Child's Play 2.

Review #2287: Child's Play 2.

Cast: 

Alex Vincent (Andy Barclay), Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky), Christine Elise (Kyle), Jenny Agutter (Joanne Simpson), Gerrit Graham (Phil Simpson), Grace Zabriskie (Grace Poole), Peter Haskell (Haskell Sullivan), Beth Grant (Elizabeth Kettlewell), and Greg Germann (Mattson) Directed by John Lafia.

Review: 

Honestly, I forgot about Chucky. If you remember, the original film came out in 1988 as inspired by the experiences of Don Mancini involving consumer demand for the Cabbage Patch Kids while he was studying film at UCLA. The resulting film had clear influence from stuff such as the TV film Trilogy of Terror, The Twilight Zone, A Nightmare on Elm Street, among others. Of course, it wasn't all Mancini, because there were key re-writes done that resulted in Tom Holland and John Lafia given credit for the screenplay alongside Mancini. Holland was the one who had it involve a doll possessed by a serial killer involving voodoo, as opposed to Mancini's doll manifesting "the id", while Lafia stated his biggest contribution was the backstory of the killer-turned-doll and the name Chucky (inquire further). The eventual result was a hit with audiences that obviously necessitated a sequel. Lafia, the previous director of exactly one film with The Blue Iguana (1988), was chosen to direct (as it turned out, it was the second of three theatrical films he did to go along with work in TV, music, and even the live-action aspects of the video game Corpse Killer prior to his suicide in 2020). The second film was successful enough with audiences to inspire, well, you already know. A third film was rushed out into theaters nine months after the release of the second film with Mancini returning to write (with Jack Bender being tapped to direct) and Dourif being the long returning actor (Justin Whalin replaced Alex Vincent to play an older Andy).

Admittedly, it doesn't have as much staying power that the original had when it comes to sheer audacity in its premise of a killer with the perfect timing to wreak havoc in a particular family atmosphere. But it is solid enough to at least work in some useful enough slasher thrills without straining too much in credibility to work out for those who know what they're getting into. For better or worse, the movie sidesteps the two key adults from the last film (Chris Sarandon and Catherine Hicks), instead focusing right on Vincent and a plot that mostly involves "Chucky did it" after one gets the setup to bringing back the once-burned, multiple-timed shot threat back with a somewhat amusing method: public relations and an electric power surge. I suppose someone must've dozed off watching a Frankenstein movie or two in their days, but there is one more caveat at least: Chucky either needs to get moving on doing his voodoo ritual (which if one remembers has to be done on Andy) or he'll be stuck in the doll forever. The acting is serviceable for what is needed in getting a solid body count setup without being too dull for words, complete with Dourif (whose dialogue was recorded in advance, unlike the first film) being just as effective as he was before when it comes to further craven desires of escape at any cost (Ed Gale does a few moments with in-suit stunt performing as before). Vincent is no slouch for his age of course, because he makes the plight of the once-and-future doll survivor work in worthwhile sympathy and curiosity for the rough surroundings that befall him, with only the offbeat Elise around for useful rapport. Agutter and Graham are fine, but let's face it, the most interesting moment is seeing what happens with skepticism going down the gutter to (film) reality. The slasher sequences carry the movie right through 84 minutes in swift dealing to go along with a climax in a bewitching enough warehouse and a fitting closing that just lets the film end on its own wayward path. Child's Play 2 is a decent enough sequel with a few interesting slasher moments to prove worthwhile in the attempt at making a killer doll return something worth being curious about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

An American Werewolf in London.

Review #1465: An American Werewolf in London.

Cast: 

David Naughton (David Kessler), Jenny Agutter (Nurse Alex Price), Griffin Dunne (Jack Goodman), John Woodvine (Dr J. S. Hirsch), Don McKillop (Inspector Villiers), Brian Glover (Chess Player), David Schofield (Dart Player), and Lila Kaye (Barmaid) Written and Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, and #1462 - The Blues Brothers)

Review: 

"What no one understands, ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea has no real value. It's all about the execution of the idea."

"The thing that I find so fulfilling about my job is I like the fact that you start with something that's just an idea in your head. You read the script and right away you visualize something and you see that thing that at one point was just an idea in your head looking real and alive. It's exciting and is a little bit like being Dr. Frankenstein. I want to scream "It's alive!"

John Landis was a tremendous showman director for his time, one that generally knew how to reach his audience with humor for a career that started with such modesty. He was inspired to be involved in films from a young age, citing The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) as a key influence. He subsequently worked his way up in film production, starting as a mailboy before taking other parts such as stunt double and dialogue coach. After getting the chance to be an assistant director for Kelly's Heroes (1970), he found inspiration for what would become this film from a chance viewing of a gypsy ritual (while in Yugoslavia) being done in a burial in which they tried to make sure the body wouldn't rise from the grave). At the age of 21, he began production on his first directorial effort in Schlock, which was released two years later in 1973 with him in the title role alongside writer-director. It was his first work with a young makeup artist in Rick Baker. Baker was in his third ever assignment in film with makeup, having started his career with costume work on Octaman (1971). The highlight of the film was done from Baker, who became the first winner of an Academy Award for Best Makeup (several people had been given honorary awards for effects in the past before a formal category was created), and he would win six more in a career that has spanned over four decades.

The film languished for a decade because of the perception that it was either too scary to be comedy or too funny to be a horror film, with Landis stating that "People keep calling it a comedy, it's very funny I hope, but it is a horror film." It is a fairly morbid film at times, taking inspiration from the classic Universal horror films with clear interest in making a London film with atmosphere, complete with plenty of moon songs that set the film well (or whatever one feels about the choice of "Blue Moon" after a swift finale) that makes a well-earned classic for the night as one of the higher-achieving werewolf films. Landis stages a fine film well, and Baker makes it all worthwhile with the special effects utilized to depict the werewolf that proved to be a tremendous highlight for practical effects in a decade fitting for it, even if it took plenty of makeup and time to make it all come out right (the transformation scene took nearly a week to finish due to all the time spent on getting the makeup on and off), utilizing its real and unreal elements such as fake patch of skin and hair and robotics to make for an iconic moment for effects.

One watches the film to see the transformation sequence come out in the midst of a 97 minute film with care to build its creeping humor in its look upon the wolf of the night and the curse of the undead that come from it. In this case, our main trio is fair game to go with that horror challenge. Naughton (picked because of his four year work with Dr Pepper and their "Be a Pepper" ad campaign by Landis) does a fine job with being our person of interest, a take on the anguished man in despair over potentially being a wolf and a killer, approaching the material with care and fine timing without needing being overshadowed completely by effects or gags. Agutter (known for her television and film work in Britain and abroad) makes a sensible pairing to all the fuss, calm but attentive to the last. Dunne proves amusing while spending a good deal of time on screen in makeup, which makes him a charmer to see on screen with Naughton, such as with the scene in the theater confronting what to do about trying to end the curse (and the methods one could do it with, suggested by the several dead folk). On the whole, the film builds itself fine with playing with the horror genre with some creepy imagery and useful makeup and effects, and while it could've had a stronger climax, it ultimately does prove worth it in the long run, a casual classic worth a watch for those who appreciate craftsmanship done the natural way and those looking for a chill.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Logan's Run.

Review #717: Logan's Run.

Cast
Michael York (Logan 5), Jenny Agutter (Jessica 6), Richard Jordan (Francis 7), Roscoe Lee Browne (Box), Farrah Fawcett (Holly 13), Michael Anderson Jr. (Doc), and Peter Ustinov (The Old Man) Directed by Michael Anderson.

Review
Logan's Run was a toss up to rate for a while. On the one hand, Logan's Run is a product of its time that is an example of a movie set many, many years into the future (the year 2274, with the book being 2116), which is beneficial in the sense that the movie has free reign to guess on a future none of us will ever see, making the movie have a chance to run wild with the idea of a utopia, the buildings, and...how we dress. On the other hand, it could be argued the movie is dated specifically by the effects, which is why Hollywood has been trying to remake this film for years (and failing at it, I might add), but Hollywood remade Robocop, and that ended...oh you already know. Logan's Run is the kind of movie you'd watch late at night and enjoy, but whether you'd enjoy the movie for how it deals with a utopia's effects on society...or how it treats itself in terms of clothing/effects is another story. I'm trying to make this review as anti wishy-washy as possible, so I'll just say that the movie is fine. York and Agutter are good, and they do make a fine pairing together, which is to the movie's advantage. You could make fun of the clothing...or Box. Box is a robot who lives in an ice cave. Take one look at him, and you'll see. Oddly enough, I was laughing at the part with the cats, because the second half of the movie has a bunch of cats meowing and moving around while the movie plays. But maybe I'm just weird. Jordan is okay, and the supporting cast as a whole is passable, it's one of those kind of movies. I was surprised to see that a bunch of locations in Texas were used (including a Water Gardens), mainly because it's not everyday you see your state in a credits sequence. The effects...are what they are. Monorails are cool to watch, and even the shots of the city look like they took a good deal of time to make, and I even saw a credit for matte painting, which isn't as easy it may seem, so I can give the movie credit. If you enjoy the movie (seriously or mockingly), the effects won't get in the way (rather they might actually be beneficial) of a good time. If you find it's not exactly up to code with your standards...the effects will kill the mood even more. But I can't help but enjoy this strange gem. Maybe you will too. Whether a remake will be made in the future or not, appreciating the movie for what it is makes sense too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.