Connect with us

Editorials

Devil’s Advocate: Here’s Why We Should Give the ‘Child’s Play’ Remake a Chance

Published

on

On November 9th, 1988, MGM released Child’s Play, a low-budget, high-concept horror film from a relatively unknown writer and a rising genre director. Nobody could have anticipated that this apparent B-Picture, and, more specifically, it’s pint-sized antagonist, would soon be plunged into the zeitgeist-remaining there for more than three decades.

Chucky, the aforementioned villain, is one of the rare characters that is legitimately more well-known than the movie that launched him. My fascination (read: obsession) with the character began when my age was in the single digits, and I distinctly remember owning(and having my parents confiscate) a Bride of Chucky doll while in elementary school. So, before I get into this, it’s worth noting that I’m more than just a passive fan-Child’s Play and Nightmare on Elm Street are my two favorite franchises, staples of my childhood. I’ve even cherished the memory of seeing Seed of Chucky at the Sunrise Multiplex, the only theater in Long Island irresponsible enough to let a 12-year-old see an R-rated slasher movie.

All this to emphasize, what I’m saying comes with immense respect for Don Mancini, David Kirschner, Tom Holland, Brad Dourif, and everyone who worked to make this series what it is.

A few weeks back, Orion announced they were rebooting the franchise, unfortunately without the input of the original creators, or their blessing. While I was bummed by the news that Mancini wouldn’t be involved, I was thrilled at the opportunity for a new theatrical addition to this beloved franchise. Now we’d maybe even have two franchises, a probably more straightforward horror one for broad audiences, and the edgier, more satirical installments Mancini has been making for Universal-seems like an obvious win-win for fans, right?

What ensued was an intense, angry cavalcade of attacks from fans, filmmakers, and journalists. I came of age at a time when awful remakes were a seemingly weekly occurrence, and I too expressed a fair share of frustration at the occasional CW-starring PG-13 slasher, but this bout of outrage struck me as deeply off the mark. Perhaps it also struck a cord personally, as I myself had recently experienced something somewhat similar, albeit on a smaller level.

In 2015, my partner and I announced that we had started production on a sequel to our 2013 hit Contracted, with a new writer & director. We had tried to make it work with the original filmmaker, but unfortunately couldn’t agree on a deal that would simultaneously please all parties and get the movie made properly. We agreed to separate on what I thought were good terms, mutually articulating that there were no hard feelings.

Then the first tweets arrived.

Allegations of us somehow acting corruptly by trying to continue a franchise we owned poured down on us, one notable journalist even called the movie a terrible idea-before even seeing a frame (as somewhat of a happy ending, he ended up removing the post, and giving the film a positive review upon release).

Now, I’m grateful every day that it’s my job to make the kinds of movies I grew up devouring, and I get that these may seem like first world problems-but getting attacked, shamed, and discredited publicly for doing your job is no cake walk. All the more so when you want to do it well. I think if nothing else, that sobering experience gave me the requisite empathy to make the following case:

Give the Child’s Play reboot a chance.

I know we all love Don Mancini and Brad Dourif, I also get that there’s an urge to join the echo chamber, to have fans and creators like our posts and rally together-but it’s not only unfair, it’s ultimately illogical. Let’s analyze each argument against the project, and see if holds up under scrutiny:


1. We don’t need a Child’s Play reboot, the original franchise is still going strong.

Cult of Chucky Chucky Brigade

By any metric, this appears to be hyperbolic at best. Yes, Don Mancini and David Kirschner continue to make sequels (one of the highlights of premiering Contracted at FrightFest was getting to attend the Cult of Chucky premiere), but a series of straight-to-video installments is hardly going strong. For example, I don’t think any of us would make the same argument for the Wrong Turn franchise.

We may love these sequels, but most of the country has no idea they exist, nor can they see them the way movies should be seen in a crowded theater.

Each of these installments are pushed forward by a combination of passion from Mancini/Kirschner and apparent indifference by NBCUniversal, with budgets that will no doubt dip lower and lower as the bottom continues to fall out from DVD.

Besides, are we really upset that we’ll have two Chucky franchises? Of course, there is the argument that…


2. …if Child’s Play bombs, it will kill the Universal Chucky series.

The logic here doesn’t really make sense. Think about it, if the theatrical Child’s Play movie doesn’t perform, it will prove that there isn’t an appetite for these movies theatrically…

…which is something Universal clearly already knows, as they – wait for it…already send these movies straight to video.

Obviously they don’t have the confidence that these movies would play in wide release, otherwise, they would go for that option. All Child’s Play underperforming will do is reinforce that premise, but if the DVD/Streaming Licenses continue to be strong, why would they stop making them?

Let’s look at the flip side:

If Child’s Play is a hit, that could inspire Universal to take a shot at doing a theatrical Chucky of their own, with a proper budget for Mancini.

Imagine a world where we had two Chucky franchises playing theatrically, with opposing styles and tones, two bizarro slasher franchises. Not to mention that horror doing well theatrically is good for everybody.

Now, I know Mancini has been less than enthused about this reboot, which is the most difficult point to tear down…


3. Don Mancini & Co. DO NOT APPROVE

Don Mancini famously did not give his blessing for this movie, and that is a much trickier pill to swallow. I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Don a bit, and I can’t begin to comment on what it feels like to watch your own character used without your consent, but-

It was going to happen eventually, and at least now it’s being done by people who seem to care.

Again, as someone who works in this business, Universal was inevitably going to at some point stop making Video sequels, and Orion was obviously going to exploit their property. Having said that, instead of hiring the nearest hack they could find for a lazy cash-grab, I’d argue they’ve tried to put together the best possible team for what is a tricky task by any measure.

The production company on this, KatzSmith, should be familiar to genre fans. It’s the team that helped bring you last year’s IT, another movie that had a tremendous amount working against it, and managed to surprise and thrive against the odds. The team at KatzSmith is made up of real fans who care, and it’s been reported that Mancini’s blessing was pursued, even if he ultimately wouldn’t give it. Despite that, the movie was still going to get made, and I have a fair amount of confidence that if anyone can make it work-it’s these guys.

Let’s even look at the cast they’ve put together-these aren’t hacky teen television actors, but respectable, interesting choices. Aubrey Plaza in a horror movie? That doesn’t sound like a cheap cash-in to me, that sounds like people trying to do something different and subversive, to really painstakingly resurrect the franchise, to do their own thing on familiar ground.

I get the impulse to ask well, why couldn’t they just wait until Mancini threw in the towel on his franchise-but that isn’t really how this business works. Things tend to be a perfect storm, Orion might not be able to make it in a few years, KatzSmith may not be available, etc-things all come together at a certain time, and you take opportunities as they come. I know some of the folks at Orion-they want to make a good movie too. Here’s another little secret about Hollywood:

Most people want to make good movies.

Most people aren’t soulless hacks, they came here because they love(or, in some cases-think they love) all the same stuff we do, Yes, sometimes people are incompetent or misguided-but I don’t think that’s the case here. I think this is a group of dedicated people trying to do the best job they can under less-than-ideal circumstances, trying to pay homage to a story and character they adore while half the film-web rails against them.

When Orion releases Child’s Play in 2019, I plan on watching it with an open mind. I hope you’ll consider doing the same thing.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading