|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 28, 2019 23:49:38 GMT
I had a great time watching this. It's no way near as good as the original obviously, but on it's own, it's a fun little flick. The cast actually give a good performance. The lead who plays Andy is really good and I wanted to see more of Andy's friends because for once in a horror film, they actually didn't annoy me and I found them genuinely funny. I was never a huge Aubrey Plaza fan, but she was great too. One of my main gripes I think is that Mark Hamill didn't just go all out and ham it up with Chucky because he did a great job and is a good contrast to Brad Dourif. Overall, I'd give it a 7/10.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 29, 2019 0:48:45 GMT
Summed up my thoughts, pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jun 29, 2019 22:18:58 GMT
i thought the movie was horrible, but so bad its good i had fun watching it
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Jul 2, 2019 16:47:59 GMT
I liked it. They wisely steered away from the original film and made something that stands on its own. It's just a shame they didn't have more faith in their product and gave it a different title/identity. I somewhat suspect the response to it wouldn't be as muted if it wasn't looked upon as yet another remake.
But I had a great deal of fun with it. It was mean and it made me laugh at wildly inappropriate moments (i.e. the little girl being continuously sprayed with blood near the climax of the film). It was the perfect Sunday matinee horror film. 7/10
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jul 3, 2019 12:17:34 GMT
It was okay. Puppet fx was quite good, and liked the A.I angle of the story. The script however felt a bit patchy and underdone when it came to the characters, and the performances didn’t really resonate for me.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 7, 2019 7:02:10 GMT
This movie reminded me more of Jack Frost (the Michael Keaton one) than Child's Play. I think Cheese kinda hit the nail on the head with why the original Chucky was scarier. Honestly, this Chucky was the most sympathetic character in the movie. I just felt sorry for it.
Not that it was really trying to be scary. But if you're gonna make it a comedy, why is this Chucky less humorous than the original? Not a funny lime of dialogue throughout.
The "Smart Doll" idea was an interesting, modern approach but Chucky himself never really felt like a real toy anyone would actually make or buy in 2019 like the original Chucky felt like an authentic 80s toy.
Three paragraphs about Chucky, not much to say about anything else. Deaths were a bit overdone. Liked Plaza and Henry alright. Kid playing Andy was way too old for the part. Better than Seed, worse than the rest.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 7, 2019 17:48:05 GMT
AI gone bad? Gosh what an original concept, right? An emotionless robot doll sounds like it would be much more fun to watch than a doll inhabited by the deranged spirit of a Satan worshiping serial killer.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 1, 2019 10:39:42 GMT
CHILD'S PLAY 6/10 CHILD'S PLAY PART 2 4/10 Despite having a much more interesting cinematography, CHILD'S PLAY PART 2 pretty much recycled the plot from CHILD'S PLAY PART 1. While CHILD'S PLAY PART 3 does change things up by abandoning the "Possessed toy murders people and makes everyone believe his owner did it" formula, the end result is still not scary enough. The opening title sequence is the best of the franchise, but the one-liners have become stupid. At the end of the 1st installment, there were only a few people who could testify to the existence of CHUCKY the evil doll. The reasons given as to why the secret was kept at the beginning of the 2nd installment may have been too convenient, but at least it wasn't illogical. At the end of that movie, we saw security cameras recording everything, so why doesn't anyone believe in him this time around? This is the point in the franchise where CHUCKY stopped caring about being seen. He even pops up screaming with a knife in his hand near a man. The CHUCKY we all thought we knew until this point wouldn't have done that without making sure the person was unable to move. "Luckily" for him, he scared the man so much he died of a heart attack (he falls down on a table and breaks it, because apparently slasher flicks require the death scenes to be as noisy as possible). Speaking of, a lot of his plans require so many things out of his control to happen. One of them involves replacing paintball capsules with real bullets. I assumed that this would lead to a massacre (especially since he only did this with the red paint rifles instead of the blue ones), but it disappointingly doesn't. 4/10 BRIDE OF CHUCKY 3/10 SEED OF CHUCKY 3/10 CURSE OF CHUCKY 6/10 You know how many sequels are called "pointless" because the story didn't need to continue? CULT OF CHUCKY is pointless for a different reason. It feels like it's setting something up, but there's no clear direction. It starts out as an unbalanced mix of psychological thriller and gory slasher flick. Throughout the movie, there are hints of it also being a "Characters from different installments face off against each other and/or team up to defeat the villain" action sequel. It ends up being (again) an unbalanced mix of dark comedy and nihilistic drama. Seriously, just look at the plan ANDY BARCLAY (the protagonist of the original trilogy, now all-grown up) comes up with: Get himself locked up in an asylum, wait until CHUCKY comes for him, turn the tables around, and kill him. He succeeds... and he still is somehow left trapped. CURSE OF CHUCKY wasn't the best installment just because it had a well-crated moody atmosphere for most of its running time, but also because of NICA PIERCE (the protagonist). She was likeable and (internally) strong enough to taunt CHUCKY. I rooted for her to survive and I was invested in her family drama. Keep in mind that I don't usually say these things when dealing with a direct-to-video horror movie. Now, most of what she does is beg others to believe her or looked scared/sad when someone dies. I thought "OK, her personality isn't really being displayed because she's a victim of circumstances. The movie will build this up until the climax, where she'll fight back." That doesn't happen. Quite the opposite, actually. She gets hypnotized by DR. FOLEY (a rapey psychiatrist) and stays half-awake until her body is possessed by CHUCKY. Come on, Don Mancini! Why did you write the script in a way that holds Fiona Dourif back, when she has proven to be the best actress of the franchise?! By the way, CHUCKY mentions how disgusting FOLEY is (for taking advantage of NICA and probably other patients) but, when he finds himself in NICA's body, he touches her breasts. That's not rape too? Plus, even though they're unrelated characters, I don't want to imagine Brad Dourif touching his daughter like that. The continuity in this saga has always been questionable, but these last 2 movies have given me a headache. So... CHUCKY decided to stop trying to transfer his soul into a human body, which led to a fight with his wife TIFFANY VALENTINE and their child GLEN/GLENDA. TIFFANY switched bodies with the real JENNIFER TILLY, but CHUCKY didn't know that. CHUCKY killed JENNIFER, and GLEN/GLENDA killed their father. TIFFANY started to pretend she was JENNIFER. CHUCKY somehow survived and mailed his own arm via mail to the TILLY residence, where he killed his child. TIFFANY ignored it and decided to help CHUCKY transfer his soul into other dolls and humans, creating an army. The method to do this is a shortened version of the voodoo chant, and the time limit rule doesn't apply anymore for some reason. TIFFANY changed her identity back and, to this day, nobody makes the connection between the missing celebrity and her look-alike. Did I get all of that right? 2/10 I don't want to sound ungrateful by saying negative things about CHILD'S PLAY 2019, because it's what we've been asking for many years: A remake that, rather than telling the same story, tells a new one with the original's core elements. I'm sorry, but it's a forgettable bore. As goofy as the previous installments could get (purposefully or not), they were always memorable and kept my attention. I can't really judge Mark Hamill's performance, because the makers didn't decide if they wanted CHUCKY to be essentially a machine who does bad things out of misunderstandings or the same character he was before. The fact that he develops a semi-personality in the last part contradicts the tone they're going for. While the original looked a little creepy (for what was supposed to pass as a cute doll), I could get used to seeing him after a while. Who would ever want to be near, let alone play with, this hideous re-interpretation?! 4/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Dec 5, 2019 12:04:59 GMT
CHILD'S PLAY 6/10 CHILD'S PLAY PART 2 4/10 Despite having a much more interesting cinematography, CHILD'S PLAY PART 2 pretty much recycled the plot from CHILD'S PLAY PART 1. While CHILD'S PLAY PART 3 does change things up by abandoning the "Possessed toy murders people and makes everyone believe his owner did it" formula, the end result is still not scary enough. The opening title sequence is the best of the franchise, but the one-liners have become stupid. At the end of the 1st installment, there were only a few people who could testify to the existence of CHUCKY the evil doll. The reasons given as to why the secret was kept at the beginning of the 2nd installment may have been too convenient, but at least it wasn't illogical. At the end of that movie, we saw security cameras recording everything, so why doesn't anyone believe in him this time around? This is the point in the franchise where CHUCKY stopped caring about being seen. He even pops up screaming with a knife in his hand near a man. The CHUCKY we all thought we knew until this point wouldn't have done that without making sure the person was unable to move. "Luckily" for him, he scared the man so much he died of a heart attack (he falls down on a table and breaks it, because apparently slasher flicks require the death scenes to be as noisy as possible). Speaking of, a lot of his plans require so many things out of his control to happen. One of them involves replacing paintball capsules with real bullets. I assumed that this would lead to a massacre (especially since he only did this with the red paint rifles instead of the blue ones), but it disappointingly doesn't. 4/10 BRIDE OF CHUCKY 3/10 SEED OF CHUCKY 3/10 CURSE OF CHUCKY 6/10 You know how many sequels are called "pointless" because the story didn't need to continue? CULT OF CHUCKY is pointless for a different reason. It feels like it's setting something up, but there's no clear direction. It starts out as an unbalanced mix of psychological thriller and gory slasher flick. Throughout the movie, there are hints of it also being a "Characters from different installments face off against each other and/or team up to defeat the villain" action sequel. It ends up being (again) an unbalanced mix of dark comedy and nihilistic drama. Seriously, just look at the plan ANDY BARCLAY (the protagonist of the original trilogy, now all-grown up) comes up with: Get himself locked up in an asylum, wait until CHUCKY comes for him, turn the tables around, and kill him. He succeeds... and he still is somehow left trapped. CURSE OF CHUCKY wasn't the best installment just because it had a well-crated moody atmosphere for most of its running time, but also because of NICA PIERCE (the protagonist). She was likeable and (internally) strong enough to taunt CHUCKY. I rooted for her to survive and I was invested in her family drama. Keep in mind that I don't usually say these things when dealing with a direct-to-video horror movie. Now, most of what she does is beg others to believe her or looked scared/sad when someone dies. I thought "OK, her personality isn't really being displayed because she's a victim of circumstances. The movie will build this up until the climax, where she'll fight back." That doesn't happen. Quite the opposite, actually. She gets hypnotized by DR. FOLEY (a rapey psychiatrist) and stays half-awake until her body is possessed by CHUCKY. Come on, Don Mancini! Why did you write the script in a way that holds Fiona Dourif back, when she has proven to be the best actress of the franchise?! By the way, CHUCKY mentions how disgusting FOLEY is (for taking advantage of NICA and probably other patients) but, when he finds himself in NICA's body, he touches her breasts. That's not rape too? Plus, even though they're unrelated characters, I don't want to imagine Brad Dourif touching his daughter like that. The continuity in this saga has always been questionable, but these last 2 movies have given me a headache. So... CHUCKY decided to stop trying to transfer his soul into a human body, which led to a fight with his wife TIFFANY VALENTINE and their child GLEN/GLENDA. TIFFANY switched bodies with the real JENNIFER TILLY, but CHUCKY didn't know that. CHUCKY killed JENNIFER, and GLEN/GLENDA killed their father. TIFFANY started to pretend she was JENNIFER. CHUCKY somehow survived and mailed his own arm via mail to the TILLY residence, where he killed his child. TIFFANY ignored it and decided to help CHUCKY transfer his soul into other dolls and humans, creating an army. The method to do this is a shortened version of the voodoo chant, and the time limit rule doesn't apply anymore for some reason. TIFFANY changed her identity back and, to this day, nobody makes the connection between the missing celebrity and her look-alike. Did I get all of that right? 2/10 I don't want to sound ungrateful by saying negative things about CHILD'S PLAY 2019, because it's what we've been asking for many years: A remake that, rather than telling the same story, tells a new one with the original's core elements. I'm sorry, but it's a forgettable bore. As goofy as the previous installments could get (purposefully or not), they were always memorable and kept my attention. I can't really judge Mark Hamill's performance, because the makers didn't decide if they wanted CHUCKY to be essentially a machine who does bad things out of misunderstandings or the same character he was before. The fact that he develops a semi-personality in the last part contradicts the tone they're going for. While the original looked a little creepy (for what was supposed to pass as a cute doll), I could get used to seeing him after a while. Who would ever want to be near, let alone play with, this hideous re-interpretation?! 4/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.Thank you for your spam.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 5, 2019 12:51:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Dec 5, 2019 12:59:02 GMT
It is when you bump multiple threads with the same post.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 5, 2019 14:24:20 GMT
It is when you bump multiple threads with the same post. But I'm not showing advertising or sites with a virus. I'm sharing my opinion on the movie that the thread is about. It's not my fault that different users created new threads about the same movie instead of replying to the original one.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Dec 5, 2019 14:26:21 GMT
It is when you bump multiple threads with the same post. But I'm not showing advertising or sites with a virus. I'm sharing my opinion on the movie that the thread is about. It's not my fault that different users created new threads about the same movie instead of replying to the original one. But they're different threads for different movies in the franchise... Look, you can do whatever you want, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds all this bumping a little bit annoying. Feel free to make a thread dedicated to your reviews. I'm sure you'll likely land more readers in the process, too.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 5, 2019 14:38:45 GMT
It is when you bump multiple threads with the same post. But I'm not showing advertising or sites with a virus. I'm sharing my opinion on the movie that the thread is about. It's not my fault that different users created new threads about the same movie instead of replying to the original one. You are, indeed, advertising your blog.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 5, 2019 15:20:46 GMT
Feel free to make a thread dedicated to your reviews. I'm sure you'll likely land more readers in the process, too. The whole point of me searching existing threads about certain movies is that we leave room for new threads about different movies. Me creating new threads when it's not necessary would defeat that purpose. You are, indeed, advertising your blog. How is that advertising? It's not a product that I'm convincing you to buy. And I don't write misleading posts that trick you into clicking the link.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 5, 2019 16:05:06 GMT
Feel free to make a thread dedicated to your reviews. I'm sure you'll likely land more readers in the process, too. The whole point of me searching existing threads about certain movies is that we leave room for new threads about different movies. Me creating new threads when it's not necessary would defeat that purpose. You are, indeed, advertising your blog. How is that advertising? It's not a product that I'm convincing you to buy. And I don't write misleading posts that trick you into clicking the link. Flooding the board with the same copy and pasted post several times seems more like an attempt to drive traffic toward your blog than to honestly reply to any on thread.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 5, 2019 16:14:19 GMT
Flooding the board with the same copy and pasted post several times seems more like an attempt to drive traffic toward your blog than to honestly reply to any on thread. If that was true, wouldn't I just post the link?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 5, 2019 16:17:07 GMT
Flooding the board with the same copy and pasted post several times seems more like an attempt to drive traffic toward your blog than to honestly reply to any on thread. If that was true, wouldn't I just post the link? You did post the link. Lots of times.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 5, 2019 17:06:09 GMT
If that was true, wouldn't I just post the link? You did post the link. Lots of times.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Dec 5, 2019 17:06:58 GMT
Feel free to make a thread dedicated to your reviews. I'm sure you'll likely land more readers in the process, too. The whole point of me searching existing threads about certain movies is that we leave room for new threads about different movies. Me creating new threads when it's not necessary would defeat that purpose. You are, indeed, advertising your blog. How is that advertising? It's not a product that I'm convincing you to buy. And I don't write misleading posts that trick you into clicking the link. Uh, you can start a thread and keep adding to it every time you post a review. Easy as cake, nice and organized. No one would fuss, promise.
|
|