Welcome to “Revenge of the Remakes!” Columnist Matt Donato’s journey through the world of horror remakes. We all complain about Hollywood’s lack of originality whenever studios announce new remakes, reboots, and reimaginings, but the reality? Far more positive examples of refurbished classics and updated legacies exist than you’re willing to remember (or admit). The good, the bad, the unnecessary – Matt’s recounting them all.

This month’s release of Child’s Play tees up a perfect “Revenge Of The Remakes” tie-in (you’re welcome for that sweet SEO cash-in, Bloody Disgusting). Full disclosure: early news of the reboot rubbed me all the wrong ways (with sandpaper, against the grain). Every detail about Don Mancini’s absence, the possibility of diluting viewership between two Chucky projects (Lars Klevberg’s “remake” vs. Mancini’s in-production television show), the grand question of rebooting a horror franchise that’s very much still alive – it all felt, dirty.

So now here we are, after proverbial dust has settled, to discuss the merits of MGM’s newly packaged Child’s Play franchise.

The Approach

Lars Klevberg’s Child’s Play, scripted by Tyler Burton Smith, does what any worthwhile “remake” or “reboot” should. I say this as a vocal appreciator of Don Mancini’s ongoing voodoo canon. Given how Mancini is deep in production on SYFY’s forthcoming episodic continuation with (at least) Brad Dourif involved, AND knowing Mancini’s Chucky has avoided irrelevance for over thirty consecutive years, MGM’s remake reprograms Chucky for a new A.I. beginning. Based on approach alone, 2019’s Child’s Play does well to reconfigure “Chucky 2.0” as an “upgraded” playtime maniac. Respect heritage, honor innovation.

Klevberg’s Chucky has nothing to do with a notorious “Lakeshore Strangler”. Gone are “Damballa” chants, ceremonial daggers, and John Bishop aka Doctor Death. Smith’s screenplay swaps out “Good Guys” for Kaslan’s “Buddi” line, strips the mysticism of soul-swapping for a disgruntled factory worker’s microchip tampering, and reanimates Chucky as a walking Siri or Alexa who learns through technological development. Chucky is a walking, parroting smart device with every coded safety precaution removed who “lives” to please his “Best Friend,” still Andy Barclay (played by Gabriel Bateman).

Long story short: Mark Hamill voices a new robotic Chucky doll wired to serve, taught to kill (by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2), and failed by humanity thanks to our enjoyment of morbid entertainment and prejudice against outsiders.

Does It Work?

Child’s Play (2019) distances itself farther from Mancini’s ongoing work than demonic forces from holy water. You can’t accuse Klevberg of copycat syndrome, as “Chucky 2.0” only bares the same ginger-haired, denim overall’ed resemblance. Otherwise, Chucky’s motivations are streamlined: kill anyone who gets in the way of playtime with Andy. “Buddi Chucky” looks more like a Henson Muppet or Jeff Dunham prop come to life than humanized Cabbage Patch madman, with less menace in his eyes. Maybe it could have used more fleshing out, but Chucky 2.0’s backstory at least dares to be different.

Some of my favorite material in Klevberg’s Child’s Play occurs during the film’s first buddy-mentor act when Andy is nurturing Chucky’s personality. Chucky doesn’t flip from “Good” to “Evil,” he’s just freed of all protocols to prevent A.I. violence. There exists, surprisingly, poignant commentary on Chucky being a product of humankind’s worst impulses in his absorbent “learning” phase, punished and locked away for wanting to be loved by Andy. That “Sad Chucky” face he makes after closeted time out after…um…dealing with Andy’s stepfather issue? It’s so pure, like a pouty labrador who doesn’t understand why you don’t appreciate the present he/she just brought inside (it’s a dead bird, but a dead bird just for you).

Again, Child’s Play (2019) works in the sense that we get this Mr. Robot version of Chucky who can control any Cloud-connected Kaslan products (Kaslan smart lights, smart drones, other Buddi V.2 dolls). Klevberg dives into creative waters washed clean of Mancini’s original, be that a positive or negative to fans. There’s nothing to compare here. This summer’s Child’s Play slashes to the beat of its own synthetic drum, and at least *attempts* to do something singularly branded.

The Result

Here’s the other thing about making a Child’s Play movie that strips Chucky of Mancini’s iconic essence: why did this even have to be a Chucky movie? Granted, that’s a rhetorical question. Klevberg’s Child’s Play remake is a Child’s Play remake because, well, marketing. It’s not that Smith’s script is so far from what Child’s Play could have been at one time, but it’s more how Child’s Play could have been the start of a new A.I. horror franchise rooted in distinguishable originality. Repurposing Chucky’s name brings with it hordes of Mancini stans, but it also assures superfans will be sharpening their “Why Child’s Play 2019 Is Worse Than Mancini’s” takes.

The result, to Kelvberg’s credit, is a Child’s Play film that hobbles by on its own horror-comedy merits. At the same time, it’s a Child’s Play film that opens the door to cross-comparisons and scathing rants combating the “needlessness” of “Variant Chucky.” At a time when cinema fans still hunger for originality, creating an A.I. “smart murderer” promotes new beginnings and changing tides. Without Child’s Play hype and Child’s Play branding, there’s no devotion to Child’s Play fans. There’s also no inherited fanbase, so catch-22 and all.

The *actual* result of Klevberg’s Child’s Play is a tonally ambivalent slasher flick that gets gory-nasty, ravenously mutilates its male victims, but misunderstands what makes Mancini’s original so magical. I’m in the minority here, but Chucky 2.0’s mechanical rigidness isn’t scary nor executed cleanly. Puppeteering struggles to match mouthed words and Hamill’s line readings, while ranges of motion are disappointingly limited. Then, where Mancini’s Chucky would be portrayed by actors such as Ed Gale when Chucky could move freely from afar, Klevberg opts for pixelated visual effects. Lackluster pixelated visual effects, mind you. In playing the inevitable “Chucky vs. Chucky” game, Chucky 2.0 is a chump competitor.

Ronny Yu’s Bride Of Chucky proves horror comedies can still be scary, as Chucky exudes Frankenstein’ed menace even when Tiff is hurling dishes and ranting about Martha Stewart. Klevberg’s Child’s Play is a horror comedy devoid of horror, and an unbalanced example at that. Genre elements involve lawnmowers scalping cheating fathers or circular saws dismembering limbs, but Chucky 2.0 is never the villain Charles Lee Ray has become. My problems with 2019’s Child’s Play aren’t that it’s remaking one of horror’s most recognizable stitched-up faces, or that it’s “ruining childhoods.” My disinterest unfavorably highlights technical filmmaking execution, despite Bear McCreary’s outstanding “toy orchestra” score and some warming digital color hues projected by cinematography.

Then again, one man’s jerky A.I. slasher flick slathered in gore is another’s good-time midnight romp. What turns me off about Chucky’s look and stagnant energy brings others joy, as dictated by the almighty Tomatometer. In any case, fault a film for not living up to standards of quality – not for merely existing as a remake. That, alone, is no sin. Without Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead, we’d never herald Fede Alvarez’s ceremoniously excellent Evil Dead remake. Child’s Play is one of those films I celebrate in terms of showcasing how remakes can necessitate themselves (despite my overall negative review).

The Lesson

Here are my most valuable “remake” takeaways from Lars Klevberg’s Child’s Play, in listed format because Chucky’s “rebirth” exemplifies a few major points worth discussing.

• DIFFERENTIATE! Reinvention is what remakes and reboots should be all about, which is precisely what Klevberg and his screenwriter set out to achieve. In a perfect world, “Chucky 2.0” and Mancini’s Chucky can coexist without stealing viewership away from each other. One a supernatural “America’s Most Wanted” legend, the other this glowy-fingered E.T. dummy who can command Kaslan products like his own digitized puppet master. Same name, same fashion sense, but *markedly* different variations worth exploring.
• Understand that while capturing a franchise’s fanbase grants you immediate eyes, it also brings nostalgia guardians ready to pick your films apart. Had this not been a Child’s Play redo, I’d dare venture some tunes would change based on vocal naysayers who refuse to accept “Chucky 2.0” as their Chucky.
• A follow-up on #2: COMMIT. Know that you’ll be pushing away specific audiences by taking an existing property and flipping the script, but that’s par for the course. Make us believe your take is worthwhile enough and it will be! Might sound like some motivational self-help garble but it’s true. Does anyone want to see filmmakers lift existing films page-for-page with a new cast (*cough* Cabin Fever *cough*, but we’ll get there)?
• Seriously – DIFFERENTIATE! Creatively, “killer toys” can be interpreted in many different ways. We’ve seen Mancini’s vision, he’s evolved and reshaped said arc, and continues to captain that unfazed vessel. Klevberg’s Chucky offers an alternate take, fresh ideas, and something different for Child’s Play fans to chew.

I may not enjoy Child’s Play (2019) as a cinematic product, but as a remake, this is how you justify studio desires to “revive” existing properties while still retaining ambitious intentions worth addressing through a new lens. I cannot chastise Lars Klevberg and Tyler Burton Smith, and applaud their outward efforts to embrace rubberized new doll smells. I’ll only hold a grudge for teasing “Christmas Horror” themes in the film’s first trailer, later to reveal the holly-jolly decorations are a one-bit lazy joke. In the Book of Donato, First Letter from Matt to the Jingle Boys, there’s no greater sin than promising “Christmas Horror” and not delivering.