Alternate Futures are what we make of them

 TERMINATOR: DARK FATE (2019)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When I head there was yet another "Terminator" sequel headed to cinemas, I thought that the sci-fi thriller series had to eventually lose steam, right? How many more times will terminators be sent from the future to kill someone related to Sarah Connor? There may not be any limits because "Terminator 3" was fitfully exciting and "Terminator Genysis" found some new wrinkles that still made it watchable even though they came up short next to the masterful, towering achievement that was "Terminator 2" - still the very best sequel and a great movie in its own right. Still, I am a fan of the "Terminator" mythology so when word came out that Sarah Connor was not only returning but that she would be played by the original actress, Linda Hamilton, I felt something was clicking and they might come up with a good, time-twisting story. In many ways, "Dark Fate" might be the same-old, same-old but it is so deeply impactful in its own right because the characters rise above the machines and the wow factor of tremendous, eye-filling, thunderous action scenes. "Dark Fate" is the true sequel to the original "Terminators" according to James Cameron (who said the same thing about "Genysis" but never mind) - this is the titanic movie sequel I've been waiting for. Holy cinematic hell, this "Terminator" movie is a blast of cyberkinetic thrills and characters of emotional heft whose future is on hold.

This time, we got an advanced liquid metallic terminator known as the Rev-9 that can split into two separate cyborgs, the other is its cyborg endoskeleton. We got a female half-human, half robotic (or augmented) future soldier of a different resistance, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) who travels through time to save and protect a young Mexico City woman. Oh, wait, there has to be more to this right? Naturally, the return of the one and only Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton, tough-as-nails and hard-bitten) whose mission is to track down terminators and destroy them. Wait a minute, and we also got Arnold Schwarzenegger back as a different kind of terminator, one whose mission was to once kill someone Sarah loves (you might all know this spoiler by now) and then live the rest of his cyborg days as a loving family man who runs a drapery business! Say what?

Let's backtrack: Sarah Connor is alive and well because this sequel ignores all previous entries after Part 2 (Part 3 indicated she died). Secondly, there is no more Skynet but some alternative Resistance that has spider-like Terminators and, showing how bleak futures can still exist, a post-nuclear holocaust thanks to nuclear strikes against an AI known as Legion. And yet we learn that the T-800 terminator from Part 2 who protected Sarah and her future leader of a son was not the only one out and about - several T-800 terminators were sent to actually kill her son, John Connor (obviously at different points in time, though if they destroyed the nuclear holocaust future then how are terminators still being sent from that future post-"Terminator 2." Oh, hell, whatever, contrived but still a fun thought). 

Nevertheless, the main focus of "Terminator: Dark Fate" is not been-there-done-that Sarah Connor but rather the developing bond between Grace and Natalia Reyes as Daniella "Dani" Ramos, the target of the REV-9 terminator. Dani suffers a lot of emotional trauma between the deaths of her father and her brother, and Grace has had trauma in her, um, past which is really her future. Abandoned child from that alternate future who became a hell of a soldier, Grace is saved from imminent death by getting augmented. Dani works at an automobile plant though nothing, not even her brother being replaced by a self-contained robot, will begin to compare to being hunted by the deadliest terminator in the entire series. This REV-9 is a shapeshifting marvel of a killing machine that can split itself and conjure deadly weapons with its hands. It will take this these three women, not to mention the family-friendly T-800 Arnie, to combat and destroy the machine of the future.

There are many surprises in "Terminator: Dark Fate" - just when I thought I had seen enough of these elongated chase scenes in this series, the opening chase had me riveted. I don't know the secret other than the human characters were more realistic and vulnerable so I felt for their safety when being chased by the REV-9. The special-effects are tremendous and super-duper awesome in their staging and breathtaking thrills - you get your money's worth for sheer spectacle of explosions and hand-to-hand-to-machine combat. What is most surprising about "Dark Fate" is the depth of emotion given to Dani (Natalia Reyes is amazingly good as a family-oriented woman who begins to develop the backbone of a warrior) and Grace (a touching performance by Davis), two women facing insurmountable odds against their future and their past. Linda Hamilton adds the sparkle of cynicism as a warrior herself, she drinks heavily and loves potato chips but her past still clings to her and, thus, she identifies with Dani's unfortunate predicament. 

"Terminator: Dark Fate" might occasionally give you pause with story elements that seems askew (Schwarzenegger's T-800 plotline will either make you laugh or wince) and obviously it is a formulaic picture yet the formula still works. Mexico and the implied political points about that country and immigration add the icing to the cake. Unlike some sequels, this one engages as much with its heart and emotion as it does with thrill-happy action spectacles. 

Gently poking small-town politics

 IRRESISTIBLE (2020)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Satirizing politics in a nation overcome by radical division and incessant divisiveness further caused by social media is a tough nut to crack. For one, there are too many comedic political TV commentators who focus and pounce on the ridicule set forth by everyone at 1600 Pennsylvania. How can you lampoon a politician when, in the age of Trump, they are kind of lampooning themselves. Jon Stewart, former TV's host for "The Daily Show," attempts to lampoon the politics of a small, forgotten town that nobody cares about except every four years. Admirable as a comedy of restraint that doesn't reduce townsfolk to stereotypical buffoons, Stewart's "Irresistible" is still fairly mild though consistently funny taking potshots at how elections are run. 

After the Democratic Hillary Clinton loses in the 2016 Presidential race, some time has passed and Democratic Party campaign consultant Gary Zimmer (perfectly cast Steve Carrell) is struck by a viral video of a stubborn Marine Colonel Jack Hastings (also perfectly cast and highly underrated actor Chris Cooper) who speaks out at a town hall meeting against the new immigration policies. We first see the actual town hall meeting and then the viral video and Zimmer has his A HA! moment. In order to win back voters and show Democrats have values that extend to small towns like Deerlaken, Wisconsin, Zimmer wants Colonel Hastings to run for mayor against Republican incumbent Mayor Braun (Brent Sexton). Never mind that the RNC is funding Braun and that Zimmer's ruthless rival (Rose Byrne) is ready to start a showdown of Fox News propaganda proportions.   

There is a nostalgic factor running through "Irresistible" and it is in the minutiae of a small town. Everyone goes about their business, not looking to fight each other but rather accept each other wholeheartedly (when Zimmer is first introduced to the local townsfolk, he tries to curry favor by saying he had once been in Madison. Their response: "Madison is not Wisconsin"). The local coffee shop has prepared sweets and coffee with two sugars and milk for Zimmer every morning (that is not how he takes it). The Colonel's upbeat daughter (Mackenzie Davis) has a winsome quality about her - she can hold her own against this Washington left-winger without much help. Even the Colonel is not too hard-bitten about life, though he suspiciously has little to say in his campaign speeches other than big money rules (that suspicion figures in an ending that had me surprised). The Braun and Zimmer supporters are not angry, divisive folk - they just want their town to thrive during increasingly difficult times. Director and writer Jon Stewart is not so much taking a page from 1972's "The Candidate" - he's crossing into the small town idealism of the "Welcome to Mooseport" variety where strength follows by example of loyalty to family.

"Irresistible" is hard to dislike, it has ample charm and a sweet innocent quality to it (even the Fox news reporters are not so unappealing as much as they are clueless). Yet the movie is never aiming to be sharp and incisive in its skewering - it pokes at the demonized politics run by financial interests but it never cuts it and leaves it as an open wound which we all know it is. From any other director, I might have expect a gentleness but not from abrasive Jon Stewart. Or maybe Stewart is just casually saying as he did when he finished his last "Daily Show" episode many years back: "Bullshit is everywhere."

Not bad yet Jack Black and Zooey Deschanel would've launched a better movie

FAILURE TO LAUNCH (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Reviewed in 2007)

Sometimes there is a movie that pops up that doesn't work on any level, yet it still surprises you in the

end. Hollywood has its share of such passable follies, such as "Boys and Girls" (yes,

that Jason Biggs comedy). Notably romantic comedies can fall under such a pattern. "Failure to Launch" looks like a cookie-cutter, cut-and-paste romantic comedy that shouldn't work because

it looks like any other romantic comedy. Yet, for some reason unbeknownst to me, this movie got under my skin. Who knew?

"Failure to Launch" stars Matthew McConaughey as Trip, a 35-year-old boat broker who seems to have everything he wants in life. He is carefree, loves the idea of being in love, has his
own house, his parents cook his meals and do his laundry for him and, wait a second. No, he does not own his own house at all. He lives with his parents (played by the charming Terry
Bradshaw and Kathy Bates)! Trip has never moved out! When he brings a date over to his bedroom, he has sex before being interrupted by his dad and, well, the date is supposed to be horrified that Trip still lives with his parents. It is an easy maneuver for a break up.

Trip's parents, however, are tired of their son living at home. So they hire a "professional interventionist," Paula (the always electric Sarah Jessica Parker) to date Trip and pretend to fall
in love with him so he moves out! Of course, this movie has an idea that hasn't been considered - what if the parents just told Trip to move out! Ah, but that would be a different movie altogether and would effectively delete the Parker character and her offbeat, kill-a-mockingbird-with-no-shame roommate
(Zooey Deschanel)!

"Failure to Launch" is hardly anything but a completely formulaic and foreseeable comedy at its every turn. A little surprise here or there would've been welcome, including more scenes with Paula's kooky roommate. Too many scenes focus on Trip's buddies' who of course, well, get wind of what Paula is really up to. There are also scenes of mammals biting Trip...I know why they exist in terms
of the main character's evolution but they nevertheless feel distracting. And McConaughey, a handsome, charismatic actor, seems miscast in the role of a 35-year-old slacker (at first glance, the part seems tailor made for Jack Black). That is until you discover why he lives with his parents.
Plus, his timing is impeccable when he utters the only F-word in the entire PG-13 movie.

"Failure to Launch" has a few funny lines, some ideal chemistry between McConaughey and Parker, a hysterical butt shot with Terry Bradshaw, and a sappy finish that seems earned, no matter how many times you have witnessed it in the past. It is an agreeable, pleasing comedy that leaves me with a certain impression. It is Zooey Deschanel (who was wonderful in "The Good Girl"). Give this girl a chance to make a romantic comedy with Jack Black, and you really might have something than the normal romantic confection.

Us usses got to save the world

 BILL AND TED FACE THE MUSIC (2020)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Although the first two "Bill and Ted" films were enjoyable in their own spirited, upbeat way, I never expected them to return. 1991 was the last time we saw the dim-witted pair of would-be musicians who are supposed to change the world with their music and, in those days, sequels were frowned upon. Look at it this way - it took 12 years before there was a Terminator 3. Most other sequels ended up straight to VHS doom past a number 2 or 3 (Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street were the exceptions). So I was surprised to hear the most eminent return of the bogus musicians returning to cinema screens with their trademarked air guitar solos in 2020. Of course we are going through a pandemic so they are only in a few screens, mostly streaming online. Yet here we are and it is fittingly called "Bill and Ted Face the Music," an even more upbeat and funnier entry in this now Holy (?) trilogy. Most stupendous yet not quite excellent - there are a few lulls yet it never fails to entertain and share in Bill and Ted's joy of writing the perfect song even if they have to cross through time and space to do it.

In this less than excellent suburban world of Bill and Ted, they are now middle-aged dudes with wives and daughters living in a nice house! Sounds excellent yet not quite. Their wives, formerly princesses from the year 1408 (must see the original to understand all this), are unhappy and the nonintellectual duo of Bill and Ted believe in couples therapy where the word "we" is included in their love for their respective spouses. Meanwhile, while singing pretentious songs that even hair metal bands or Air Supply would find most discomfiting dude at a wedding, the world is about to collapse with the space time continuum losing its footing. Jesus, for example, walks on water while George Washington is crossing the Delaware and other notable historical figures end up in periods of time where they don't belong. Bill and Ted have got to write their most precious, prophesied song that will save the world, God willing, and it is Rufus's time-traveling daughter, Kelly (Kristen Schaal), arriving in an egg-shaped time machine, who tells them they have 77 minutes to write it or the world vanishes. So this means the bodacious pair have to get in their phone booth time machine and run into their future selves to steal the song from themselves! (Note: if none of you have seen the original Bill and Ted flick, Rufus was the cool dude from the future played by the late George Carlin). Why 77 minutes I am not clear and since they are time-traveling, oh, hell, I do not watch these movies for logic. Most illogical to think that way, dude.

Meanwhile Bill and Ted's daughters, who certainly have a knack for music history, Billie and Thea, travel in Kelly's time machine and procure the talents of Jimi Hendrix, Louis Armstrong, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ling Lun, and a prehistoric woman playing drums with bones! There is a twist here but I won't reveal it. There is fun to be had here though I wish I saw more of these musicians on screen - not enough is done to exploit their appeal. I couldn't help but laugh at Jimi Hendrix trying to one-up Mozart's piano-playing with his electric fingers touching the guitar, but I wish there were more scenes like that. In fact, the film falls a bit flat getting to the all-star performance of the song that will change and make for a better world. We do get an extended Hell sequence that has some comical bits, especially the return of William Sadler as Death playing the guitar, and yet having the gang all die and turn up there feels a bit out of tune with the rest of the film. Hell and Death were more engaging in "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey." 

"Bill and Ted Face the Music" is still definitely fun and, in key moments such as the couples therapy sessions or Bill referring to himself and Ted's future selves as "usses," funnier than the first two films. Keanu Reeves can still play a dim-witted fool better than anyone and yet we laugh with him, not at him, Same with Alex Winter who is a colorful scene-stealer especially when he and Keanu play their future counterparts which range from musclebound prisoners to Brit-accented, spoiled musicians. Keanu and Winter bring a sense of joy and zest with their energized performances - it is actually mind-blowing how much fun it is so see a less sullen Keanu Reeves. Almost as good (and you can almost smell a future spin-off) are Samara Weaving as Thea and Brigette Lundy-Paine as Billie and their mannerisms perfectly encapsulate the expressions of Reeves and Winter yet still developing their own personalities - they turn out to be smarter than their dads! That's progress, well done dudes.

Remarkable yet undernourished saga conclusion

STAR WARS: 

THE RISE OF SKYWALKER (2019)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Star Wars" fandom will exist for as long as it wants to - it will never die. It did not die after 1983's "Return of the Jedi" nor did it wither in the wind after 2005's "Revenge of the Sith." So, despite the glaring flaws and lack of proper continuity in this latest "Star Wars" flick, "The Rise of Skywalker," never assume that the fandom will disappear after this film is long gone from our consciousness because it won't be. It can't die - you know "Star Wars" fans (like myself) will still ponder what might have been with Episode IX - the last film in the Skywalker saga that finalizes the saga but not as satisfyingly as it could have been. 

Speaking of not dying, any dead Jedi or Sith Lord can speak and materialize and physically interact with the real world. Since when? Since this movie. So we get the reemergence of Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) who is now some Phantom Emperor attached to an electrical apparatus that keeps him alive. Did he not die at the end of "Return of the Jedi"? Yes, he did, in blazing swirls of lights thanks to Darth Vader. It is never clear if the Emperor was cloned or just simply resurrected, though by whom? I can't say, nor will the Emperor. He wants to start the Final Order, in other words retcon the First Order. Huh? Well, this monstrously evil Sith Lord has somehow created a fleet of Star Destroyers that emerge from underneath the ground. Needless to say, the equally evil Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) wishes to destroy the Emperor but not kill the lovely and fiercely powerful Rey (Daisy Ridley). Rey is now being trained by Governor Leia (the late Carrie Fisher, shown in brief glimpses culled from "Force Awakens" footage) although, I must ask, what kind of training does Rey need? This young woman is a powerful Jedi as she runs and jumps across chasms, races across desert fields and flips over Tie-Fighters dismantling them with her lightsaber and, in a new use of the Force, can actually stop a spaceship from taking off!!! Training? I should think not.

Other character-oriented areas to nitpick in "Rise of Skywalker": the resourceful Finn (John Boyega) with a penchant for firing lasers from gun turrets is reduced to someone who merely cares about Rey and Rose (though in "The Last Jedi" a relationship seemed to be blooming between Finn and mechanic/Resistance fighter Rose but thanks to twits on twitterverse, Kelly Marie Tran who played Rose suffered a huge, foolish backlash thus limiting her role in this film). The one character who I expected to learn more about is this sequel trilogy's Han Solo-type, the resourceful and enigmatic fighter pilot Poe (Oscar Issac), who is given less character details than Han (seriously, aside from "The Force Awakens," how much did anyone really know about Han Solo?) I thought Poe was just a heroic Resistance pilot but it turns out he was also a smuggler of spice - hmm, Han Soloing it much? There is also the welcome return of Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), that smooth-talking gent and scoundrel and a heckuva pilot of the Millennium Falcon and, yet, his appearance in this film makes precious little sense and is far too limited  And, oh, why go on. Of course, aside from certain other characters, Williams imbues this film with a sense of joy, recalling his past exploits and his charm in the original trilogy.

There are some tremendously thrilling cameos by Mark Hamill as Force Ghost Luke Skywalker (speaking of a Force Ghost's physical interaction, he holds a lightsaber and levitates the X-Wing fighter) and Harrison Ford as Han Solo, relegated as a memory of Ben Solo/Kylo Ren's. So much nitpicking, is the film good? Of course! Daisy Ridley takes her character Rey and makes her come into her own by the final reel - a very moving last scene that ties up all memories of previous Star Wars flicks in one stunning shot and one stunning admission which will not be revealed. Ridley fascinates because we also wonder what she is thinking and sometimes we get scared for her, such as her vision of the Dark Side of Rey. Adam Driver is hell on wheels as Kylo Ren and I love how he fixes his helmet and tries to threaten the Emperor and just about everyone else, though the resolution between him and Rey that invokes "Return of the Jedi" feels more imitative than conclusive. 

The special-effects are naturally terrific. I like the ominous lightning strikes on the planet of Exegol where the Emperor resides - a sort of gloom-and-doom throne of the forbidden with his hooded followers looking on. The star destroyers that litter the night sky of Exegol is also a great image. Kylo fighting Rey on remnants of the Death Star in a rampaging sea is suspenseful (note how she can cure deathly wounds, a new wrinkle on the mystery of the Force). "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" is visually splendid and remarkable to watch - it has the sonic sweep of images and the tremendous action scenes of what one expects from Star Wars. There is something soulful and fundamentally deep about Rey's discovery of her ancestral lineage, her complex feelings about Kylo and her need to find her own identity. It makes the film special enough to linger despite how severely undernourished the rest of it is.  

Smug Brat Packers who somehow keep things lit

ST. ELMO'S FIRE (1985)

Revisited by Jerry Saravia

When I think of the occasionally MTV-flashy style of director Joel Schumacher, who died after a year of battling cancer in June of 2020, I think of films as diverse as 1983's marijuana-stoked, hazily comedic "D.C. Cab"; the diverting if far too romanticized-with-death thriller "Flatliners" with Julia Roberts; the humorous, incredibly entertaining (and glamorous-looking) "The Lost Boys"; the incredibly foolish and contrived cartoon called "Falling Down" with a loony Michael Douglas, and his garish-colored sequel "Batman Forever" and the ill-advised "Batman and Robin" that destroyed the Caped Crusader's cinematic interpretations for almost twenty years. Schumacher always presented, with certain exceptions, good-looking actors in artful poses for a magazine spread rather than a movie, though he has maintained some consistency in knowing how to direct actors. The one Schumacher film that gnaws at me, the first one I thought of when his unfortunate death was announced, is 1985's "St. Elmo's Fire," the last major Brat Pack movie (the only other one was "The Breakfast Club" released the same year). Yes, the one about college graduates from Georgetown that starred equally flashy, glamorous movie stars such as Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Demi Moore, Emilio Estevez, Andrew McCarthy and Rob Lowe. Well, they were movie stars to some degree yet it was really Demi Moore who branched out and made a startling movie career headlining lead roles (the others did well on their own but the most financially successful was Moore). Nevertheless, something still gets to me about "St. Elmo's Fire" because it is not a good movie yet it is a watchable one with flashes of something humanistic. The dialogue, despite sounding artificial, is memorable in its own way. The actors are not at their best yet they still shine through along with top pros like Mare Winningham and Martin Balsam. Nothing in the film is believable, not one note or characterization excepting by Winningham and Balsam, yet I accept the unbelievability, the degree to which these actors somehow make it seem real enough, I suppose. Or not, I am not sure. What is it about "St. Elmo's Fire" that still makes me want to revisit it? Let's dig.

Judd Nelson is Alec, the sole Republican of the group, wanting to marry architect Leslie (Ally Sheedy) so that he can stop cheating on her. This relationship, by the way, is not the least bit credible though I suppose it is understandable because what the hell does she see in Nelson (nope, it has nothing to do with Alec's political party choice). At the start of the film, saxophonist and womanizing husband (Rob Lowe, who is about as suitably cast as Michael J. Fox was as a working-class rock singer in "Light of Day") is arrested for drunk driving, woos a female paramedic, apologizes to his girlfriend-of-sorts Wendy (mousy-looking Mare Winningham) and is egged on by Alec and his friends. Then we shift to the lives of this group of college graduates facing a mid-life crisis of one sort or another. Kirby (Emilio Estevez) works at the favorite hangout of these yuppies, St. Elmo's Bar, abandoning medical school in his future since he might be interested in law school, or vice versa. In the meantime, after losing his waiter job, Kirby really wants to impress a doctor (Andie MacDowell) who is on call 24 hours a day. How does he impress? He arrives in a limo, showing off as an attache to a Korean businessman. Kirby is all about money and thinks that is all the doctor ordered. Meanwhile, we got the writer Kevin (Andrew McCarthy), roommates with Kirby, who believes love sucks yet is hopelessly infatuated with Leslie - though everyone falsely believes Kevin is actually in love with Alec! Kevin wants to publish an article on the meaning of life at the Washington Post - I don't think they would care but somehow he miraculously gets published! Oh, Demi Moore plays a flirtatious banker named Jules who drinks too much and is obsessed with her grandmother's funeral arrangements. Last but not least is the virginal Wendy (Mare Winningham) who pines for Billy, though this relationship in hindsight doesn't make much sense either.

Yet "St. Elmo's Fire" still manages to be entertaining fluffy nonsense. The ending is moving in its own way despite it not being warranted (Billy shows a more compassionate side when he is not drinking). I like the film technically - it is well-made and has stunning close-up shots particularly of Sheedy. Schumacher clearly loves his actors and often frames them as a group - I think he also likes these characters though some are smug and self-satisfied. Wendy is the one character who wants to break free of her family's wealth and help people as a social worker - she wants responsibilities and wants to be a mature adult. Except for Leslie, the rest of the group is eager to party, cheat, and lie and generally make fools of themselves. Materialism and money are considered attainable virtues and what would you expect from an 80's movie like this one? The ending seems to suggest that maintaining friends is more important. I hate to say it but the artfully glamorous way in which these yuppies are presented still sucks me in - it is entrancing though I am not sure the movie works at all. This is the first guilty-pleasure movie I can think of where I feel ashamed, not guilty, for liking it.

Chucky as a killer Internet device

CHILD'S PLAY (2019)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

A Vietnamese worker at a doll factory has to make Buddi hi-tech dolls, designed to be lifelong friends for their "masters." The worker is fired by his irate boss, told to finish making the doll before his exit. Then the worker decides, out of spite, to remove all the safety protocols of the doll. Interesting opening until the worker commits suicide by jumping from a window and landing on a car. Why? I don't know. I don't look for much logic in a Chucky movie but this movie, an unnecessary remake of the 1988 film of the same name, has lots of moments that make you go, "huh?" 

Andy is now a 13-year-old hearing-impaired kid (Gabriel Bateman) who has trouble associating with the new kids on the block. His mother, Karen (Aubrey Plaza,) works at ZedMart (I suppose a knockoff of WalMart) which happens to sell those Buddi dolls. Karen loves her son and tries to spice up his days with a new Buddi doll that somehow works by being connected to the Internet and all other working WI-FI devices - think of this new Chucky as the demented doll version of Amazon's Alexa except with spooky eyes that turn red. Chucky wants to please Andy which means that without the doll's safety protocols, it is inspired by watching clips of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" (!) and the doll kills anyone who makes Andy irate. This includes the cat (watch out animal lovers); Karen's bastard of a boyfriend who happens to be married; the maintenance guy who installs surveillance cameras and some in people's houses (not to mention keeping an eye on Karen when she disrobes in the bathroom), etc. We are also introduced to Andy's new friends, an unremarkable bunch of teens, and a curious cop who lives with his mother down the hall from Andy.

Wait a doggone minute - why have so many characters who are barely given much depth? Take Karen's indifferent boyfriend - he's a bastard to her and Andy. That is all there is so it is easy to accept his comeuppance by Chucky, but did it have to be that grisly? The poor guy falls from a ladder, breaks his legs, is practically strangled by Christmas lights and gets his face torn off (thanks to Chucky's imitation of similar grisliness in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie.) Then there is the maintenance guy, a sexually deviant creep to be sure, who is stabbed by Chucky on the chest and the legs and then gets sliced up as ground meat by a table saw. Was this necessary? I won't even talk about the cop's mother in a scene that might make anyone squeamish about taking a driver-less Lyft ever again. 

"Child's Play" has able support from Gabriel Bateman as Andy though his actions are often questionably dumb (the severed head as a birthday gift for the cops' mother that can only be opened on his birthday is one for the slasher film books of unbelievably stupid situations). Aside from him, everyone else in this film exists as fresh kills for Chucky except for (SPOILER ALERT) Andy's poor mother. But why would a corporation install safety protocols for a doll that could turn murderously violent if those protocols were not installed? That is a deep question for a movie that is already overcooked in just about every way imaginable. The Chucky doll is creepy (with an added dimension of subtle malice from Mark Hamill's voice) and the film perhaps does the job of a serviceable bloody slasher film. I prefer the tongue-in-cheek attitude of the 1988 original.