Cult of Chucky

Remembering the first time I saw Child’s Play when it was playing in theaters back in 1988, waiting for that scary reveal when Chucky finally comes to life in front of his victim’s eyes and making everybody scream in their seats, that memory always comes back whenever I pop in any of the films from that franchise.  Not only was that 20-year-old version of me freaked out by the film back then, I was also analyzing how the filmmakers were able to make the doll walk and run and stab and kill…I was mesmerized by the logistics of the scenes and how the special effects worked and here I am, still with that wonderment.  Of course, I know a lot of special effects are achieved with CGI or digital removal of wires and cables, but I’m still drawn back to those times in the 80s when I’d head over with some friends to see the latest slasher.

So, after 29 years, Chucky is still at it in his latest adventure in the seventh outing of the Child’s Play franchise.  To me, Seed of Chucky was the least entertaining of all the films, which took the story into a weird Meta direction, but I love this franchise and always visit it every Halloween season.  Now I have another entry to add to my playlist that I’d purchased sight-unseen.

Was the purchase a win?  Let’s synopsize first…

After being accused of murdering her family, Nica (Fiona Dourif) is sentenced to an asylum and begins to believe—after many therapy sessions and shock treatments—that she was guilty of her family’s demise.  But soon, grizzly deaths start to occur and she then realizes that what her psychiatrist, Dr. Foley (Michael Therriault), convinced her was illusion—that Chucky (Brad Dourif) was a living killer doll—may, in fact, be real after all.

Instead of an entirely different storyline for a sequel or—perish the thought—a reboot of the franchise all together, writer and director Don Mancini gives us something fresh and takes the idea of Chucky in another direction, just as thrilling and fun as the original.  Cult of Chucky follows closely after the events in the previous entry and gives us the rest of the story after the events of the previous film. 

The crux of the story takes place in the asylum with Fiona Dourif reprising her role as Nica, which was nice to see her again and to see what was the result of her incarceration was at the end of the last film.  Added to the mix of this story are five main characters: the psychiatrist—Dr. Foley—who is stationed at the institution, Angela (Marina Stephenson Kerr) is an older patient who thinks she’s dead, Claire (Grace Lynn Kung) another patient with anger issues but looks out for the well-being of her friends there in the asylum, Michael (Adam Hurtig) has a multiple personality disorder and takes a liking to Nica, and Madeleine (Elisabeth Rosen) who is clearly disturbed as she’s confined for smothering her baby to death.  Some of these characters are presented as red herrings to the plot at times, but all add to the plot intrinsically.

Besides the key narrative of the story, we also get a subplot involving a familiar face in the earlier films of the franchise.  In the previous entry, Curse of Chucky, there was an after-credits scene for which some of you might’ve waited.  It was a short scene where we see Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent, reprising his role from the first two movies) grown up and living on his own.  He receives a large parcel which turns out to be Chucky paying a visit to his old friend and trying to tie up loose ends.  Andy, of course, gets the upper hand and ends up blasting Chucky away with a shotgun, knowing full well that the package was in the shape of the Good Guys Doll packaging.  Well, fans of the Child’s Play series loved it, so the filmmakers had to have him return in this sequel to be Chucky’s “Dr. Loomis” as the one who knows how to defeat the doll by planning ahead. 

Back as well is Jennifer Tilly as Tiffany (the logistics of her return is a little confusing, so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions when you watch this) and hasn’t missed a beat as Chucky’s girlfriend.  She’s in this for a glorified cameo, but adds the evil levity for which she brought to the franchise back in Bride of Chucky.

One can’t say that this movie is scary or spooky in any way (although there are a few stirring moments)…the original achieved that and everyone knows the character already as Chucky had become a household name years ago.  But there is a bit of a mystery here and you really don’t know what’s going to happen or where the story is going until later in the film. 

Before I get to my overall thoughts of this movie, I’ve just got to say how amazing it is that this franchise is still going strong and not losing any steam.  Being that Chucky is one of the Titans of Terror—alongside Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kruger, Leatherface, Michael Myers, et al—he’s the only one who hasn’t had a rebooted or remade movie.  Cult of Chucky is actually a continuation of the story set in motion in 1988—that’s amazing!

My final “bit” on Cult of Chucky?

I had a lot of fun with this film, enjoying the dark humor and thrills, along with the inventiveness of the story.  Rather than ignoring the whole voodoo ritual that started this whole franchise, Mancini embraces it and uses it even further.  Brad Dourif still has what it takes to bring the killer doll to life and it always brings a smile to my face when I hear his quips, curse words, and all around rage on the screen.  Again, it’s upsetting to see this sequel get the straight-to-home-media treatment instead of bringing Chucky back onto the big screen, but it is what it is—Universal Studios’ loss.  Though the ending of the film has a lot to desire, and a bit of a letdown (only because I really didn’t see it going that way), it’s still a lot of fun throughout and shouldn’t be missed if you’re an avid Chucky fan.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

1922

So, this is pretty incredible.  In early September, we get the very impressive It, then Gerald’s Game later that month as a Netflix original movie, now here we are with another Netflix film…Stephen King’s 1922.  Along with the couple of television series and The Dark Tower film adaptation (which I’ve yet to see), 2017 continues to be an excellent year for Stephen King. 

Another impressive aspect of this latest film is the starring actor, Thomas Jane, and his history with Stephen King.  In 2003, he starred in the disappointing Dreamcatcher and in 2007 The Mist.  It’s good to see an actor frequenting Stephen King films as Jane now joins the ranks of Kathy Bates and Jeffrey DeMunn as being featured in multiple outings.

The announcement of 1922 took me by surprise and I had to figure out from what book this movie was adapted.  I was pretty sure it was a short story and was right when I finally discovered it in the Stephen King collection, “Full Dark, No Stars,” published in 2010.  I’ve had it sitting on my bookshelf since I’d purchased it after its release and hadn’t read it since, so I pulled it from my shelf and dove into the first story right away.  It was a lengthy short story—more of a novella—clocking in at 131 pages, but I found myself immersed in it and had a hard time putting it down.  One thing to note, I’m a stickler when it comes to Stephen King films and have to read the book before seeing the movie.

So…just a day before October 20^th, I’d finished the story, being very impressed with it, and waited patiently for the film to be released on Netflix. 

What did I think of 1922?  First, the synopsis...

In the year 1922, a simple yet proud rancher, Wilfred James (Thomas Jane), conspires to murder his wife, Arlette (Molly Parker), for financial gain, convincing his teenage son, Henry (Dylan Schmid), to participate.

The misgivings I’d had with the story, and what made me a little nervous about watching the adaptation, was the few animal deaths described in the book.  My first thought, after reading the details of one of the first animals to die, was about how the film would depict this or if it would be shown at all...or maybe happen off-screen (my preference).  Although filmmakers these days wouldn’t actually film an animal death for the purpose of entertainment—though, in the past, some have done just that (i.e., Cannibal Holocaust, Apocalypse Now)—the realistic special effects that movies display are pretty detailed and hard to accept as fakery.  So I was thinking I may take umbrage with the scenes I’d read in the book if I see them brought to the screen.

However, what I’d been looking forward to was how well the filmmakers were going to show the period that this movie takes place—the 1920s.  The descriptions of the vehicles used by the characters—the Model T, for instance, owned by the main character, Wilfred James—was going to be interesting to see it in the film.

Now, when comparing what I was expecting to see and what I actually did see, this film delivered.  What I had pictured in my head as I’d read the novella had vividly come to life on my television screen as it was presented on Netflix.  The James family farm, the vehicles, the buildings in town, the corn fields…the setting was done perfectly.  Although the cast was stellar and gave great performances, especially Thomas Jane (more on him later), I felt the casting could’ve been done a bit better with a few of the characters.  For example, Sheriff Jones was described as an old man, a little overweight and ready to retire, but still had his wits about him for the job he’d held for so long.  In the film, however, he was a bit younger, played by Brian d’Arcy James, and didn’t have that seasoned look about him as described in the book.

As for Thomas Jane, I’ve always liked him as an actor and felt he brings a sense of levity to any scene he’s featured in.  Even the terrible Dreamcatcher—the first Stephen King adaptation Jane has starred in—was a flick to which he added some depth and brought a character you can relate to and cheer for as he goes through whatever plight he faces.  But Thomas Jane is always himself and never really diverts from his own persona.  Here, in 1922, he completely transformed himself in both his speech patterns and his physical appearance. Gone is his tough guy image as he seemed to have slimmed down for this role, looking very lean and much older than he usually appears.  Also, he must’ve really studied the speech and lingo of midwesterners, as he really passes for a seasoned farmer of the early 20^th century.  If I hadn’t known he was to star in this film, I might’ve thought he was some other actor—Jane is almost unrecognizable here, yet gives a hell of a performance.

Another familiar actor you’ll see in this film is Neal McDonough as Harlan Cotterie.  It was important to feature him as he’s the father of Shannon (Kaitlyn Bernard), girlfriend of Wilfred’s son, Henry.  McDonough doesn’t do much throughout this film until he emotes a bit towards the climax of the film, with his part in 1922 feeling a bit wasted.  But his scenes were needed in this story and that’s how they were written in the book, so his character was adapted as intended.

Zak Hilditch wrote and directed this film, and though he’s no Frank Darabont, the story seems to be depicted like something he’d film.  Hilditch certainly brought this to screen much like the story is presented in the novella, with the narrator, Wilfred James, starting off the story as a written confession in some hotel room.  He also keeps the story moving and gives each situation the characters face a feeling of dread at every turn.

Overal, the point of this story may not be so transparent once you begin watching this.  But by the time the film is done you’ll see that the one bad action the main character commits, results in bad karma, guilt and a domino effect that leads to a bitter end.  It’s a great message and a well-written plot by the great Stephen King.

My final “bit” on 1922?

I really applaud Netflix for taking a chance on these obscure titles by Stephen king, such as 2014's A Good Marriage and this year's Gerald’s Game.  Most major studios won’t gamble on original stories like 1922, choosing instead to churn out remake after remake.  Yes, It was a remake of a television film that should have never been attempted in the first place (though it does have its merits), but King has so many stories that can be developed—it’s a limitless well that can entertain moviegoers until the end of time.  Taking this little-known story from the “Full Dark, No Stars” collection of short stories was ballsy and paid off in spades.  It keeps you captivated throughout, featuring some awesome performances, and will keep you thinking about it long after you watch it.  And if you're a diehard fan of Stephen King, you're going to want to watch 1922.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Gerald's Game

2017 has been a good year for Stephen King.  “The Mist” television series had come and went, The Dark Tower was an idea that should’ve been taken care of more sufficiently, ”Mr. Mercedes” has been going strong on AT&T’s Audience Network, the great It is captivating audiences in theaters (with the second chapter set to be released in 2019), there’s a Netflix original coming up based on King’s short story, “1922,” and an interesting TV series has been announced for 2018 called “Castle Rock.”  Along with his adaptations going strong, King has been killing it with his criticisms of Donald Trump on Twitter, even getting himself blocked by the POTUS, which gives King that much approbation in my opinion.

 

Who’d have thought that Stephen King would still be relevant in today’s bevy of horror films?  Although I think King has heaps of stories that can be easily adapted to the screen, it would have seemed audiences today wouldn’t enjoy the types of stories he has churned out over the years, choosing to see these cheap jump-scare, teenie-bopper flicks.  But It has proven audiences are smarter than that and choose to see something more than a scare fest—they truly do want to see something much deeper and meaningful.

 

With all that said, cinema and network television are not the only forms of media to see these worthy films.  The advent of Netflix Originals is what’s taking the world by storm, rolling out a well-rounded cluster of films and on-going series (which have seasons released all at once).  With already a multitude of Marvel Studios superhero series earning high praise, there have also been some strong docu-dramas and full-length movies receiving the same acclaim.  Continuing that strong current of films is the Stephen King adaptation of his 1992 novel of the same name, Gerald’s Game.

 

Let me synopsize…

 

Trying to rekindle their marriage, Jessie and Gerald Burlingame (Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood) take a drive out to their remote lake house, planning to spend a few days by themselves.  Attempting to spice up their sex life, Gerald decides to handcuff Jessie to their bed frame, but she has second thoughts about it when he gets too far into their role-playing.  However, when Gerald dies unexpectedly of an apparent heart attack, Jessie must fight to survive as she’s still handcuffed to the bed.

 

The announcement of this film took me by surprise a bit, for I hadn’t heard anything about it besides the little tidbit of info a few years ago where some movie article mentioned it might be made into a movie.  Knowing the source material, I really didn’t think it’d make a good movie, maybe even being perceived as boring if filmmakers tried to adapt it.

 

Here in this Netflix film, released on September 29^th of this year, the story is set up well enough, modernizing it for today’s audiences and making it believable for everyone to suspend disbelief.  For instance, would a couple just leave their front door wide open when going inside to start a bit of intimacy?  Maybe, I guess…if you know there isn’t a soul around for miles and miles.  But there aren’t too many other scenes where you’d sit there and say, “I can’t believe that can happen!”  The story gets going right away, with Gugino’s character stuck in her predicament, her husband dead at the foot of the bed, all with her mind playing tricks as she slowly starts to unravel while trying to find a way to save herself.

 

Without giving away too much, I felt the technique of bringing second images of Jessie and Gerald to life as sort of the two sides of her conscience was a lot better than the idea of just having a voiceover to hear her thoughts, which is mainly what you’d read in King’s novel—that works in a book, but not so much in a movie.  Jessie remembering her childhood in the form of flashbacks helped with her character’s development and I found the story interesting as well.

 

With the flashback scenes diving into Jessie’s past, it gave the story added depth as it had with the novel.  It explained Jessie’s weakness in how she’d gotten herself in the situation she was in as well as helping her overcome it.  Additionally, these scenes takes us away from the boring claustrophobic atmosphere some audiences may think of when the story takes place in a small setting the whole time.

 

Director Mike Flanagan does a fine job of helming this feature, as well as presenting it to us as a true adaptation.  Flanagan co-wrote the script with Jeff Howard and did the right thing by not deviating too far from the source material.  In fact, the only variations I’d noticed in the story is the modernization of certain aspects, such as cell phones and the inclusion of Viagra.  Other than that, everything here is taken straight from the book.

 

Back to the dual roles of each main actor, having them play the two sides to Jessie’s conscience really needed two people with great acting chops.  Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood fill those roles perfectly, showing us what the imprisoned Jessie is thinking and planning, as well as giving her ideas on how to cope with her situation in both good and bad ways.  They come across as the angel and devil on Jessie’s shoulders, which was pretty ingenious on the filmmakers’ parts.

 

Although the story isn’t really your typical horror narrative, there’s still an aspect of fear that leads the audience to feel that way.  Not only does our main character have the trepidation of her circumstances, but she also has to contend with a hungry stray dog that keeps showing up to feed (remember, the front door was left wide open) and the hallucination (or existence) of a terrifying visitor called The Moonlight Man (Carel Struycken).  All of this adds to the dreadful atmosphere to give Jessie the need to get out of handcuffs.

 

As a side note, those who get squeamish when viewing gory effects may want to turn away from the screen occasionally—especially during the climax at the lake house.  But—Who knows?—the story may be a life lesson to those who may be stuck in this situation where they find themselves handcuffed to bed posts and need to get themselves out.

 

So…what’s my final “bit” on Gerald’s Game?

 

From start to finish, I was engrossed and taken back to the days when I was reading this book.  The acting from both Gugino and Greenwood were great, giving just the right balance needed between the two.  In fact, it was more understandable on how everything went down than what had transpired in the book, particularly the feelings the characters had for one another.  The night scenes that Gugino’s character had to go through were spooky and a bit terrifying, especially when you put yourself in her situation.  The only part of the film that let me down was the conclusion of the story, which seemed out of place and almost felt like it was tacked on as an afterthought.  But, as a whole, I loved this movie and felt it was worthy to be called a true Stephen King adaptation.  If you’ve got the Netflix streaming service, please take a look at this film—you won’t be disappointed.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.