M3GAN (2023)

DIRECTED BY

Gerard Johnstone

STARRING

Allison Williams - Gemma

Violet McGraw - Cady

Amie Donald - M3GAN

Jenna Davis - Voice of M3GAN

Jen Van Epps - Tess

Brian Jordan Alvarez - Cole

Ronny Chieng - David Lin

Lori Dungey - Celia

Jack Cassidy - Brandon

Genre - Horror/Science Fiction/Comedy/Robots/Killer Toys

Running Time - 102 Minutes

PLOT

A brilliant toy company roboticist uses artificial intelligence to develop M3GAN, a life-like doll programmed to emotionally bond with her newly orphaned niece. But when the doll’s programming works too well, she becomes overprotective of her new friend with terrifying results.

REVIEW

In 1963, The Twilight Zone aired an episode called “Living Doll”, introducing the world to Talking Tina - a doll that would be revealed as some sort of sentient evil being. Due to that episode’s massive popularity, the killer doll subgenre of horror has continued to thrive and please audiences until the modern day. Whether it’s voodoo [TRILOGY OF TERROR, CHILD’S PLAY], magic [MAGIC, PUPPET MASTER] or just the advent of technology [2019’s CHILD’S PLAY remake], dolls continue to frighten audiences despite many of us own one during our childhood as a security blanket of sorts. 

Like I mentioned already, technology has really been the element that keeps this subgenre going. It’s not hard to see why. Many of us rely on technological things to keep us up to date with world events, our friends’ and family’s lives, and just to keep us from being bored with the doldrums of modern life. Especially for Gen Z, technology is a lifeline because they don’t know a life before iPhones, tablets, computers and advanced game consoles to keep them occupied. Adding this kind of technology to a doll that’s meant to be more human than robot is always going to return a narrative that won’t be without its hiccups.

M3GAN, or Model 3 Generative Android, is the killer doll for the Z Generation. It behaves like a human being. It can dance for you. It can sing your favorite TikTok song. It’ll even listen and give you advice to make you a better person. But like with all Artificial Intelligence, it’s only going to want to learn as it evolves itself. And knowledge is power - which can be a bad thing depending on who is gaining it. And because of this, the android becomes more intelligent and clever than the human being who programmed it. And as we’ve seen in other bits of media, chaos and destruction can only follow.

M3GAN is marketed as the film’s villain. But is she really? After all, she’s just doing what she was created to do. Yes, the doll does some really bad things - mainly murder due to having a serious attachment to the young girl she’s paired with. But if she isn’t programmed to stop learning and to not do bad things that can hurt others, is she really the one to blame? After all, M3GAN doesn’t have a conscience or emotions that would imply sympathy and empathy. Only the humans behind this android have that capacity.

In my opinion, the film’s villain is really Allison Williams’ Gemma. I mean, she’s not doing it intentionally. She’s a career oriented woman who is surrounded by technology that she has created as a means to keep her company and make her financially capable of living a great life. Unfortunately, her sister and her sister’s husband were murdered in a car accident, quickly making her the guardian of her niece Cady. Both characters are out of their element here. Gemma has no idea how to raise anyone, hoping to leave that to M3GAN or any other toy to keep Cady occupied while she lives her own professional life. Cady is still mourning the death of her parents and having to adjust to a new life. She only connects with M3GAN because it’s a toy that gives her the attention she needs, which leads to attachment issues by the third act. 

Gemma isn’t a greedy or bad intentioned character. But in a way, she’s just as robotic as M3GAN. She’s mourning her own loss and has issues adjusting to change because these are things she can’t control with the push of a button. It’s her lack of wanting to connect with Cady that leads to the birth of M3GAN, which not only becomes a media sensation and a great bonus for her bank account and reputation as a toy maker, but begins the drama that plays throughout the movie. M3GAN doesn’t have a conscience, but Gemma does. It’s her flaws that become M3GAN’s flaws, watching her good intentions go down the drain. But thankfully it’s humanity that gives both Gemma and Cady a fighting chance against this malicious android. 

It’s obvious M3GAN is about how parents are using technology to babysit their children in order to continue their individual lives, whether that’s professionally or personally. This isn’t something new. Parents have been doing this for decades, ever since the birth of television. We’ve all spent hours a day distracted by television or video games while our parents went to work or were doing chores around the house. But with phones and tablets, we’re now seeing three and four-year-olds looking like zombies, brainwashed by what they’re doing on these tools. They’re not getting that same human interaction and connection us older generations received, more focused on living in a virtual world rather than reality. While technology is great, children deserve to be raised and supported by their parents and/or family in real life rather than learn everything from what they see online. This will probably do more harm than good for future generations in the long run, but only time will tell.

What I’m really trying to say is that M3GAN has a smart script, thanks to MALIGNANT writer Akela Cooper. She could have really turned this film super hokey and cheesy with the whole killer doll deal. But there’s more to M3GAN than just the horror aspect, which allowed me to connect with it more. Being a fan of both these James Wan produced movies, Akela Cooper is proving to be an interesting player in the horror scene. Look forward to what she has up her sleeve next.

The direction from Gerald Johnstone is really good, making M3GAN seem legit creepy and menacing as she evolves throughout the film. While the film can be tense and chilling at times, M3GAN feels mostly lighter than that - almost like a comedy at times that pokes fun at advertisements, social media and how society treats others without thinking first. The colors pop and the most slasher film moments are shot super well, with a lot of build and suspense that gets you ready for whatever M3GAN has in its violent programming. And while this version of M3GAN is PG-13 [I hear there’s an R-rated cut floating around], the death scenes still manage to pack quite a punch. For a film that only cost $12 million to make, M3GAN is shot to look way more expensive than that. 

All the actors rock in this movie. Allison Williams is really great as Gemma, as you understand her character’s flaws and really feel her varied display of emotions throughout the film when bad things start to go down. Williams is a super underrated actress and I hope she continues to shine brighter in future films. Violet McGraw is also great as Cady, acting beyond her years as a sympathetic young character who just wants to feel normal and loved again after a tragedy. McGraw also gets a lot of emotional beats to play with, all of them convincing and justified for her character. And both Amie Donald and Jenna Davis are fantastic as M3GAN. Donald, a young dancer, really captures an android’s movements down. The dancing is strange. The way M3GAN hunts is uncomfortable to watch. And her lack of moving tends to be scarier a lot of the time. Donald is awesome in the role. And Jenna Davis’ cute voice adds a lot to the character as well. Special mention also goes to the supporting actors - in particular Ronny Chieng as Gemma’s boss David and Lori Dungey as neighbor Celia - who bring a lot to their roles and help flesh out the main characters. Just a really great cast for a fun movie.

THE FINAL HOWL

I never would have guessed that M3GAN would be as fun as it is, considering I thought the trailers made the movie look pretty cheesy and that January is usually Hollywood’s dumping ground for films they have no faith in. But it’s a really good time with a relevant commentary on technology and how some adults use it to babysit their children to the point it could be damaging in terms of a lack of human interaction. It also plays around with the killer toy tropes extremely well, proving that no matter what decade it is, talking and moving dolls will continue to creep us out. The direction by Gerald Johnstone is strong, maintaining a lighthearted tone even with the film’s horrific moments. The film also looks more expensive than its $12 million budget would have you believe. The cast is super solid as well, with Allison Williams and Violet McGraw as the aunt and niece who are the center of M3GAN’s terror. Amie Donald and Jenna Davis also get a lot of love as M3GAN’s body double and voice respectively. If M3GAN is any indication, 2023 might be a fun year for movies if this is how the year is starting.

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

(8 out of 10)

Lunar Cycle - November 2021

Since I don’t have as much time to write longer reviews than I used to, I figured I would just post shorter reviews for horror/cult films that I feel deserve your attention.

Directed By: Justin G. Dyck 

Starring: Sheila McCarthy, Julian Richings, Konstantina Mantelos, Josh Cruddas, Yannick Bisson, Lannette Ware

Genre: Horror/Supernatural

Running Time: 97 Minutes 

SCORE - 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: A bereaved Satanist couple kidnap a pregnant woman so they can use an ancient spellbook to put their dead grandson’s spirit into her unborn child, but they end up summoning more than they bargained for.

Review:

A Shudder Exclusive, ANYTHING FOR JACKSON was a recommendation by friends who thought the film would be up my alley. As someone who needs to catch up on a lot of what Shudder has to offer when it comes to newer horror, I figured this would be a good time to start that. And while the film has issues that keep it from being a modern classic, ANYTHING FOR JACKSON is still an entertaining flick that has things going for it.

ANYTHING FOR JACKSON is an interesting horror film for a couple of reasons. The biggest surprise is that this film about Satanists wanting to use a pregnant woman’s baby as a host for a spirit of a dead child is directed by Justin G. Dyck. Dyck may not be well known to horror genre fans. But if you’re a sucker for those Hallmark Christmas movies, then you have definitely seen his name before. I mean, it’s not the first time a Christmas director has done a decent horror flick. But considering he caters to a family friendly demographic in Hallmark, the creepiness he infuses in ANYTHING FOR JACKSON is a bit surprising. It’s a bit James Wan-lite, with disturbing looking demons and ghosts hiding and creeping around within the shadows. There are contorting monsters, beastly ghouls and a dead spirit flossing her teeth in a way that unnerves me. I thought Dyck established some nice atmosphere and mood, because I dug the vibe of this flick.

The other interesting aspect of the film is who the story is following. You’d think the pregnant victim would have the perspective, as she’s the one in trouble and is trying to escape a situation she has been forced into by people in her community. She’s the one you would want the audience to sympathize with and root for. But instead, ANYTHING FOR JACKSON is really told through the eyes of the elderly couple who are using this pregnant woman’s unborn child to host the spirit of their dead grandson through Satanic means. And while they’re doing a terrible thing, the narrative makes you understand why they’ve gone to these crazy lengths to bring back a loved one. It helps when this elderly couple seem like sweet people outside of kidnapping pregnant women, going to Satanic meetings and bringing dead animals back to life through evil incantations. While I felt bad for the pregnant victim, I was connecting more to the villainous couple who were just grieving and not thinking logically in terms of accepting death. Who wouldn’t want to bring back someone we lost? What they do isn’t right at all, but I can understand their motives and actions. 

It also helps when the actors are really good in their roles, making one enjoy their characters more than one probably should. Both Sheila McCarthy and Julian Richings are wonderful as the elderly couple, bringing a kind and loving nature to their roles while they’re doing hurtful things to an innocent woman. It works when the actors look so unsuspecting, bringing a humanity and groundedness to their roles. Konstantina Mantelos is also very good as the pregnant victim, getting more to play with towards the second half of the film. 

If I had a major issue with ANYTHING FOR JACKSON, it’s really the film’s final act. I just felt it was clumsily written, as if the screenwriter had no clue how to proceed forward towards the story’s conclusion. It felt rushed and involved a character who wasn’t really developed until the last half hour of the movie. It’s not to say that this character wasn’t effective, as they were creepy and corrupt with power. But it took away from what the other characters were dealing with, making this person the true villain of the film rather than the elderly couple who started this whole mess. The imagery was cool and all, but it felt lacking in terms of a satisfying conclusion to a captivating story otherwise.

That being said, I liked ANYTHING FOR JACKSON and it’s definitely worth a look if you’re into Satanic people who have no clue what they’re doing, creating more problems than what they had started out with. Great performances, nice direction and an interesting narrative make this one a recommendation if you have Shudder.

Directed By: Maria Lease

Starring: Denise Crosby, Sam Bottoms, Rip Torn, Chris Demtral, Candace Hutson, Lupe Ontiveros, Enrique Renaldo

Genre: Horror/Supernatural/Killer Toys

Running Time: 93 Minutes

SCORE - 2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)

Plot: An American family moves to Mexico to fabricate dolls, but their toy factory happens to be next to a Sanzian grave and the toys come into possession of an old, malicious spirit.

Review:

Pretty much inspired by the 1988 horror classic CHILD’S PLAY, 1991’s DOLLY DEAREST is a film I thought I had seen before - only to realize that I hadn’t, confusing it for 1987’s DOLLS for whatever reason. Or maybe I did see the movie before and didn’t remember it, considering how mediocre it is.

The movie does have good things going for it. The box art cover is pretty sweet, as it’s kind of creepy and more memorable than the actual film itself. I also thought the Mexican location was an interesting touch, giving the film a nice foreign feel that stands out from other killer doll movies. The use of religion and spirituality to threaten the evil that was unleashed elevated this flick quite a bit.

I’m a sucker for any kind of evil curse/possession angle in a horror film, and DOLLY DEAREST does a good job establishing that. Instead of having the doll possess the child as their main motivation throughout the film, the child is quickly possessed right from the start, getting more nasty and demonic during the movie’s runtime. The supernatural stuff with the child is probably the most entertaining aspect of DOLLY DEAREST.

Also, the doll effects are pretty good considering the film’s budget. The dolls, when they come alive, are done with nice practical work that seem believable within the context of the film. And of course you get the shots of little feet scampering in the background like in CHILD’S PLAY. I thought the doll was creepy as hell, animated or not.

And I’m not gonna lie - the death sequences, which the film needed much more of, were pretty hilarious. We get rocks crushing someone. We get another person who falls in a pool of water in a basement - why was there a hole full of water in the basement, anyway - before getting electrocuted. And then someone gets their hand stuck in a sewing machine, leading to a random heart attack I guess. The way the actor performed his death scene had me in stitches.

Other than that, there’s not much to say about DOLLY DEAREST. The film is definitely trying to be CHILD’S PLAY, but the characters aren’t that interesting and the horror aspect is just not there at all. In fact, the characters are all kind of unlikable and not sympathetic, considering they don’t seem to heed any warnings that are flashing right in front of their faces until it’s too late. I mean, characters die and no one treats it as a major deal. And if you see your child acting strangely, especially when they’re threatening your life with a demonic voice spouting ancient Mayan languages, wouldn’t you think something was majorly wrong? Not this family!

The actors don’t do much for me either. Rip Torn uses a Mexican accent that seems to come and go whenever it wants. Denise Crosby plays another wife and mother dealing with some bad stuff, although her character is nowhere close to having as much depth as her character in PET SEMETARY. Sam Bottoms is just there, pretty much sleepwalking through the entire film. Honestly, the only actor of note is young Candace Huston as daughter Jessica, who gets a lot of cool stuff to work with and shows great talent as her character grows more evil over time. 

Overall. DOLLY DEAREST is worth a look if you enjoy horror films involving demonic toys or dolls that aren't starring Chucky. It has amusing moments, decent special effects and a solid performance by a child actor who outshines anyone else in the movie. You could do a lot worse.

Directed by: Steven Kostanski

Starring: Nita-Josee Hanna, Owen Myre, Matthew Ninaber, Steven Vlahos, Adam Brooks, Alexis Hancey, Kristen MacCulloch, Anna Tierney, Roxine Plummer

Genre: Horror/Comedy/Science Fiction

Running Time: 95 Minutes

SCORE - 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: Siblings Mimi and Luke unwittingly resurrect an ancient alien overlord. Using a magical amulet, they force the monster to obey their childish whims, and accidentally attract a rogues’ gallery of intergalactic assassins to small-town suburbia.

Review: 

If there was an independent horror film that I couldn’t escape from the mouths of others within the past year, it was PSYCHO GOREMAN - a movie that was unanimously praised by friends who had seen it. Despite digging the colorful visuals, obvious Power Rangers vibe and constantly being thrown recommendations to finally see the damn thing, it just took me until a few days ago to sit down and experience for myself. And while I did find much of the movie to be entertaining and fun, I think the constant hype somewhat ruined the experience for me. I mean PSYCHO GOREMAN is a good movie, but I never once felt it was a great one.

I think the main reason for that feeling is due to how I felt about the film’s main character. Child characters in horror films can be a mixed bag for sure, but I usually don’t mind them too much - especially in modern horror films. But the Mimi character - she got on my nerves as the film went along. It’s sad because I found her amusing at first, until the portrayal of brattiness, bullying and just overall annoyance started to piss me off to a point where I was hoping the titular alien would give her a warrior’s death [eating her alive]. Not since that kid in THE BABADOOK have I wanted a child character to just go away. I didn’t even care if they had explained her disappearance or not. I just wanted Mimi gone. Now I know her behavior sort of leads to a plot point at the end that leads to the film’s resolution. But the main character of a film should never turn your audience off before getting there. There’s one thing to have a female character be tough, independent and a bad ass. It’s another to have them be a miserable piece of dung you wanted flushed right away.

I think my feelings for Mimi distracted me from really enjoying PSYCHO GOREMAN. All the elements I usually enjoy in a B-movie are here. Goofy looking monsters and/or aliens? Check. Dumb human characters who handle the situation stupidly, yet have their hearts in the right place? Check. Cheesy effects and gore? Check. A silly story that doesn’t take itself all that seriously? Check.

I loved all the homages that were thrown into the film. We get a bit of Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. We get a bit of E.T. There’s some THE GUYVER in here. I see a lot of THE MONSTER SQUAD in PSYCHO GOREMAN. You also get some of that former Astron-6 humor and it’s a fun time! And I like that director and writer Steven Kostanski didn’t try to spoof or parody the films and TV shows he was inspired by. It takes those elements, twists them in a non-PG way, and attempts to build a universe out of them for potential sequels with the title character. It wears its influences on its sleeve, but never does too much winking at the audience to distract you with it all.

Speaking of Kostanski, he does a great job visualizing the story. The film is super colorful, feels like a children’s live-action show for adults through its constant gore and special effects [some of the deaths are gnarly] and moves at a nice pace to never overstay its welcome. It also maintains a silly tone throughout, with characters being frightened by P.G. and then just accepting him being around. I mean, when you have parents who don’t think less of their Krang-looking son, you know what you’re getting into. For a film with a not-so-large budget, I think PSYCHO GOREMAN exceeds all expectations.

The acting is also strong. As much as I despised the character, Nita-Josee Hanna was super solid as Mimi. I don’t think any child actor would have made the character tolerable, but Hanna does what she can with it and carries the film quite well, having genuine chemistry with the other actors around her. I’d like to see her in another film playing a character that didn’t want me to turn off the movie. The other actors, like the likable Owen Myre as Mimi’s insecure brother Luke and the hilariously dry Adam Brooks as the father are all good in their roles. And Matthew Ninaber as P.G. [voiced by Steven Vlahos] does an awesome job as the evil alien who must work with the humans who enslaved him to defeat his enemies and get his freedom back. It’s like having Lord Zedd with a bigger budget fronting his own movie, which I wouldn’t mind more of if it happens.

Overall, PSYCHO GOREMAN is a film I dug, but not to the extent of many of my friends who gushed over it as the next big thing in B-movie horror. I love the visuals, as the 80s aesthetic and the cheese special effects and gore are right up my alley. The homage to other sci-fi and horror films, like E.T., THE GUYVER and even the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers, work within the silliness of the story. The actors are all good and the soundtrack is fun. If not for the insufferable main character Mimi, I would have loved PSYCHO GOREMAN. But when a character, no less your main one, makes me want to turn off the movie, points have to be taken off. But other than that, this is an entertaining movie if you can tolerate annoying brats and embrace your love for Hunky Boys.

[SEQUEL SEPTEMBER] Child's Play 3 (1991)

DIRECTED BY
Jack Bender

STARRING
Justin Whalin - Andy Barclay
Perrey Reeves - Kristen De Silva
Brad Dourif - Chucky (Voice)
Andrew Robinson - Sergeant Botnick
Travis Fine - Cadet Lieutenant Colonel Brett C. Shelton
Jeremy Sylvers - Ronald Tyler
Dean Jacobson - Harold Aubrey Whitehurst

Genre - Horror/Slasher/Supernatural/Killer Toys

Running Time - 90 Minutes


In 1988, horror audiences were treated to a different kind of slasher film called CHILD'S PLAY. Instead of a human doing the killing, it was a doll that possessed the soul of a serial killer named Charles Lee Ray. With the boom of animated dolls, like Teddy Ruxpin, being the then-fad for children, CHILD'S PLAY sparked something in horror audiences, making it a huge success and horror icons in both Chucky the Doll, and his human counterpart and Academy Award nominated actor, Brad Dourif. CHILD'S PLAY had a pretty big effect on me as a kid, making me throw out my own Teddy Ruxpin after watching it in theaters. Today, I still get a kick out of it and think it's pretty funny and even creepy at times. In my opinion, it's still the best film in the franchise.

Two years later, a sequel was released titled CHILD'S PLAY 2. Now under the eye of Universal Studios, which had bought the rights from MGM after the studio was bought out by a family friendly company that didn't want anything to do with future installments, CHILD'S PLAY 2 turned Chucky into a wise-cracking killer doll with a lot of attitude and sarcasm, that you couldn't help but love him. It wasn't as successful as the first film either critically or financially, but it still did decently at the box office and remains the best sequel to date. In fact, a lot of people I know prefer the first sequel over the original, and I could see why. It's a more straightforward slasher film with memorable moments and great performances by Dourif, Alex Vincent, and Christine Elise.

Wanting to capitalize on the momentum of a potential horror franchise, Universal order a second sequel right away into production. Eliminating all previous actors [except for Dourif] and taking the story eight years into the continuity future, CHILD'S PLAY 3 was released just a year later in 1991. Even though it had a new setting, different actors, and a similar structure to CHILD'S PLAY 2, the film didn't do so well at the box office - which explains why it took seven years for the next installment, BRIDE OF CHUCKY, to be produced and released.

It's obvious that Universal didn't learn from other studios that rushing a sequel into production, especially during the late 80s and early 90s, was a bad business move. It hurt the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, HALLOWEEN, and FRIDAY THE 13TH franchises [which ironically all had sequels rushed within a year back in 1989], so what would have made CHILD'S PLAY [a less established franchise] immune to this? Also, horror was pretty much on life support in terms of financial box office success, as many audiences had moved on from the slasher era and were looking for something deeper and more substantial, in the cases of 1990's MISERY and 1991's SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. CHILD'S PLAY 3 was seen as a sequel that wasn't necessary and one that was worth renting at a video store at a cheaper price, rather than paying a movie ticket to see it.

Until SEED OF CHUCKY was released, I had considered CHILD'S PLAY 3 the worst sequel in the franchise. It wasn't as creepy as the first, or as witty and fun as the second. After seeing it after a few years of not doing so, I still agree with my statement. It's not the worst horror film ever made, and not even the worst in this franchise. But it's a lost opportunity and not one of the series' finest moments.

PLOT
Eight years after the events of CHILD'S PLAY 2, the Good Guys Dolls corporation has decided to reopen the factory and start making Good Guy dolls again. While some are opposed to this, the business owner feels that the Andy Barclay (played by Alex Vincent in the previous two films) hysteria has died down enough for the business to prosper again. What they don't realize is that some of Chucky's blood from his previous body has entered the vat of plastic used to make the other dolls, recreating Chucky all over again. After Chucky takes care of the business owner, he decides to look up Andy to steal his body.

A teenage Andy (now played by Justin Whalin) is now in Military School, where he's treated like crap by his Cadet Lieutenant Colonel (Travis Fine). However, he finds love with Kristen De Silva (Perrey Reeves) and friendship with Whitehurst (Dean Jacobson). Everything is going fine until he sees Chucky at the academy, bringing back all of his nightmares.

Luckily for Andy, Chucky has chosen a new target body: a kid named Tyler (Jeremy Sylvers) who wants a Good Guy doll of his own. Feeling that he now has a new body and can now put his soul in someone else other than Andy, Chucky reveals his true name to Tyler and tries to befriend him in order to possess Tyler's body with a game of "Hide the Soul". Andy, knowing what Chucky is up to, decides to stop the doll from achieving his goal.

REVIEW

CHILD'S PLAY 3 is the epitome of a rushed sequel. The ideas are bland and unoriginal. The story and production values don't seem to have time to take advantage certain elements that they have at their disposal. And after a classic first film and a strong first sequel, CHILD'S PLAY 3 seems to be going through the motions, all because of the all mighty buck. Even with that said, the film still manages to be better than it ought to be. It just has a lot going against it that makes it one of the lesser sequels.

The real culprit of CHILD'S PLAY 3 is the script itself. It's just weak, derivative, and really doesn't add anything new to the story - nor does it present it in a different and unique way. In fact, a lot of what happens in this film contradicts what was brought up in the previous films. Don Mancini, who created the series, admits that he was pressured into rushing with CHILD'S PLAY 3 due to Universal Studios wanting to capitalize on the success of the previous film. Mancini considers this installment to be his least favorite as he had ran out of ideas by CHILD'S PLAY 2 and had no time to come up with something different for 3. Honestly, it shows. It does have its moments, but overall it's pretty much a disappointment.

One of my main issues with this sequel is how "Hide the Soul" works. In the first film, it was pretty much established that the only reason why Chucky wanted to possess Andy's body was because Andy was the first one to know Chucky's real identity. In this film, Chucky targets Tyler because he figures since he has a new body, he's able to transfer his soul into Tyler's body. This irks me. If this was the case, why didn't Chucky go after someone else in CHILD'S PLAY 2? He had a new body then, didn't he? He might as well go after Andy again if he's busy following him all the way to this Military School. Instead, he goes after this new kid Tyler, who quite honestly is one of the more annoying characters in this film. I guess he's being a normal kid, but you'd think he'd act more mature at this environment, especially when his father was a military man himself. Plus unlike Andy, Tyler isn't really a sympathetic character. He rather play video games rather than interact with other people. He steals Andy's package [which was Chucky himself] just so he can have his own Good Guy doll. He breaks into rooms he shouldn't break into. And he acts like a total prick to Andy until it's too late. Andy worked because he was innocent and naive enough to be likeable. You understood where he was coming from. Tyler doesn't elicit those same type of feelings, making you wish Chucky would shut him up and transfer his soul into him.

Speaking of the other characters, it's like they're all starring in a 90s teen version of Stanley Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET. Andy is Joker. De Silva is Cowboy. Shelton is Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. And Whitehurst is Gomer Pyle. Even a line from FULL METAL JACKET is used in the movie. The only thing is that these versions aren't as deep or charismatic, nor is any of their arcs all that interesting. Sure, the characters are okay for stereotypes. Andy we connect with right away due to the previous films, although I wish his fear and trauma over Chucky was more evident. Tommy Jarvis from FRIDAY THE 13TH was more of a nutcase over Jason Voorhees, and he barely interacted with Jason in THE FINAL CHAPTER [although he did chop the guy up into pieces, but whatever]. De Silva is the tough chick who obviously catches Andy's eye. Her love arc with Andy is pretty generic and weak though, but at least she has a personality and makes a memorable first impression. Whitehurst is the nerdy guy who freaks out when he sees Chucky - more so than Andy really. However, his underdog arc leads to a great heroic moment involving an armed grenade that works for me. And Shelton is just the prick with a power trip. His death scene should have been more elaborate, as he got off way too easy for me. The only other human character of note is Sergeant Botnick, the obsessed barber. He gives Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake a run for his money. Not the deepest characters, but they're okay stereotypes that one would expect from a film like this.

I also felt that the military setting wasn't used to the best of its potential. So much could have been done in this new location, yet it plays out similarly to CHILD'S PLAY 2. This film could have taken place anywhere else and nothing much would change besides the war games deal, which is one of the better moments in the film. With so many weapons at Chucky's disposal at this place, you'd think Chucky would do more to the characters here. But nope, just the same ol' shit. I will say that the moment Chucky switches the paint bullets with live bullets so the students could kill each other is pretty sweet and creative. Realistically, this switch of gunfire wouldn't work since the gun isn't triggered to use real bullets, but at least it's an idea that's deviously entertaining and different from the rest of the film.

I also had issue with the amusement park being pretty close to this military academy. There's no way a family friendly environment would be built in the middle of the woods next to a facility that would house dangerous weapons and serious discipline training. The only reason the park exists is for the film's final act, which is supposed to follow the template of the toy factory final act of CHILD'S PLAY 2. It's not as effective because it's a predictable path, plus the toy factory was creepy due to all the Good Guy dolls that surrounded the place [Chucky could kind of camouflage a bit during his attacks]. I also have to say that the haunted house props, like the fan and Grim Reaper's scythe using real sharp blades, is pretty unbelievable. That wouldn't pass a safety test in any state in the country. The suspension of disbelief has to be really high for this flick.

The best part of the script is the character of Chucky himself. His one-liners work more than they don't, and he's involved in the more memorable moments of the film. My favorite scene is the surprise heart attack scene, where he scares a victim into dying by cardiac arrest. It's a really funny scene and one of my favorites in the series. And some other scenes involving Tyler and Andy work as well. The opening kill is a bit too long, but it's already because of Chucky's presence. I wish Chucky did more stuff, and was more original in terms of his killing spree, but this living doll is the glue that holds this mess of a sequel together.

The special effects in CHILD'S PLAY 3 are alright. Chucky still looks pretty good, although I think he looks better in CHILD'S PLAY 2. The vertically challenged stunt double if still pretty funny to see. As for the death scenes, we get someone being shot. We get a slit throat. We get someone covering a grenade, although we don't see much blood or guts or anything. And we get Chucky getting the nasty treatment in the final act. Pretty standard stuff for the most part.

The direction by Jack Bender is more positive than negative. I love the opening credits, which detail Chucky's blood accidentally getting into a new vat of plastic that will create a new Good Guy's doll - which in turn creates a new body for Chucky. By the way, how was this factory still in the same exact shape after eight years? Nothing, especially Chucky's mutilated body, was moved or used as evidence in a crime? Don't think so. Anyway, we get a ton of POV shots for multiple subjects [mainly Chucky]. There's some style here, with a good use of angles and interesting shots. But unfortunately, there's not much tension here or suspense. I didn't really get a sense of atmosphere either. Not the greatest direction in this series, but the script didn't really help Bender here. Bender definitely makes the most of it and the film is watchable at least.

The acting is probably the best part of CHILD'S PLAY 3. Justin Whalin makes for a fine teenage Andy Barclay. Best known for his roles in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Whalin hits every emotional note needed and has this innocence about him that reveals a ton of vulnerability. I could believe he would be Andy grown up. Perrey Reeves is very cool as De Silva. She plays a believable tough chick and has good chemistry with Whalin whenever they share scenes together. Travis Fine plays the perfect douche, smirking a lot to the point where I wanted to slap it off of his face. Jeremy Sylvers was decent as Tyler, although I found his character irritating. Dean Jacobson is a good geek as Whitehurst. Andrew Robinson of HELLRAISER fame is awesome as Sergeant Botnick. I'll never get my hair cut by this crazy dude. He seemed to be having fun in the role. And of course, Brad Dourif is just fantastic as the voice of Chucky. Without him, these films would lose all sense of fun and personality. Nice cast overall. I just wish they were in a stronger film.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE PLAYING WITH MY LOVE GUN

- Chucky's blood accidentally mixed in with a vat of liquid acid, giving him a new doll body once it was created. Does that mean Justin Beiber will never go away if he does the same thing? That thought is scarier than this entire film!

- Chucky tripped the owner of the Good Guys Dolls business with a bunch of marbles. Chucky could have just said the old man was crazy for reopening this killer business, but I guess he's a doll of a few words.

- De Silva had no issue showing Andy how to use his gun. Anything to help the foreplay, I guess.

- Chucky likes to play "Hide the Soul" with young boys. I wonder if he ever attended Penn State...

- A garbage man was crushed in the compactor by Chucky. I wouldn't worry. He'll probably return in the next sequel and be played by Kevin Nash.

- De Silva put lipstick on Chucky. I thought he would turn into a transvestite in CHILD'S PLAY: THE NEXT GENERATION.

- Sergeant Botnick got his throat slit by Chucky before his hair was cut. Sweeney Todd, eat your heart out!

THE FINAL HOWL

CHILD'S PLAY 3 is a mediocre sequel. While it's still watchable and has its moments, it's a far departure in quality from the previous two sequels. The story is weak and lazy, never really taking advantage of its newer setting and developing the characters into more than just stereotypes. Plus, that Tyler kid is just annoying. Also, the kill sequences are pretty pedestrian besides one. However, the acting is better than it should be and the visual presentation is more hit than miss. Definitely in my bottom two of Chucky movies. CHILD'S PLAY 3 is a missed opportunity all in the name of money.


SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker (1991)

DIRECTED BY
Martin Kitrosser

STARRING
Jane Higginson - Sarah Quinn
William Thorne - Derek Quinn
Mickey Rooney - Joe Petto
Tracy Fraim - Noah Adams
Brian Bremer - Pino Petto
Neith Hunter - Kim Levitt
Conan Yunza - Lonnie
Zoe Yunza - Brandy
Eric Welch - Buck
Van Quattro - Tom Quinn

Genre - Horror/Holiday/Mad Scientist/Killer Toys

Running Time - 90 Minutes


Out of all the horror franchises out there, the SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT series has to be the most unique one of them all. The first one dealt with some traumatized kid, named Billy, who punished the naughty while dressed up as his biggest nightmare, Santa Claus. The second film dealt with the younger brother of the traumatized kid, Ricky, picking up where he left off and killing people while shouting "Garbage Day!". Hell, Ricky had flashbacks of things he had no right having [since he was just a baby and wasn't even there when the events of the first film were taking place]. The third film continues Ricky story, only this time he has a punch bowl on his head and wants to murder a psychic blind chick. And let's not even get into the fourth film, which steered away from anything Billy or Ricky related. Instead, it was about man-hating witches who got off on worms and cockroaches while not caring much about the Christmas spirit.

So what's next? Deadly toys? Kids watching their parents and babysitters have sex? A robot who's bitter because he doesn't have a penis? An abusive Mickey Rooney?

Wait...SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOY MAKER does have all of the above? Oh. Well, let's get to the review then...

Man, this franchise is messed up.

PLOT
One night, a young boy named Derek (William Thorne) wakes up hearing his parents Sarah (Jane Higginson) and Tom (Van Quattro) having sex. Probably disturbed, Derek sneaks downstairs and opens the front door after the doorbell rings. He finds a present on the doorstep addressed to him, with a note saying not to open until Christmas. Derek, being a kid, refuses to listen and begins opening it. But Tom stops him and yells at Derek for being awake, sending him back to bed. Being a great dad, Tom decides he'll open the present himself. He finds a ball with decorations of Santa Claus on it. It doesn't seem like much at first, but once the ball releases strands of rope from the sides and begins to wrap itself around Tom's head, he panics and ends up fatally impaling himself on a fireplace poker. Derek watched the entire scene, now traumatized by his father's death as Sarah freaks out.

Weeks pass and Sarah tries to make Derek, who is now mute due to trauma, feel better about what he had seen. She takes him to local toy store, run by Joe Petto (Mickey Rooney), who seems to have a lot of history in their neighborhood. Even Joe's creepy son, Pino (Brian Bremer), tries to force a toy larvae on Derek, who refuses it. More creepy is another visitor to the store, Noah (Tracy Fraim), who can't stop staring at both Sarah and Derek for some reason from afar. Sarah and Derek leave empty handed, but Noah buys the toy larvae and is suspicious about this toy store for some reason. Noah begins destroying the toys he's bought from Joe Petto's store, trying to see if there's anything strange about them. However, his research is paused by his landlord who is ready to evict Noah for late rent payments. Noah doesn't have enough money, but convinces the landlord for an extension by giving him the toy larvae. Unfortunately the extension is permanent as the larvae comes to life and kills the landlord.

Meanwhile, Derek receives another anonymous present on his doorstep. Wanting none of it, he tosses it out in the trash. His neighbor Lonnie (Conan Yunza) takes it for himself. Seeing that they're roller blades, Lonnie tries them out. Too bad they're laced with rockets, sending Lonnie into an oncoming car. Derek realizes that someone is targeting him with these gifts, potentially making this holiday season both silent and deadly.

REVIEW
It's really funny how SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOY MAKER is the last installment in this franchise. While SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT PART 2 is a 'great' film because it's so bad and cheesy, THE TOY MAKER is honestly the best sequel due to quality and competence. I'm not saying it's the best horror film out there or that it demands to be watched every December. But it's a whole lot better than both the third and fourth installments and has the most Christmas-y feel since the original.

THE TOY MAKER's odd, but watchable, narrative [written by Martin Kitrosser and Brian Yunza] is based on several sources that are familiar to many people. The big one is obviously the killer toy aspect of the story. I'm really surprised someone in this franchise didn't tackle this sooner, since it actually makes a whole lot of sense. The Christmas season is the biggest and stronger season for toy makers, due to children demanding them from stressed out parents. So having killer toys traumatize children and unsuspecting adults in a Christmas horror movie seems like the perfect fit. Also by the time this movie was released to home video, horror was pretty big on this horror aspect anyway. After all, 1988's CHILD'S PLAY turned Chucky the Doll into a pop culture phenomenon, which helped bring about other films like 1989's PUPPET MASTER and brought more attention to 1987's DOLLS. It's also handled pretty well in the story as well, as these toys don't appear much until the end really, which helps make these scenes more effective. These toys are not the coolest or the most inventive, but they fit within the context of the story quite well and help create a decent mystery that's pretty obvious to figure out.

The other part of the narrative is the story of Joe Petto and his son Pino. Now if you know your fairy tales and children stories, you should realize what's going on here. THE TOY MAKER is pretty much Pinocchio but more evil and during Christmas time. Joe enjoys making toys, mainly as a way to deal with the fact that he lost a child years ago and these creations are like his own children. His son Pino is pretty strange and kooky, as if trying hard to gain the attention of his father in vain. Pino pushes toys on customers. He invades people's homes. He wants a mommy to hump and love [not kidding]. Pino is a troubled young man who doesn't feel like a real boy because his drunk abusive father puts him down and is missing a certain things that would make him feel complete. It's an interesting subplot to use, but it actually works here. Sure, it sort of gives away who is behind the deadly toys deal, but it's interesting to watch and is told well enough to be watchable and intriguing.

Even though the subplots are pretty strong, the narrative still is still too shallow to mean much of anything at the end of it all. It doesn't really help that the characters don't have much depth to them or are all that likeable really. Derek isn't too bad since usually child characters can be really annoying. But Derek doesn't speak at all for much of the film and just stares and sort of acts scared, I guess. His trauma is understandable, so we can kind of feel for him. But he isn't someone I would necessarily root for. Sarah, on the other hand, is a terrible mother and wife. She has sex with her door slightly open, knowing her son could just open the door and watch in horror. When her husband is murdered, we barely see her grieve or care that he's gone. When Noah reappears, who happens to be an important figure in Sarah's life [and unknowingly for Derek as well], she has sex with him in a parking lot the moment she sees him. Then when her son and/or Noah is in trouble, she takes her time helping them out. I had no sympathy for this woman at all. Noah isn't in the film enough to care about. He comes across as creepy and sneaky, then suddenly turns heroic at the end? The only interesting characters are Pino and Joe Petto. They are the only ones who have an aura of mystery about them. They're the only ones who also do things that are memorable in the story. It's one of those screenplays that should have interesting characters, but are written flat for whatever reason. They all seemed autistic because they all lived in their own world and didn't react much to anything. How am I supposed to believe characters like that?

Also we get unexpected cameos from Kim, Lonnie, and Ricky from SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: INITIATION. I guess this is to tie this installment to the last one, but it just ends up confusing me more. For one, Ricky was killed off in the last film, but is totally fine here. Does this film take place before part 4? But that can't be possible because Kim is taking care of Lonnie due to the aftermath of the last film. And why is Lonnie such a prick all of a sudden? I guess it's a cool nod to fans of the last film, but these characters really don't need to be in this film because they don't add anything at all but fan service [are there any fans of INITIATION out there?].

Also, the toys end up killing characters who are barely in the film to begin with. I'll get to the actual special effects and death scenes soon enough, but it's pretty pointless and not all that effective to your story having people who are barely in the film for five minutes get murdered when you have characters with larger screen time ready to be cannon fodder. Not once did I ever feel that any of the main characters were in any sort of threatening situation. The closest one is Lonnie, but even he survives quite easily. I feel it was a lost opportunity really to create tension for the narrative.

I will say that the ending was actually pretty good and very weird, but in a cool way. The twist was actually presented well and I believed it, even if it was pretty bizarre. I wish I could give away a certain scene that really made me laugh, but it involved dry humping without the necessary anatomy parts. I thought the aftermath was solid and quite twisted, which I enjoyed.

The special effects by Screaming Mad George are well done. I thought some of the toys were pretty cool. The Santa Sphere that suffocated whoever played with it was a fun one. I thought the larvae that crawled through people's mouths and then ate out their eyes was sweet. The toy soldiers firing real rounds were fun to watch. I will say the hand that enjoyed fingering men's butts was a bit odd, especially when said man enjoyed it and wanted more of it while humping his girlfriend. They weren't the greatest or most original special effects out there. But for a low budget, they worked and they were presented on screen well. I wish there was more gore to really add to the damage, but what can you do?

The direction by Martin Kitrosser is decent. There's not much style to the visual presentation really, but it's competent enough to tell the story well. The final act has some decent tension, even if the film isn't all that gory or scary. The death sequences are shot well. The editing is decent. Honestly, I can't really complain about the direction for THE TOY MAKER. It's not all that impressive, but I've seen a lot worse. It gets the job done and that's all I can ask for.

The acting was surprisingly decent, even if the characters weren't written all that well. Mickey Rooney out-acts everyone here as Joe Petto. He charms as the kind old man who enjoys making toys for children. He's also pretty hilarious and convincing as the sinister father who doesn't mind getting drunk and beating on his son, Pino. Ironically, he was one of the bigger opponents of SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT's release back in 1984, calling the film immoral and a disgrace to the holiday season. I guess those checks dried up there, eh Mickey? Hypocrite.

The other actors are okay. Brian Bremer was good as Pino, giving off a very creepy and bizarre performance that I actually dug. William Thorne was okay as Derek. He really didn't do all that much but stare into space and watch his co-stars have sex. I guess that's not a bad way to spend on set. Jane Higginson was good as Sarah, even though I disliked her character. Tracy Fraim was also good as Noah, pulling off both creep and hero decently. We also have cameos from Neith Hunter as Kim and Conan Yuzna as Lonnie. Neither one added much really but weren't too terrible.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE ENJOYING THE SENSATION OF THAT TOY HAND SCRATCHING MY ASS

- Tom opened one of Derek's presents that resembled a Pokeball that ended up smothering him. Who knew Death was the 494th Pokemon? Oh well...gotta catch 'em all!

- "It was perfectly natural for a child to stop speaking after a traumatic experience." If only someone had traumatized Justin Beiber years ago...

- Joe has been disappointed in his son, Pino, constantly yelling at him and putting him down. Looks like Joe needs to send Pino to BOYS TOWN to learn how to be a good son.

- Some dude got choked out by a giant toy larvae that invaded his mouth and crawled out of his eye sockets. Now he knows how Pamela Anderson felt all those years being married to Tommy Lee. Or so I assume...

- Pino tried to drag Noah through a trap door inside the backroom of the toy store. Pino must have learned that tactic from Joe during Joe's days at AMBUSH BAY.

- A girl who looked about thirteen-years-old stood in line for Santa, eagerly sitting on his lap. She doesn't believe in Santa Claus. She just has a grandpa fetish.

- Pino rushed out of Sarah's closet, scaring her and Derek. Michelle Bachmann's husband did the same thing during their first date, but she still married him anyway.

- Lonnie got hit by a car due to a pair of jet-powered roller blades that went out of control. Who was he kidding? Only Tootie could handle skates like that. Just The Facts of Life, guys.

- Derek spotted his babysitter screwing her boyfriend in his bed. This kid knows more about Dick Chaney meeting multiple times with George W. Bush than he does the birds and the bees.

THE FINAL HOWL
SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOY MAKER is bizarre and unintentionally funny at times, but still manages to be a pretty watchable sequel. The acting is okay, the direction is competent, and there are some interesting moments that will stick in your brain whether you want them to or not. Plus watching Mickey Rooney's hypocrite ass get drunk and push his movie son around is always fun. THE TOY MAKER happens to be a highlight in an otherwise uneventful holiday horror franchise. I say watch the first two and then this one. They are the only three films Santa would want you to watch anyway. And if you watch SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT III and 4, just expect a toy hand fingering your prostate. Just sayin'. Happy Holidays everyone!


SCORE
2.5 Howls Outta 4