Editorials
Devil’s Advocate: Here’s Why We Should Give the ‘Child’s Play’ Remake a Chance
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.
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.
College kids, strippers and vampires—those were Donald P. Borchers’ only requirements when he approached Richard Wenk about writing and directing a movie for New World Pictures. As requested, Wenk cooked up Vamp (1986), a tailor-made blend of the decade’s teen movie craze as well as its horror boom.
Grim and earnest stories were still very much a part of the ’80s horror landscape, yet Vamp is something of a comedy. One difference between it and, say, Saturday the 14th, though, is the former avoids using schtick. Wenk’s movie proves that horror comedies also don’t have to subtract thrills from their recipes. Of course, it takes a minute before reaching that point; college antics and culture shocks preface this one macabre misadventure.
Vamp‘s initial setup is apt for a typical college-set, sex-driven comedy; to bribe their way into a fraternity house, two pledges (Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler) go looking for some adult entertainment. Without wasting time on any further exposition, the characters embark on an all-in-one-night trip that quickly detours into terror.
To procure their elusive MacGuffin—a stripper willing to gyrate for some frat boys—Keith (Makepeace) and AJ (Rusler), plus a third wheel named Duncan (Gedee Watanabe), trade the safety of their remote college campus for the seediness of some unnamed city. The setting is recognizably L.A. by day, but as soon as night falls, downtown, along with the characters, slips into a kind of surreal universe. Director of photography Elliot Davis gave this early entry on his prolific résumé an unusual yet distinctive look; that Mario Bava-esque, magenta-green lighting is omnipresent, so much so that it’s almost its own character.
Chris Makepeace and Robert Rusler in Vamp
The faint comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s After Hours are merited, although not just because of Vamp’s distinguishing nighttime aesthetic. Save for the primary characters, the supporting roles in Wenk’s movie are also quite colorful and transactional in their behavior. The difference here, though, is the additional urge to ruin Keith and his friends at every turn. Some of that harm is humorous and tolerable enough, whereas the moment Vamp dishes out its first fatality, it’s abundantly clear how this movie qualifies as horror.
Vamp falls into that category of horror movie that reveals its genre with a scream rather than a series of whispers. The opening scene can function as a hint of what lies ahead—things are not at all what they appear to be—but otherwise, Wenk is more than happy to hold off on the horror. When that time does come, though, it catches the viewer off guard. In addition to the pure shock value is that sudden decision to upend the movie’s foremost feature. Or so it would seem.
If afraid of major spoilage, those new to Vamp would be wise to stop reading here. There’s just no skirting around the fact that the central fellowship in this buddy movie hits a serious snag when AJ is killed. That development causes the story to become more of a “long, bad night” journey for Keith and his romantic interest. So while Wenk scores points for subverting expectations, there is also a touch of sadness in his decision. Because if Vamp does anything well, it’s making the characters likable.
Something that comes easily to Vamp—and other teen horror movies from this same era—is its ability to invent young characters worth caring about, or at the very least, are interesting and not so immediately off-putting. More impressive is how Wenk did all this without actually fleshing out those characters. Still and all, Keith and his kind are a grade above cookie-cutter, and in some cases, aren’t completely devoid of growth.
Grace Jones in Vamp
Vamp appeals with an assorted cast of characters. No two are the same, nor are they operating on the same wavelength. The cinematically extroverted AJ, whose actor conveyed charm and vulnerability in near equal amounts, comes alive when he’s at his most undead. Makepeace then makes the chronically cautious Keith a sympathetic fellow, even as he’s more and more affected by the night’s bizarre events. Meanwhile, Duncan is indeed the designated loser of the whole bunch, but Watanabe still manages to humanize him. As a bonus, the role didn’t require him to pull a Long Duk Dong.
As for Dedee Pfeiffer, she is plain adorable as the mysterious After Dark server nicknamed “Amaretto”. She spends all night fixing her dress strap while at the same time trying to get Keith to remember how he knows her. As their offbeat romance grows, it becomes another highlight of this movie. Whether or not Pfeiffer’s character is really a vampire also creates some welcome tension in the story.
Like a lot of its contemporaries, Vamp went on to become a bit of a cult classic. That current status is determined by several factors, but without a doubt, the casting of Grace Jones is the most considerable. The image of her writhing on that unique-looking chair, a Keith Haring original, springs to mind whenever this movie is brought up.
Chris Makepeace, Billy Drago and Paunita Nichols in Vamp
Prior to that first display of unequivocal horror, local vampire queen Katrina (Jones) took to the stage and delivered a strip show like no other. One would expect nothing less from that renowned model and performance artist. By now reports of Jones’ tardiness on set are no secret, yet it’s also hard to deny her commitment to the part of Katrina. It was, in fact, Jones who took charge of her character’s appearance—on top of Haring painting her body and that now-iconic chair, she had Andy Warhol handle her costuming. And not too many actors could seize a room’s attention without saying a single line of dialogue.
In 2022, Vamp received a retrospective novelization from Encyclopocalypse. This literary union of preexisting source material—Wenk’s original screenplay—and new ideas from author Christian Francis amounts to a more comprehensive visit to the After Dark Club. The basic story there is no different than what’s shown on screen; however, Francis gets creative with the characters’ origins and designs, and he enhances a number of key scenes.
The novelization expands on the urban and social decay of the main setting, and supplies a background for the After Dark Club. Sandy Baron’s character, Katrina’s emcee and familiar, is given ample motivation for sticking around; up until the fiery end, he is loyal to his friend and former business partner “Squeak”, who looks like he was “fed through a combine harvester, and left as nothing more than a heap of mangled remains”. Then there is Billy Drago’s character Snow, the leader of a street gang called The Dragons. His reason for menacing Keith and AJ is more altruistic than in the movie; he and his peers act tough to scare off any potential food for the vampires.
Lisa Lyon in Vamp
If not for all the backstories, Francis’ Vamp would be a hell of a lot shorter. Instead, this tie-in read dives into how AJ met Keith—the orphaned Anthony Joseph hailed from a broken home back in Brooklyn—and how their friendship flourished over the years. Keith’s archership is no longer just an assumed part of his entire being; it’s a confidence-building extracurricular for a boy who got picked on before coming into the protection of the new kid in town. These supplemental, in-depth looks at the protagonists, plus their close connection, are maybe unnecessary. The movie already did a fair and concise job of addressing their platonic intimacy without the need for flashbacks and insights, specifically in that scene where AJ lays it all out as he sacrifices himself.
Where the novelization gets off course is its approach to the minor characters. Intermittently backstorying the likes of Katrina’s indentured servants, Seko (Leila Hee Olsen) and Vlad (Brad Logan), ends up disturbing the flow of the writing. Was it absolutely essential that readers know Vlad was the Grand Duke of the House of Romanov, or how Snow’s accomplice Maven (Paunita Nichols) became so dentally challenged? No, not really. However, one’s mileage with these random biographies may vary.
The novelization is a more substantial experience, but for a movie like Vamp, less is more. And as plentiful as they are, it never simply coasts on its campy charms, either. The character work sits comfortably in that realm between cursory and meticulous, the script is sharper than first realized, and Greg Cannom’s vampire makeup is straightforward yet effective. Most of all, the movie didn’t squander its out-of-the-box concept. Richard Wenk made his vision of a “comic nightmare in which just about anything that can go wrong does” come true, and it is very enjoyable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.