We watch several movies a week. Every Friday, we'll talk a little about some of the movies we watched that we felt were Worth Mentioning.
CURSE OF CHUCKY (2013)
There were some big gaps between movies in the midst of the Child's Play franchise; seven years between Child's Play 3 and Bride of Chucky, six years between Bride of Chucky and Seed of Chucky. Seed was so poorly received, it managed to kill the franchise for nine years. Then Curse of Chucky came along, a direct-to-video attempt at course correction. Realizing that a lot of fans felt he had taken the humor too far the previous film, franchise writer Don Mancini - who also started directing the films with Seed of Chucky - decided to take things back to the darker tone of the original Child's Play and Child's Play 2, and he was originally planning to do that by remaking the first movie. But since the franchise rights were split between MGM and Universal, things got a little complicated, so Mancini fell back on the idea of making a sequel, coming up with a story that distances itself from the events of Bride and Seed. We do get confirmation that those films are still canon, but the acknowledgment comes late in the running time and there's no explanation given for what happened to Chucky's offspring Glen and Glenda. Which is fine by me, as I feel no need to ever see them again.
Curse went over very well with fans... but while I appreciate that Mancini was trying to make Chucky scary again, I have always been underwhelmed by this movie. I have never really been able to get into it, the story doesn't draw me in or hold my attention. Aside from the presence of Chucky, it has no connection (until the end) to anything that came before. It begins with the Chucky doll being delivered to an isolated home where a young paraplegic woman named Nica (Fiona Dourif, daughter of Chucky vocal performer Brad Dourif) lives with her mother Sarah (Chantal Quesnel). Sarah dies soon after this doll mysteriously arrives at their doorstep, so Nica's sister Barb (Danielle Bisutti) comes to town for the funeral - and to talk to Nica about selling the house. Accompanying Barb are her husband Ian (Brennan Elliott), their young daughter Alice (Summer H. Howell) - who takes a liking to the Chucky doll, and their nanny Jill (Maitland McConnell). Mancini goes the economical route of setting almost the entire film within Nica's house, and takes the reboot approach of doing an extended build-up to the reveal that the Chucky doll is alive and inhabited by the soul of serial killer Charles Lee Ray (played on screen by Brad Dourif in flashbacks). It isn't until we're 44 minutes into the film's overly long, as far as I'm concerned, 96 running time that we actually see Chucky speak on camera.
The majority of this movie is just about spending time with a bunch of unlikeable characters in a dreary old house. There are some good moments, some terrific gore, and a rather great sequence where we see that one of six bowls of food served at supper has been poisoned - and we're left to wonder for a while who's going to eat the poison. But I rarely find it to be entertaining.
Curse of Chucky features the weirdest looking Chucky of the entire franchise, something just doesn't look right about him. Thankfully, there's a bit of an explanation for that - 59 minutes in, we get confirmation that this does indeed take place after Bride and Seed when the skin starts peeling off Chucky's face, uncovering the stitches he had in the previous two movies. In the remaining 37 minutes, we finally find out why Chucky is in this house and why he gives a damn about going after any of these people. It involves a flashback to the days before Charles Lee Ray possessed the doll... and I'm not a fan of this flashback.
As it turns out, Chucky knew Sarah back in the '80s, when she was pregnant with Nica. He became obsessed with her, killed her husband and took her captive. He kept her tied up and brought her flowers, he was infatuated in a twisted serial killer way. I have to concede that Mancini knows Chucky better than anybody, since every film in the franchise came from his mind (although the original received a substantial rewrite on its way to the screen), but Chucky's behavior in this flashback doesn't seem to fit the character. I can't imagine Chucky "loving" anybody like that. He's even an uncaring prick toward his bride Tiffany most of the time. He always seemed like the love 'em and leave 'em type, murder 'em and toss 'em aside. But now apparently he's a hopeless romantic. If Mancini says that's how he is, that's how he is, but I found it difficult to buy into.
Curse of Chucky isn't bad, it's just not for me. I'm glad other fans liked it, and at least it's better than Seed.
FEAR STREET PART 3: 1666 (2021)
Director Leigh Janiak's R.L. Stine-inspired Fear Street trilogy has introduced us to the concept of a cursed town called Shadyside, where every once in a while the spirit of an evil witch named Sarah Fier will possess people and cause them to go on a killing spree. This had been happening for over three hundred years by the time of the first film, which was set in 1994. In the second film, we got a flashback to a killing spree that occurred in 1978. At the heart of these films is the relationship between 1994 teens Deena (Kiana Madeira) and Sam (Olivia Scott Welch), which was already troubled enough even before Sam became the latest Shadysider to get possessed. When the knowledge Deena had was combined with the information provided by '78 killing spree survivor C. Berman (Gillian Jacobs), it appeared that they had found the way to end the curse and get Sam back to normal... but when Deena tried to carry out the plan, she found herself zapped back in time to 1666, seeing the world through the eyes of Sarah Fier in the year the curse began.
I was on board for the first two films without hesitation, as slashers set in 1994 and 1978 are right up my alley - and I was even hyped for '78. But I was always uncertain about this trilogy capper, because the story of a witch tormenting a small village in 1666 is one of the least appealing concepts they could have thrown my way. That just doesn't sound like my idea of entertainment. Yes, I thought The Witch was a good movie, but it's not something I'm going to go back to again and again like I do the slashers that were in the DNA of the first two Fear Streets. Thankfully, Fear Street Part 3: 1666 was not the snoozefest I was worried it could be, as Janiak and her collaborators delivered a story that was much more interesting than I thought the story of what happened in 1666 would be.
A clever decision was made for the casting of this one, as the town of Shadyside in the distant past is populated by familiar faces from the previous films. Just like Michael J. Fox played Marty McFly's great-great-grandfather in Back to the Future Part III, this film is packed with look-alike ancestors played by Ashley Zukerman, Benjamin Flores Jr., Julia Rehwald, Fred Hechinger, Sadie Sink, Emily Rudd, McCabe Slye, Jordana Spiro, and others - including Olivia Scott Welch as Hannah Miller, whose relationship with Sarah Fier mirrors the relationship between Deena and Sam. The period setting makes it seem like we're far removed from the events of 1994, but the casting and the characters make sure this film is still in line with the others. It definitely helps that Kiana Madeira is playing Sarah Fier in the film, since we're seeing the story play out from Deena's perspective as she is shown this glimpse into the past. The characters around her see the face of "real Sarah Fier" actress Elizabeth Scopel, but the viewer is seeing Madeira, so we're following someone we already know, just in a different role. This approach brings to mind Quantum Leap.
Janiak assembled a great cast for this trilogy, and I felt that Kiana Madeira was given her best chance to shine in this final film. She had strong material to work with in the previous films as well, but she does some really terrific work as Sarah-Fier-looking-like-Deena.
Fears that the characters of 1666 would be stuffy and dull were set aside as soon as the young folks of Shadyside got together to drink applejack and trip on special berries, so I was able to let go of my resistance to the setting and get wrapped up in the story as Shadyside begins to fall apart, strange things start happening, characters start dying off, and we learn that the circumstances that led to Sarah Fier's hanging for making a deal with the devil were not as straightforward as people have been saying they were for centuries.
1666 has twists and turns that should not be spoiled for viewers who are invested in seeing how this story is going to be wrapped up, and I will keep its secrets. I was so reluctant to watch a movie set in 1666, it does mean something when I say that Janiak found a way to tell this story in a way that held my attention and won me over. I will also say that I really liked the way the movie was structured, as the first hour is quite dark and tragic, but things explode into more colorful, exciting fun in the second half.
I had my doubts along the way, but now that I have seen the full trilogy, I feel that Janiak pulled off something really cool with these Fear Street movies. Watching the films week to week was a fun ride, and Part 3 brings it all to a satisfying conclusion. I would like to see more Fear Street movies in the future, and R.L. Stine has certainly provided enough source material to keep these going for a long time, but the future films might have trouble living up to this "trilogy event".
The review of Fear Street Part 3: 1666 originally appeared on ArrowintheHead.com
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931)
In 1931, Universal brought the world Dracula and Frankenstein, based on novels written by Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley, respectively, in the 1800s. Those movies are known as immortal classics today, but back then the Academy completely ignored them. That same year, Paramount released a cinematic adaptation of the 1886 Robert Louis Stevenson novel The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and this film the Academy did not ignore. Not only did it receive nominations for Best Writing (Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath wrote the screenplay) and Best Cinematography (Karl Struss), but Frederic March won the Best Actor for his performance in the titular dual roles... although it was one of those odd years where Best Actor was a tie, so March had to share the award with The Champ's Wallace Beery. Given the film's success, it's somewhat surprising that this version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde doesn't get nearly as much love as '31's Dracula and Frankenstein do. But while Jekyll and Hyde are certainly very popular, the characters have never been embraced to the degree that Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster have been.
Jekyll is a young doctor who is known for his "spectacular theories", and his latest theory is that there is two different men inside the mind of every man. One strives for nobility, while the other is driven by animalistic impulses. He has been experimenting with chemicals in an effort to find a way to free us of the impulsive, evil side of ourselves so our good side can be in complete control and achieve great things. Then he makes the mistake of consuming these chemicals himself, unleashing his sinister side - the ape-like, cruel bastard that is Hyde.
Jekyll is engaged to be married to Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart) and desperately wants to marry her as soon as possible; and we get the impression that part of the desperation is due to this being a "wait until marriage" sort of situation. That's why Jekyll is clearly tempted when a very forward singer named Ivy Pierson (Miriam Hopkins) tries to seduce him soon after they meet - a meeting that occurred when Jekyll saved her from a man who was attacking her in the street. This attempted seduction is presented in a surprisingly risque way for the time, with a lingering shot of Ivy's bare leg dangling over the side of her bed as she asks Jekyll to come to her. That's the sort of thing they could get away with before the Hays Code starting trying to make movies squeaky clean in 1934.
Since Jekyll was so tempted by Ivy, it's no surprise that Hyde seeks her out... But he doesn't treat her the way Jekyll would have. He torments her, abusing her mentally and physically. Eventually, he kills her. As he switches back and forth between himself and Hyde without control, Jekyll is burdened with the memories of the things he has done while Hyde was in control. And the viewer soon becomes sure that it's only a matter of time before Hyde meets Muriel and attempts to ruin everything in his evil way.
Directed by Rouben Mamoulian, this is a terrific horror thriller, and March's performances as Jekyll and Hyde are still quite awe-inspiring to watch. It's very cool that he was honored with an Oscar for a movie like this, playing a character who is as awful as Hyde is. 90 years down the line, this movie is absolutely worth seeking out to see how March and Mamoulian handled the story of Jekyll and Hyde.
SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE III (1990)
For me, the third time was not the charm when it comes to the Slumber Party Massacre franchise. While I'm a fan of the first movie and love the second one, I have just never been able to get into Slumber Party Massacre III.
Every entry in this series was written and directed by females, and in this case Sally Mattison directed the film from a screenplay by Catherine Cyran. The story they crafted here has no connection to the previous two movies, it just happens to be about another group of girls having a slumber party that gets interrupted by a killer who primarily uses a large drill to rack up a body count. While we knew very early on who the killer was in the other movies - whether it be an escaped mental patient or a rock 'n roller who emerges from the tormented mind of a returning survivor - this one plays out like a mystery. A teen girl named Jackie (Keely Christian) is throwing a slumber party and someone is knocking off her friends. Even the person who delivers the pizza gets killed. But we don't know who's doing the killing until late in the 87 minute running time.
This movie does the same basic things as its predecessors. (Although no other movie does exactly what Slumber Party Massacre 2 does.) There's a slumber party, there's nudity (the girls even challenge each other to perform a strip tease for some reason), boys crash the party, people die. Yet there's something off-putting about this one, and it's not just the killer's very dark and twisted back story. I just don't find it interesting, sitting through it is a chore for me.
Cult favorite Maria Ford and Hope Marie Carlton (who was in the waterbed in A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master) play characters who attend the slumber party, Yan Birch of The People Under the Stairs shows up as a "Weirdo on Beach", the pizza girl is played by Marta Kober from Friday the 13th Part 2, but not even they can make me a fan of Slumber Party Massacre III.
Of course, I'm bummed out from the moment someone gets offed with a drill and the murderer isn't Atanas Ilitch reprising the role of the Driller Killer from part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment