If you'll forgive the pun, 'Child's Play 3' is the red-headed stepchild of the original trilogy of films and in some ways it's not hard to see why. The film was written, produced, and released less than a year after the release of 'Child's Play 2' and fatigue had long set in for both the horror audience and the series creator Don Mancini. And while knowing what Mancini had to go through doesn't forgive the film's strong flaws and obvious lower bar from the first two, it's still nowhere near as bad as many viewers would let you believe. While only coming out a year later in 1991, 'Child's Play 3' takes its story six years into the future where young Andy Barclay (Justin Whalin) has now become a young man, emotionally and physically drained after many years of jumping from foster home to foster home. Oh, and being haunted by the memories of an evil living doll doesn't help either. Now, he arrives at Kent Military School as a last ditch effort to get him in shape, only for that familiar red haired devil to creep back into Andy's life.
First, I feel the positives are in order. The setting of a military school is actually different as far as horror scenes go and having an overall gloomy atmosphere, dull and darker color scheme, and the rust and mud covered environment really helps set up that this entry is to be both literally and figuratively darker. And the film is indeed a darker entry than most of the sequels with some of the more brutal death scenes and overall mean-spirited tone to the whole thing, as if Don Mancini was taking his anger at being rushed to create the script on his characters. The 'Child's Play' series would be criticized for being too campy and over the top so why is it that Part 3 gets so much hate? It gives you anything but silly or campy in fact, Chucky is pretty damn vicious here with very little humor other than the occasional horror one-liner.
Even the design of the Chucky doll is more mean looking and overall the puppetry seems advanced despite only a year passing. Now, what misses in 'Child's Play 3'? A lot of it comes down to the writing and some sloppy continuity/general nonsense. One such instance comes at the very end of the film, which seems to be an attempt at topping the previous Toy Factory climax by having Chucky chase a victim around an amusement park. And while an amusement park is a pretty cool climax to fight Chucky, one can only wonder why would an amusement park be built right next to a Military School where there are frequent war games involving the students? Also, you will notice this scene above this paragraph. That rifle Chucky's holding is a paintball marker gun and somehow Chucky defies logic by having them fire live ammunition. Another aspect the script is lacking is a good pace, making this one of the slowest films in the series despite its usual 85 minute run time. Very few people fall by Chucky's hand, and the chases, kills, and overall suspense or action is too far apart for my tastes.
But despite all of its many problems, I still find myself putting 'Child's Play 3' in every now and then and wonder why. Maybe I'm just a die hard fan, maybe it's the climax, or maybe I just have a higher tolerance for bad horror sequels. Whatever it is for myself, for you kind readers I suppose it all comes down to what your idea of a 'bad' sequel really is. Yes, 'Child's Play 3' is rushed beyond believe and was doomed to fail at capturing any magic of the previous two, but it does have some of its own charms and for those seeking a more serious entry, this is one of the darker ones. So do I recommend 'Child's Play 3' for the casual horror fan? Probably not, as you'll likely find too many problems with it or like me find a lot of it boring. For the seasoned horror fan or a Chucky fan, you know there's far worse films out there, and in all fairness I don't think 'Child's Play 3' deserves as much hate as it gets. Its like a half baked sugar cookie: undercooked and raw in the middle but its still sweet and edible.
( C - )
No comments:
Post a Comment