Die Hard (1988) Review

Time: 132 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence and offensive language
Cast:
Bruce Willis as John McClane
Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber
Alexander Godunov as Karl
Bonnie Bedelia as Holly Gennero-McClane
Director: John McTiernan

Hoping to spend Christmas with his estranged wife, detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) arrives in LA. However, he learns about a hostage situation in an office building and his wife is one of the hostages.

Die Hard is considered one of the greatest action films of all time for very good reason. It is a simple yet effective, and works as well as it does because each of its elements have been so perfectly handled.

First of all, I won’t weigh into the argument or debate about whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie, but I will say that it works as either. Something that was so impressive about the movie was the script. Like a lot of other classic 80s action movies, it does have some very memorable dialogue and one liners, but it is also just structurally very well put together. There’s nothing much complex about the movie, it’s very simple. However it is very well written and has a tight and well paced story, that gradually escalates over time. It draws you in with the simple premise and keeps the momentum throughout the entire run of the movie. There’s a lot of time for build up, character development, and gradual increasing of tension and action. Every plot point in the film is set up in a natural way, and every one of these setups does have their satisfying payoffs. It is also a very contained and relatively small scale movie despite being an iconic action movie. There are large action scenes, some of which contain some explosions, but most of the film is claustrophobic and suspenseful.

The acting is also really good. One of the key aspects that makes Die Hard work as well as it does is the character of John McClane. McClane is very much a regular person caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. He’s very much not invincible here, each of his fights and encounters aren’t easy, most of the time he barely survives. He completely wings it every time and is just improvising as he’s going along. He’s also not a perfect person, he is flawed and combining this with his personality makes him relatable and likable as a protagonist. McClane however wouldn’t have worked without Bruce Willis. His casting at the time was no doubt unusual given that he was mainly known for comedy at the time, but he fits perfectly well in here. He was far from the Schwarzeneggers and Stallones in the 80s and was a different kind of action hero. Willis even nails talking to himself during challenging moments in a way that actually feels natural. It’s easy to see how this character made such an impact on future protagonists in movies, especially with how action heroes leads would be written and portrayed. Alan Rickman is equally as iconic as Hans Gruber, the main villain of the movie as the leader of a group of bank robbers. Despite the group of villains on the whole being rather average, Rickman overcomes this and more than holds his own against Bruce Willis, becoming a perfect counterpart to McClane despite not sharing many scenes with him. As Gruber, he’s menacing, charming and very intelligent, proving to be a difficult obstacle over the course of the movie. Definitely one of the most iconic movie villains, especially in the action genre. There are also other entertaining secondary characters who are also played well, including Bonnie Bedelia and Reginald VelJohnson.

Another key element of Die Hard working as well as it does is John McTiernan’s impeccable direction. First of all, the setting of a large hotel is grand and claustrophobic all at once, providing a great background for the movie and action to take place inside. It is beautifully shot, and the lighting and camera movements are amazing. The action is fantastic too, tense and gripping, and well edited. McTiernan really knows how to build a lot of tension and suspense. Even the special effects are ageless, and for an 80s action movie that’s saying a lot.

Die Hard is an incredibly important movie of the action genre, as well as movies in general, it’s actually hard to talk about it. Every time I come back to this movie it somehow ends up being better than the last time I watched it. If you’ve never seen the first Die Hard, it is definitely well worth a watch.

Advertisement

Akira (1988) Review

Time: 124 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Voice Cast:
Mitsuo Iwata as Shōtarō Kaneda
Nozomu Sasaki as Tetsuo Shima
Mami Koyama as Kei
Taro Ishida as Colonel Shikishima
Mizuho Suzuki as Doctor Ōnishi
Tetsusho Genda as Ryūsaku (Ryu)
Director: Katsuhiro Otomo

Biker Kaneda is confronted by many anti-social elements while trying to help his friend Tetsuo who is involved in a secret government project. Tetsuo’s supernatural persona adds the final twist.

I had been hearing about Akira for a while, with it being one of the most well known anime movies. I decided to check it out, knowing only that it was an anime and that it is incredibly influential. I really didn’t know whether I would like it, partly because I didn’t know what to expect, but also because I was still getting into anime films at this point (with it being the second anime movie I watched). Akira really blew me away on so many levels.

Akira is an incredibly ambitious film which blends so many elements together, including sci-fi, action, and body horror. Immediately something that is present from the start is the setting of the film, with some tangible and rich worldbuilding. The movie is 2 hours long but it packs so much story and worldbuilding in this runtime, and is so energetic that the runtime flies by so quickly. The story itself is engaging and entertaining, it goes in very different directions that you aren’t expecting, and the characters are likable and have charm to them. Something that is worth knowing going in that the movie might be a little hard to understand and follow at times. This is because Akira never stops with the information gives you from the story to the worldbuilding, and there’s a lot of exposition. While I’m not a big fan of heavy exposition shoved at the audience, they did it in a way where I actually didn’t mind it, even if there’s some details I missed on a first viewing. There is so much happening, especially in the third act. The ending escalates to nothing short of insane, that’s the section that the majority of people will be confused by. This movie also has a lot to say with thought provoking and mature themes, touching on religion, police brutality, corruption, military, and more. With regard to any issues I had from a first viewing, the tone could be a little inconsistent, especially with random humour in some serious moments. I didn’t mind the humour for the most part, but sometimes it was a little out of place. Also some of the characterisation could’ve been a little more thorough, there were a number of side characters I didn’t care much for.

Akira is directed by Katsuhiro Otomo, I don’t know of anything else he’s done, but his work on this film is astounding. First of all worth talking about is the animation, and for an anime released back in 1988, it really holds up well. The animation is gorgeous and enthralling to watch. The movements are smooth, and the backgrounds are beautiful. So much care went into every frame, so much detail is provided and its so dense that it can be overwhelming at times. The setting of Neo-Tokyo is characterised so well, creating a city so rich and complex. Everything about the movie is distinctly cyberpunk. The action sequences are thrilling and filled with adrenaline, with very memorable moments. Something I wasn’t expected was for Akira to be as gruesome as it was, it is a brutal movie with some great body horror. There’s also a great use of sound and silence, in fact some significant moments are done without sound. The musical score is memorable and unique too.

Akira is known as a masterpiece by many, and I can see why. It has had a significant impact on anime, cyberpunk, sci-fi, and just film in general. Even if you ignore the impact it’s made, it’s a beautiful animated and thrilling film that’s complex and dense in its story and themes. I wouldn’t say its an easy film to have as a gateway into anime with what it does. However, I do think that it is a must see movie, and one I definitely intend to revisit in the future.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) Review

Time: 88 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Donald Pleasence as Dr. Sam Loomis
Ellie Cornell as Rachel Carruthers
Danielle Harris as Jamie Lloyd
Michael Pataki as Dr. Hoffman
Director: Dwight H. Little

The apparently comatose Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) is being transferred from one hospital to another, but he wakes up when the ambulance crew talk about his surviving niece, Jamie (Danielle Harris). After slaughtering his attendants, Myers sets out to find his one living relative who is, fortunately, being cared for by a kind and resourceful foster sister named Rachel (Ellie Cornell). Meanwhile, the ever-cautious Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) remains on the killer’s path.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch tried to steer the series in a different direction from the previous two movies, and aimed to be the start of an anthology series without Michael Myers. Given the negative response that the movie received however, it was pretty clear that audiences wanted the series to bring back Michael Myers, and the filmmakers gave them what they wanted. For the next movies, it followed on from Halloween 2 with its own direction. I heard some mixed things about just about all of the sequels. I watched 4 and generally it was pretty average as a movie, but it was overall alright.

Laurie Strode from the original films is written off as being dead, which certainly was a questionable way of writing her out of the story. This time the main character who is being hunted down by Michael Myers is Laurie’s 7 year old daughter Jamie. This gives a very different dynamic between protagonist and Myers, as Jamie is way more vulnerable. The plot is a bit contrived, plodding and weak, with mostly boring characters that we are stuck with. Most of the plot doesn’t feel fresh at all, almost like it’s the most basic follow up one could think of for Halloween 2. The suspense and atmosphere from the previous 3 movies are practically non existence, even if the film tries to re-capture that. They reference the explosion at the end of Halloween 2 but don’t really explain how Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis managed to survive that. There were some potential with the new direction of the story, like it was somewhat different to see how the town reacts to Myers being back. There’s also some pretty silly parts to this movie, which at least made it somewhat entertaining. There is this hillbilly mob trying to hunt down Michael Myers, and the dialogue at many points are very goofy. I guess credit where credit is due, the police are slightly more competent, which was refreshing to seen in a Halloween movie. When Loomis comes to them when Myers escapes, they actually listen to what he says. So I guess that’s at least one aspect that the movie subverted. Most of the time thought the plot and scares are predictable. The third act for the most part is pretty underwhelming, especially with the climax. With that being said, the ending is great and one of the best parts of the movie, leaving the series open to take a different direction with the sequels from this point onwards.

The character of Jamie Lloyd is played by Danielle Harris and she’s actually great on her part. She’s not Laurie from the original, but Harris is quite convincing, especially in the chase and intense scenes. Donald Pleasence returns as Dr. Sam Loomis, and like his past two film appearances is one of the best parts of the movie, I’m glad his character survived along with Myers. The movie (and the sequels he appears in I assume) would’ve been worse without him. It’s 10 years later, Loomis is battle scarred, a little unstable and just looks so done, especially when he finds that Michael Myers has escaped yet again. Ellie Cornell also plays Rachel, Jamie’s step-sister, and she was also pretty good in her part. One note about the physical acting of Michael Myers, he does have a bad mask however he also just doesn’t feel the same as the Myers from the from the first movie or even the second movie. From the smaller stature and awkward movements, he feels like someone wearing a Michael Myers costume rather than being him. He’s just not intimidating at all.

The direction from Dwight H. Little is pretty bland, while I wouldn’t quite call it bad, it rather feels like it’s on autopilot. The opening credits actually work quite well, it doesn’t attempt to copy the opening credit sequences from the first two movies with the jack o lantern, and didn’t feature the opening theme. With its simple yet effective shots, it is effectively atmospheric and eerie. The cinematography is unremarkable, although the close up shots does make it stand out from the previous movies. The kills can be gloriously over the top and ludicrous (especially one instance involving a shotgun), but most of the time they are unfortunately rather bland. As previously said, the new mask on Michael Myers looks really bad, and the whole costume in fact looks really bad. What’s worse is that the costume he picked up in the original Halloween movie was just whatever he could find, for whatever reason in 4 he looks for that exact same costume. Early in the movie Myers is wearing bandages and I kind of wish that they stuck with that, even just for it being a different look for him. The chase sequences are rather bland and drawn out, and aren’t really suspenseful, though there was a scene on a rooftop that sort of works. Even the sound effects are pretty weak and cartoonish, particularly the sounds for the gunshots. The score contains similar themes from the original Halloween, although it doesn’t really add much to the suspense, almost like its an obligation or something.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is really a mixed bag. It’s very bland from the story to the direction, and the tension and atmosphere doesn’t work. With that said, there are some moments which are decent, the performances from Harris and Pleasance are solid, and it’s got a great ending. It’s an average slasher flick but if you’re curious enough, check it out for yourself.

My Neighbor Totoro (1988) Review

Time: 86 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Chika Sakamoto as Mei Kusakabe
Noriko Hidaka as Satsuki Kusakabe
Hitoshi Takagi as Totoro
Director: Hayao Miyazaki

Mei and Satsuki shift to a new house to be closer to their mother who is in the hospital. They soon become friends with Totoro, a giant rabbit-like creature who is a spirit.

Having watched and loved Spirited Away, Kiki’s Delivery Service and Princess Mononoke, I had been having great times with the Studio Ghibli movies. Another one of the Ghibli movies that were highlighted was My Neighbor Totoro, naturally I checked it out next. While I don’t quite love it as much as those past movies, it’s still really good.

The premise of My Neighbor Totoro is nice and simple; two little girls move into an old house in the countryside with their father while their mother is recovering at the hospital. Much like Kiki’s Delivery Service, it is rather light on plot as a whole. It was a nice, charming adventure that while being simple, allowed for an otherworldly tale of childhood and imagination to take place. Despite some of the fantastical things that happen in this movie, the human story is really the backbone to all of this. The film shows you the vibrant life of two siblings getting comfortably settled to their brand-new surroundings during this difficult time for them, and them discovering extraordinary things along the way. It does have beautiful animations and creatures that are loveable, but it’s also a serious tale about real children. This is really helped by the fact that the children actually act like real children. It’s a coming of age tale, as well as a statement on the longevity of innocence. You could call it a ‘vibe movie’ in that its just following the main characters and is fairly plotless. As that, it doesn’t work as well for me as say Kiki’s Delivery Service, but still delightful to watch. Miyazaki creates a universe where childhood perspective of the world take over, and it’s not bound by any rules of traditional storytelling. It’s very much pure, peaceful and family friendly, with endearing characters and wholesome moments. The adventures the lead characters are on aren’t quite the same level adventures as say Spirited Away, and there is no massive obstacle to overcome. It’s not a conflicting or tragic story, but is an honest reflection and heartfelt celebration of life and its little adventures. It changes in terms of the plot in the third act, turning from a plot-free movie to a movie that has a real plot and a serious problem for the main characters. I found it alright, though I get if some people found this a bit jarring and out of place. It’s a very short runtime at 90 minutes but never feels rushed, it does have a slow pace that suits the story.

This is the fourth movie I’ve seen from Hayao Miyazaki, and once again his work is spectacular. The animation is breath-taking, with some spectacular and beautiful visuals. The locations in this film are terrific, from the vast and mountainous clouds, the grand and detailed fields, and the small and “haunted” houses. The landscape of rural Japan is a character in and of itself. The animation is also very creative, particularly with the creatures that the lead characters encounter. The fanciful creatures including Totoro are freshly imagined, with the 2D animation truly vivid and striking. The composed score from Joe Hisaishi is marvellous and heartwarming as it is soothing.

My Neighbor Totoro is another solid movie from Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki, with a heartfelt story, endearing characters, and stunning animation. I don’t quite like it as much as the other Ghibli movies I have seen thus far, but I still think that it is quite good. Definitely worth checking out if you haven’t already.

Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1988) Review

Time: 90 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Keanu Reeves as Ted “Theodore” Logan
Alex Winter as Bill S. Preston, Esq.
George Carlin as Rufus
Terry Camilleri as Napoleon Bonaparte
Dan Shor as Billy the Kid
Tony Steedman as Socrates
Rod Loomis as Sigmund Freud
Al Leong as Genghis Khan
Jane Wiedlin as Joan of Arc
Robert V. Barron as Abraham Lincoln
Clifford David as Ludwig van Beethoven
Hal Landon Jr. as Captain Jonathan Logan
Bernie Casey as Mr. Ryan
Director: Stephen Herek

Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are high school buddies starting a band. However, they are about to fail their history class, which means Ted would be sent to military school. They receive help from Rufus (George Carlin), a traveler from a future where their band is the foundation for a perfect society. With the use of Rufus’ time machine, Bill and Ted travel to various points in history, returning with important figures to help them complete their final history presentation.

I watched the first Bill and Ted a long time ago in history class in school, I remember it being quite silly yet fun. With the third movie out this year, I decided to watch the first two movies of the trilogy beforehand. Having seen Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure again, I don’t think it is great or anything, and it definitely has its problems. However it is very entertaining, and a cult classic for sure.

At 90 minutes long, Excellent Adventure is quite fun to watch, it definitely helps that the movie is very fast paced. One of the things that I was guessing going back into this rewatch was that it probably hasn’t aged very well, and for a large part that’s the case. There are some elements that don’t hold up especially today (it’s very much a movie of the 80s), and some of the jokes fall flat. With that said, some of the jokes actually do still work quite well and are funny. In fact some of the jokes are so dumb that they actually kind of work. It is quite a dumb, cheesy and goofy movie, it’s really contrived and is a bit of a mess (some sequences are better than others). However it embraces that, and it’s not really a movie where you focus a lot on the action. It throws all theoretical logic of time travel out the window, and that was to the movie’s benefit for sure. It’s simple, light hearted, enjoyable and a fun time. It was particularly fun watching the historical figures interact with and react to many things in the present.

Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves play titular characters Bill and Ted, and they are pretty much the highlights of the movie, sharing some great onscreen chemistry together. Their characters are kind of dumb but at the same time good intentioned characters, and they are quite endearing and likable. Keanu Reeves is particularly fun as Ted, in his first of many iconic roles. George Carlin also worked in his part as Rufus the time traveller (although wasn’t in the movie that much), as did the actors playing the historical figures that Bill and Ted come across.

Stephen Herek directs this movie, and Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure is very much a movie of the times, that being the late 80s, especially when it comes to the soundtrack and the CGI. The CGI isn’t exactly terrible, just quite dated. Though if you go in expecting that, it’s not really a problem. I will say though that the direction is just fine but it could’ve gone a little further or stand out more than it actually did.

Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure is often known as being one of the all time best (or at least most iconic) 80s comedies for a reason. With a great cast, quotable dialogue, inventive and funny scenarios, it was quite a lot of fun and I’m glad I revisited it. While it is very much dated and isn’t anything beyond decent, I do think it’s worth watching if you haven’t seen it already. Having not seen any of the follow ups to Excellent Adventure as of yet, I’m interested to see how they turned out.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) Review

Time: 163 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Willem Dafoe as Jesus
Harvey Keitel as Judas Iscariot
Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene
Harry Dean Stanton as Saul/Paul of Tarsus
David Bowie as Pontius Pilate
Director: Martin Scorsese

Jesus (Willem Dafoe), a humble Judean carpenter beginning to see that he is the son of God, is drawn into revolutionary action against the Roman occupiers by Judas (Harvey Keitel) — despite his protestations that love, not violence, is the path to salvation. The burden of being the savior of mankind torments Jesus throughout his life, leading him to doubt. As he is put to death on the cross, Jesus is tempted by visions of an ordinary life married to Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey).

I heard about The Last Temptation of Christ for some time, mainly that Martin Scorsese directed it and that it was really controversial when it was released. I really had no clue what to expect going in. I like Willem Dafoe and Harvey Keitel, and of course I’m a fan of Martin Scorsese. However with the story that has already been done many times before, I didn’t really know what Scorsese would really do with it. I really didn’t expect to love it as much as I did, but it really was fantastic.

The Last Temptation of Christ was actually based on a novel of the same name, which in itself was already pretty controversial. There have been plenty of movies about Jesus, so I wondered what would make this one stand out. The film actually begins with a preface that it’s not based on the gospels and not necessarily biblically based, so you should probably know that going in. The thing that immediately got my interest was the more human take on Jesus, he’s even started out not really sure if he’s truly the son of god, and he’s very much a flawed person, like most people are. I can tell that for some people that would be a deal breaker but if anything for me, that’s what got me on board with the movie from the beginning. This whole movie is a character study following him, and I was invested throughout. Then there’s the last 30 minutes to an hour of the movie which was probably the most controversial part to a lot of religious people at the time. For those who don’t know about that section, I won’t reveal it, but it’s not like The Passion of the Christ where it’s from a bunch of endlessly violent scenes (even though this movie does have some violent scenes). It also never feels like it’s being controversial for the sake of controversy. It’s mainly the exploration of Jesus as a human being, and I found that compelling. This is quite a long movie at 2 hours and 40 minutes, so you have to prepare yourself for that. Thankfully I was wrapped up with what was happening, but if you aren’t invested early on, it might be a bit of a chore to get through.

Willem Dafoe as Jesus Christ does seem like an odd casting for many reasons, but I have to say that his performance here as the conflicted Jesus is amongst his best work. He’s the main lead of the movie, and the movie relied heavily on him working, and thankfully he brought this performance to life and really anchors the whole movie. The most prominent supporting actor is Harvey Keitel who plays Judas, and it’s a different portrayal of him than most are used to. Yes, Keitel is playing the only Brooklyn Judas (and he keeps his accent) and with that he seems a little out of place at times, but he acts his part really well. The rest of the cast do well, including Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene, Harry Dean Stanton as Saul/Paul of Tarsus, and David Bowie in a surprise one scene appearance as Pontius Pilate. Now there comes the obvious when it comes to the casting, the Romans sound like Brits and the Hebrews like New Yorkers. While that’s definitely distracting at first, it’s definitely an intentional choice that paid off in the end.

Martin Scorsese directed this excellently as he usually does. For a budget of 7 million dollars, this movie really looks outstanding and still holds up over 3 decades later. The cinematography is stunning, and the production design and costume design is fantastic. Overall on a technical level, it’s really great.

The Last Temptation of Christ is outstanding and one of Martin Scorsese’s finest films. Scorsese’s direction was excellent, the acting was great (particularly Willem Dafoe), and Scorsese’s take on the story is thought provoking and effectively emotional. Even if you’re not interested in religion or the topics, I think there’s a lot that you can appreciate about it, even if it’s just on a technical and acting level. However there’s a compelling story at the heart of it that I’m sure most people can connect with.

Child’s Play (1988) Review

Time: 88 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence and offensive language
Cast:
Alex Vincent as Andy Barclay
Catherine Hicks as Karen Barclay
Chris Sarandon as Detective Mike Norris
Brad Dourif as Charles Lee Ray/Chucky
Director: Tom Holland

Gunned down by Detective Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon), dying murderer Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) uses black magic to put his soul inside a doll named Chucky — which Karen Barclay (Catherine Hicks) then buys for her young son, Andy (Alex Vincent). When Chucky kills Andy’s baby sitter, the boy realizes the doll is alive and tries to warn people, but he’s institutionalized. Now Karen must convince the detective of the murderous doll’s intentions, before Andy becomes Chucky’s next victim.

Although not quite on the level of iconic horror movies like Halloween or The Exorcist, Child’s Play is known as a horror cult classic. With a remake now in cinemas, I decided to revisit my thoughts on the original movie, whether or not I actually decide to watch said remake within the next few weeks. Child’s Play was never a movie I got into when I saw it, not that it’s bad but it’s nothing all that great either. It’s a pretty familiar horror movie that doesn’t produce really any quality scares. It is still watchable though, and Brad Douriff’s Chucky is quite memorable (even if he’s not really that scary).

There’s not a whole lot to say storywise about Child’s Play, so I’ll mostly be talking about the horror aspect. It’s a pretty typical horror/slasher movie with the directions the plot goes, and it doesn’t really do much to subvert. It pretty much is what you’re expecting it to be. With that said, at under an hour and a half, it doesn’t overstay its welcome. While obviously being in scenarios with creepy dolls can be unnerving, I don’t particularly have a phobia of them, but I can tell that this would be a nightmare to those who have them. Even cinematic horror dolls like Annabelle seem to be more scary to me. Maybe it’s just because giving him a human voice made it less scary, especially knowing that in this version of Child’s Play at least, it’s a human inside a doll, who acts very much like a human too (when people aren’t watching of course). All the horror is generated from Chucky himself, and so I never found it scary. Conceptually it all sounds scary, but I don’t find myself feeling that way when I actually watch it.

Brad Douriff is mostly just a voice in this movie, but he does well as Chucky. Even if the movie isn’t all that good, you can see why Chucky still managed to be a bit of a horror icon, and I have a feeling that at least half of it is because of Douriff. I will say that as iconic as Douriff made the character, every time he spoke it made the character less scary, and even a little funny at points. The kid played by Alex Vincent is a typical horror movie kid, not the worst and does the job fine enough, nothing special though. The rest of the cast like Catherine Hicks as the kid’s mother and Chris Sarandon as a detective also perform well enough for what the movie required, but again nothing special. Really no one in the cast is terrible but sort of just does what’s needed and nothing more (aside from Douriff of course).

The direction by Tom Holland (the director, not the actor) was fine. The effects on Chucky to make him work still work today quite well today, even if much of the movie feels dated. The Chucky design holds up well, I’ve seen the remake’s design and it looked a little off to me (and not in a good way), the original’s design is legitimately creepy (until it talks of course). With that said, it is a little silly how freaky of a doll design it’s been given, even before the possession they’re disturbing on their own. Now most horror movies don’t get me very scared but this one never even got a reaction out of me. If anything it was more on the ridiculous and silly side, and I found it very hard to take the movie seriously, and it seemed to be aiming to be more serious.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Child’s Play is terrible, I don’t think I’d even say it’s bad, I just don’t think it’s that good of a movie. It’s quite dated, it’s more likely to produce laughs than actual scares, and you don’t really get much from it by the end. But Chucky himself is pretty good (lack of scares aside) it’s a little entertaining and I didn’t dislike it. It is a sort of horror cult classic, so if you are into horror movies, it’s definitely worth a watch at the very least. I haven’t seen the sequels or the remake yet but I hope I like them a lot more.