roam and bring it: Great Scott! Brrr to these other oldsters.

Fucking good movie. Probably among my favorite horrors. At least in a top 50, but probably higher than that. George C Scott really carries it, he's perfect in that role.

[NYN]

PHANTASM

First. A premise similar to a EC Crypt/Vault/Haunt tale of horror. Male adolescence themes with a muscle car (AND car chase), motocross stunts, shooting firearms, females (to respect, lust after, and fear), fighting evil (and 3' people), a glimpse of strange dimensions, and a silver cue ball to avoid. Only one of these is horrific. Heh-heh-heh. With the end comes the twist, where it goes no a-body knows! How the score is laid with the pictures, this might have enjoyed some popularity in the various Europe states: so dreamy the sounds, so effeminate the boy. Hey, magic, yeah. Just sayin' , right? Bye, now.

[sumdumgoy]

x

[RGC]

Thoughts on Deep Red (1975)

Spoiler

I've got a confession to make: I can't stand most Italian movies 'cause of their insistence on post-dubbing their own native language. It makes the dialogue feel so disconnected from the actors, 'cause you know it's them... but that's not the way they're sounding when you watch their mouths move. It's so distracting that, aside from maybe half a dozen movies, I feel disengaged from what's happening on screen. It pisses me off.

So, enter Deep Red, a movie I've never seen before, but whose reputation precedes it. A supposedly legendary picture of the giallo horror genre. An awesome soundtrack by Goblin. Argento himself lauded as a master of said genre, alongside Fulci and Bava. And what do I get? Post-dubbing. Again. Disengaged from the action on screen. The dialogue boring. No tension. No thrills. Just film-student camera angles, a soundtrack that doesn't fit, and characters that won't shut the hell up. Sure, it has moments, like that laughing doll bum-rushing the dude, or Marcus inside the abandoned mansion. Those moments make me respond kinesthetically. But by then, I didn't even care who the bloody killer was! The reveal was no big deal.

And that's the deathblow to any art: if you didn't make me care, then you've failed.

Overall, a disappointing experience.

I watched this in anticipation of Suspiria, which I hear tops the genre. But I also heard Deep Red tops the genre, too! So, if this is the kind of "quality" I have to look forward to with Argento, I'll stick with Mario Bava and his Black Sunday instead.

Suspiria beats Profondo Rosso every time, IMO. But you'll struggle to get away from the dubbing issue. I'd also place Tenebrae and Bird with the Crystal Plumage above Deep Red for Argento, with Lizard in a Woman's Skin as Fulci's best contribution to the genre.

[Lord British]

Thoughts on Deep Red (1975)

Spoiler

I've got a confession to make: I can't stand most Italian movies 'cause of their insistence on post-dubbing their own native language. It makes the dialogue feel so disconnected from the actors, 'cause you know it's them... but that's not the way they're sounding when you watch their mouths move. It's so distracting that, aside from maybe half a dozen movies, I feel disengaged from what's happening on screen. It pisses me off.

So, enter Deep Red, a movie I've never seen before, but whose reputation precedes it. A supposedly legendary picture of the giallo horror genre. An awesome soundtrack by Goblin. Argento himself lauded as a master of said genre, alongside Fulci and Bava. And what do I get? Post-dubbing. Again. Disengaged from the action on screen. The dialogue boring. No tension. No thrills. Just film-student camera angles, a soundtrack that doesn't fit, and characters that won't shut the hell up. Sure, it has moments, like that laughing doll bum-rushing the dude, or Marcus inside the abandoned mansion. Those moments make me respond kinesthetically. But by then, I didn't even care who the bloody killer was! The reveal was no big deal.

And that's the deathblow to any art: if you didn't make me care, then you've failed.

Overall, a disappointing experience.

I watched this in anticipation of Suspiria, which I hear tops the genre. But I also heard Deep Red tops the genre, too! So, if this is the kind of "quality" I have to look forward to with Argento, I'll stick with Mario Bava and his Black Sunday instead.

Definitely give Suspiria a shot, it's a lot more accessible than Deep Red. And yes, Deep Red is very flawed and overlong, but it's one that I had to watch a couple more times to appreciate it. It has some God-tier scenes and also Goblin's best soundtrack. And the children's song is fucking creepy.

[sumdumgoy]

x