Puppet Master II (1991)

1991
Directed by Dave Allen
Starring Elizabeth Maclellan, Collin Bernsen, Gregory Webb and Charlie "Tits McGee" Spradling

One killer doll movie deserves another, I guess.  A long, long time ago, I inducted the original, old-school Charles Band micro-budget classic Puppet Master into the IHR, but it's been literally years since I've even thought about any of the sequels.  And folks, this fact really confounds me.  There was a period of time where this was my FAVORITE horror series.  Then again, this was also during high school, when I also thought that Freddie Prinze Jr. was going to be a superstar actor of the highest caliber.  Sometimes, the Lick Ness Monster accuracy rate is decidedly less than stellar.

Don't get me wrong - Puppet Master is a fun series, but it's MILES away from being anywhere near my favorite horror series these days.  The first one is a legit good movie that manages to take the "killer doll" movie trope and throw the twist in that the weaponified killers were probably the GOOD guys.  Don't ask.  I'll do my best to explain later.  A couple of the sequels (Parts III and VI, a.k.a. Curse of the Puppet Master) are also pretty worthwhile in their own right.  This flick, released on video store shelves via the amazing Full Moon Features direct-to-video empire in 1991, falls somewhere in the middle.

The first thing you should know about the movie is that it picks up almost RIGHT after the first one ends, so seeing that movie is imperative.  In it, we were treated to the admittedly low-budget but very fun action at the Bodega Bay Inn, a place where Andre Toulon - a man hiding from Nazi officials in the 1940s - mastered the art of transplanting souls into inanimate objects.  Three guesses as to what happened from there.  You'd never guess that a group of psychics would descend upon said hotel and that the vast majority of them would be sleazy bilkers trying to use the hotel for monetary gain and that the majority of the dolls' killings would be cheered by the audience.  Well, the psychics are gone and the dolls are back for this go-round, and they re-unite their dead master Toulon before the opening credits can even roll.

The victim characters in this film aren't quite as interesting as they were in the first movie.  This time, we're blessed with one of those pre-TAPS groups of paranormal researchers who have heard about all of the shenanigans and goings-on at Bodega Bay and want a piece of the action, even going so far as to stay overnights at said hotel where tons of violent unsolved murders took place.  Critics of horror movies who say that its characters are stupid have plenty of ammunition here.  Our star character is Carolyn Bramwell (Maclellan), established as our lead by the amount of time the camera is focused on her.  Also along for the ride is the movie's resident beefcake couple, Lance (Jeff Weston) and Wanda (Spradling, whose nude scene in this movie used to get me through some lonely nights), as well as Camille (Nita Talbot), who gets kidnapped midway through the movie by the resident army of still-cool puppets.

Dave Allen, the guy who did the special effects for the first movie, is the director this time around.  It shows in the puppet effects.  For the time period, this stuff was actually pretty cutting edge.  For a $780,000 budget, it was downright high-tech.  They're still brought to life mainly with the art of stop-motion photography.  In the first film, sometimes it looked like they were warping across the room at something akin to light speed.  For my money, Blade is still the coolest of them, although the new addition in this film - Torch - has his share of cool moments.  Unfortunately, most of his stuff occurs during a damn-near suicidal sequence in the middle of the film with an old couple living in the nearby wilderness.

Anyway, what we have here storyline wise is a kind of twist on Beauty and the Beast, with a mysterious stranger wrapped entirely in bandages showing up at the mansion midway through the movie.  This stranger, of course, is the reanimated Toulon in disguise, and he sees Carolyn as a reincarnated version of his own deceased wife.  Since Carolyn is in the process of getting romanced and eventually banged - well - by a fellow paranormal researcher, you can imagine how well this is going for the poor mummy's psyche.  All of it builds toward a finale in the mansion with Toulon attempting to transmogrify souls into two life-sized mannequins.  Note to all horror and action movie villains: any plan where the final step is horribly comlicated, i.e. the magical formula will only be activated at a certain time of day or at a moment of total eclipse, is destined for failure. 

The cool stuff in this movie has already been spelled out.  A decent plot, a good, solidly unnerving villain in Toulon (who would undergo a pretty baffling babyface turn in the further sequels), Charlie Spradling's breasts...there's plenty to like about this movie.  I know that I've thrown out this complaint with other movies, but it goes doubly for the Puppet Master series.  When they drag...they really, really, really drag.  When I can't come up with any compelling metaphor for the level of draggage that these movies manage to achieve, you know it's bad.  Long bits of scientific mumbo jumbo that serve no purpose other than to pad the movie's length, the endless bit with the aforementioned old couple, a couple monologues by Toulon...I think you get the idea.

What else is there to share?  Not much.  The movie delivers the goods on its intended level, as do the vast majority of movies that Charles Band produced during this time period.  It's a pretty damn good movie to watch if you're half-awake, as its just dark and atmospheric enough to keep you awake but intermittently boring enough to keep you in a terminally zombie state.  What?

** 1/2 out of ****.  Not as good as the first, and a black sheep in the series in many regards, but still worth checking out.

Child's Play (1988)

1988
Directed by Tom Holland
Starring Catherine Hicks, Alex Vincent, Chris Sarandon and Brad Dourif

Add this one to the "I can't believe I haven't reviewed this movie yet" file.  Child's Play is one of those movies that it seems like damn near just about everyone has seen an interation of - either this original flick or one of the many sequels, all of which are always crop up in the regular rotation of October AMC fare.  If you grew up in the early '90s like me, watching Chucky films were virtually a rite of passage; much like HBO's Tales From the Crypt, watching one of these films granted you a cool card for the upcoming school day. 

Released in 1988, the movie was nothing short of a gargantuan hit for United Artists, grossing more than $44 million off of an initial $9 million investment and prompting a long series of sequels that continues to this day.  Now, before we get started, I'll wholeheartedly admit that I'm well aware of the criticisms that I've read of these movies online.  That the villain is lame, that nobody would ever take Chucky seriously as a villain, and that all you'd have to do is kick the damn thing.  All valid criticisms, mind you.  It really doesn't matter all that much, because the presence of Brad Dourif as the voice of Chucky in this movie trumps all of that.  To this reporter, anyway.  When this guy drops the word "fuck," it was as much of a crowd-pleasing moment to the eight-year-old version of me as Motley Crue's "Smokin' in the Boys Room" was.  Stand up and cheer, kids.  Such is this guy's ability to project bad intent with his mere voice that he actually manages to sell the threat of the stupid Good Guys doll as a menacing presence.  With that, the movie.

It is my belief that Don Mancini, the scriptwriter here and the guy who would direct (I believe) every sequel, knew that his laugh-worthy premise would have lasting appeal when he crafted the origin story for Chucky, because this origin story ranks right up there with Jason and Freddy in the eyes of this reporter.  Meet vicious serial killer Charles Lee Ray, played in human form by Dourif, chased into a toy store by the police.  It isn't long before he is shot and nearly killed, and, again, it isn't long before he unleashes the now-trademark voodoo incantation (that I can still recite from memory, by the way) that transmits his soul into the nearby Good Guys doll.  It is also worth noting that the cop who shoots him is played by Chris Sarandon.  So +10 points to the movie there.

In a move that won't surprise any horror fan or anyone reading this review, the doll is soon snatched up by Karen Barclay (Catherine Hicks, who was smokin' hot here and later went on to marry make-up artist Kevin Yagher), single mother desperate to find a cheap copy of the Good Guys doll for her son Andy (Alex Vincent, who actually does a very good acting job considering his age here).  Both characters are fleshed out pretty well, with Hicks projecting as a hard-working mother and Vincent doing his best in the precocious kid moments. 

A good portion of the middle of this movie falls into the "build suspense" M.O. that sadly is missing from a lot of modern horror films.  Much of the time, we're looking at Chucky putting on his best poker face, doing little other than standing still in Andy's arms.  We see him spring to life on a couple occasions during death scenes; the best of these bits occur during Chucky's battles with Andy's babysitter, who does her best to come between Chucky's attempt to find a new human vehicle for his soul.  Granting the movie some bouts of melodrama, the authorities blame Andy for the deaths, and seem to be looking at Karen as an even bigger nutjob for supporting her son throughout all this.  As such, the movie is firmly in the "three act structure" camp of films that I've grown to love so much since it seems to be so rare these days, making this also - by far - the most conventional horror film in this entire series.  First act, establish threat.  Second, build suspense.  Third, all shit hits the fan.  I love it.

Everything in this movie builds up to Karen finding out the true identity of Chucky.  The scene where she does this, almost ready to throw the doll into a fireplace, is one of the best-executed jump scares in movie history.  It really is something that Dourif's movies boast two of the best couch jumpers in motion picture history (the other being Exorcist III - youtube it).  These attributes, combined with the acting, make this movie worth watching, even as it occasionally sheds into dopey territory.

Make no mistake, there are some things and moments in Child's Play that WILL make you shake your head.  The people online who gripe about a doll being so damn badass are correct, something made even more clear here since the Chucky animatronics/stop-motion photography hadn't quite come along yet.  The logistics of how this dude is able to get around so well is also something admittedly headscratching - at times, it seems as if he's moving around at light speed, especially in the third act chase-and-slash scenes.  There are also some issues with pacing, as the middle sections get to be a little "choppy" in the mixing and matching between Andy's melodrama, suspense, and the sporadic kill scenes.

All of the above would be fatal sins for any other movie, but it doesn't make a difference here.  Folks, Brad Dourif in all of his sadistic, evil-laughing glory covers up a multitude of sins, and it's his presence that carries this movie from the Z-grade aisle and made this the launching point of a franchise.  That, combined with some good invention by Mancini from the screenwriting end, make this worth watching, no matter how much head-nodding is required to make it through.

*** out of ****.  A minor classic, check it out.

Watchers II (1990)

1990
Directed by Thierry Notz
Starring Marc Singer, Tracy Scoggins, Timothy Marlowe, Jonathan Farwell and Irene Miracle

A few months back, I reviewed the original Watchers, the Corey Haim-ified 1988 adaptation of Dean Koontz' rip-roaring book of the same name.  Reaction to it was, by and large, was pretty damn awful.  Most of the complaints seemed to stem from two things.  One, it just wasn't all that much like the novel.  Two, it starred Corey Haim.  Really, I've never seen what is so bad about it.  If you're judging it based on the merits of whether or not it stuck to the source material, yeah, it was indeed the ultimate failure.  As a fourth grader watching it, though, none of that stuff mattered, as it was a movie with some nifty gore effects and Corey Haim.  Yeah, I was a mark for Corey Haim, but that admission doesn't mean much.  My coolness card expired long ago, anyway.

So...Watchers II.  Released a mere two years after the original, it really isn't a "sequel" in the true definition of the word rather than a complete, total redux.  Set free on video store shelves in 1990 (theatrical? not hardly), this Roger Corman-produced flick frequently gets compliments for being more faithful to the source novel than the original, which is something that continues to befuddle me to this day.  Does it have older lead characters like the book?  Yeah.  But that's about it.  It's also got a much flatter, dingier look and a MUCH more ridiculous, rubbery-looking monster.  With that, let's get to it.

For the uninitiated, the standard Watchers formula is as follows: the government has created two genetically-engineered animal weapons.  One is a vicious, murderous baboon, the other an angelic golden retriever.  Both have super intelligence.  They share a psychic link, and the baboon really, really hates the dog and wants to see it dead.  This movie doesn't deviate too far from that formula, with the exception of making its main hero Paul Ferguson (Singer, who does a decent enough acting job given the material) a military man at all sorts of odds with his employers.  When both of the animals escape (in a pretty damn ludicrous plot by The Government involving letting some animal rights activists into their facility to cause havoc, because you know that's going to end well), Paul finds himself with a new pet and hunted by the far more homicidal, far less cute beast.  I will give it to Dean Koontz here - this plot device, with a homicidal-inclined genetic super baboon being able to psychically track a dog and his human companion leaving breadcrumbs of death scenes in its wake, was a stroke of genius that rivals anything Stephen King has come up with, and it's a concept that is interesting no matter how rough the execution can be.  More on that later.

Now for some more of the movie's good stuff.  Much like the original, this movie has some fun with the dog's super smarts in the sequences where Singer gradually discovers just what the hell he is dealing with - they're actually some of the best bits of the film.  Insert your own Beastmaster jokes here when it comes to this guy bonding with his furry costars.  Along the way, he reunites the dog with its trainer at the facility (Scoggins, who is still red hot no matter how much the costume designers tried to nerdify her with the standard "thick glasses" treatment for this movie), and the two of them wind up on the run not only from the creature but from the authorities, who are pinning all of the monster's killings on Paul.  Screenwriters of the world, take note.  Stakes are important, and this flick has loads of it.

That's the good news when it comes to Watchers II, as it has a human side peppered in between some admittedly cool death scenes.  Unfortunately, it's also got a much less interesting group of supporting characters than the original.  That movie had Michael Ironside as this kind of ruthless government hitman given added menace by the fact that, well, he's Michael Ironside.  This time around, we've only got the shadowy government scientist (Farwell) responsible for this whole mess doing his best to track down both animals.  The character is a BIG step down from the slimy douches that we grew to know and loathe in the original film. 

In addition to that, this movie was filmed on the cheap, and it shows.  Now, a movie's budget is never a reason to see it.  Hell, these days I would MUCH rather spend money on a film with a sub-$1 million budget than anything the major studios churn out.  This movie, though, is cheap, and looks it - particularly the monster.  He may not have been a Stan Winston-esque creation in the first film, but it was Bruce the Shark compared to what we're given here.  Namely, a very, very phony-looking bigfoot creation filmed almost entirely in shadow to disguise the fact that the construction of the costume was indeed so crappy.  It isn't scary at all, and it's exacerbated by the very flat direction from Thierry Notz.  He seemed to be going for a dark, dank motif, kind of similar to what Joseph Zito did with Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter.  Here, it just makes the film look INCREDIBLY second-rate, especially in the film's finale sequence done in the big city streets and tunnels.

I think that about covers it.  Watchers II, just like the original film and the book that both movies are based on, has a killer concept and a couple of fairly likable lead characters.  Both Singer and Scoggins really dig into their roles and do an excellent job getting you on their sides.  The problem is that the human villains come off as cartoon characters, and the nonhuman villain is even more of one.  Oh, and it's got a middle section that REALLY drags.  You've been warned.

** out of ****.  Worth a watch if you catch it on SyFy one lonely Saturday afternoon, which is exactly how I watched it.  Otherwise, avoid.